Yeah, I mean this would seem to be dancing dangerously close to fraud. Completely insane and moronic fraud, but fraud nonetheless. Johnny’s escalating pattern of destructive lunacy is fascinating. In Canada can the Courts insist he get an actual lawyer to review and submit any future litigation?
We all already know that Trudeau has been reliably accused of sexual misconduct, at least.
"You dont understand, Your Honor. At that exact moment, O Canada started playing across the street. And I stood at attention, like every good law enforcement officer should."
The real crime here is fatass' vicious abuse of the English language. I will advocate (as a "friend of the court") on behalf of the English language to seek justice against Johnny for this brutal assault which put the language in the hospital for a few days, temporarily forcing Canadians outside Quebec to speak French while English convalesced.yaniv desperation.
The preposition "in which" doesn't belong in that sentence. She was not "in" the substance. One does not give consent to being injected with a substance while inside it because that makes no god damned sense. The second half of this abortion has two clauses related to the first half -- "did not consent to" and "did not know what she was injected with." We can safely remove either dependent clause to decide whether the sentence still "works" with just one of them:Tranny gibberish said:
This is also a stillborn sentence its mother should have swallowed instead. Simplify the sentence further and we get:lolwut said:
That's not a sentence. Well, okay, technically it is, but it's a really shitty one. It's properly two sentences: "[thing] was injected with a substance. It did not know what it was injected with."no really lolwut said:
Compare this revised version with the original. The revision expresses all of the same things and gives exactly the same details as the original, but does it three short and simple sentences with no awkward prepositions, grouped clauses or run-ons. It still reeks of bullshit because its underlying claims are retarded, but at least it lays it out there on the lawn with style.Remedial English coming through said:
The real crime here is fatass' vicious abuse of the English language. I will advocate (as a "friend of the court") on behalf of the English language to seek justice against Johnny for this brutal assault which put the language in the hospital for a few days, temporarily forcing Canadians outside Quebec to speak French while English convalesced.
WTF kind of monkey-brained sentence structure is this shit?
The preposition "in which" doesn't belong in that sentence. She was not "in" the substance. One does not give consent to being injected with a substance while inside it because that makes no god damned sense. The second half of this abortion has two clauses related to the first half -- "did not consent to" and "did not know what she was injected with." We can safely remove either dependent clause to decide whether the sentence still "works" with just one of them:
This is also a stillborn sentence its mother should have swallowed instead. Simplify the sentence further and we get:
That's not a sentence. Well, okay, technically it is, but it's a really shitty one. It's properly two sentences: "[thing] was injected with a substance. It did not know what it was injected with."
All of this autism in service of dissecting a bizarre sentence that could only have come from a deranged mind brings me to my main point about this awful writing. This is a byzantine way to express a really simple idea. In fact, I can rewrite paragraph 50 to be much more clear and concise:
Compare this revised version with the original. The revision expresses all of the same things and gives exactly the same details as the original, but does it three short and simple sentences with no awkward prepositions, grouped clauses or run-ons. It still reeks of bullshit because its underlying claims are retarded, but at least it lays it out there on the lawn with style.
In litigation, you need to communicate as clearly and simply as possible. "Brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. A good attorney writes as little as possible to sufficiently convey his arguments in his filings. Shitty attorneys write essays. Unscrupulous lawyers (who are also shitty) trying to pad the bill write novels. Judges love short, succinct filings. They loathe needlessly wordy, meandering ones. Guess which of those works out best for you when your friendly neighborhood judge reads your filings.
Pro se litigants already think they're brilliant legal minds, so right off the bat we know they're stupid. Stupid people love trying to sound smart by speaking and writing in that same verbose-babbling-while-saying-nothing style that street thugs use constantly when they get caught with one leg through the window of the house they just burglarized and think they can bullshit their way out of a trip to county lockup with monkeyshines. They always think using big words and needless complexity will dazzle their foes. It ends up making them look like fucking idiots since they never actually do it right and end up producing gibberish.
It's like the old idiom that you can fake being crazy if you're sane, but you can't fake being sane if you're crazy. You just end up still looking crazy. It works the same way with "smarts." You can fake stupidity if you're smart, but you can't fake smarts if you're stupid. You just end up looking really stupid.
This has to be the most frustrating thing to judges and competent attorneys when dealing with pro se litigants. They don't just waste time fucking around with frivolous lawsuits, they also take their sweet time just to get to the fucking point while trying to sound smart.
Puzzle pieces to the left, please.
Older people tend to bruise more easily and I scratched my head I must admit when I first saw her pic (the infamous finger jibe). To now read that she was, according to jon boy...
Like I said earlier at least the two cops are either suspended or doing desk duties for such serious assaults and the yanivs having laid criminal charges means the clan can at least sleep easier for the time being.Ask your legal pal how can someone claim for "past" earnings? (not "loss" but "past" - page 10 & 14). Does yaniv mean that both of the sisters have not been able to carry on working since the "assaults" and have lost salaries and that those injuries have put a stop to them both working/job hunting now? He tries to speak English but I have problems deciphering.
Sure you can do that.
It's an SJW thing. Like all SJW concepts that have some truth to them - in that not all rape is about desire, some is about dominance and power, notably in things like rapes in prison, of the disabled and of the elderly - it has become a declarative statement rather than a nuance. So 'some rape isn't about desire' has become 'all rape is only about power'.
That being said, I'm not sure having power over those two hags is much of an ego-booster. Grounds for suicide more like.
People don't go voluntarily into 8 points, generally a herd of orderlies strapping them in as they fight.
No. Not unless it was presented in regards to a public matter. Such as litigation. Or the POA was assigned by a court as part of a Guardianship.
