Jump to content

MR.CLEAN

Reporters
  • Content Count

    46,088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Posts posted by MR.CLEAN

  1. 1 hour ago, El Mariachi said:

    Let me guess.....when you didn't read the article, you apparently glossed over the part where it tells you almost exactly how many clam Soros donated to Gascòn's campaign.....right? I'd love to spend a few minutes and help you become a bit more un-dumb.....but I'm out of paper dolls and crayons don't work real well on cel phones......

    Como te vas Rico?  Me gusto a verte
     

    Is there some specific reason the focus is on George Soros’ donations and not on the other 30000 people who donated to Gascons campaign? Think carefully!
     

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Mambo Kings said:

    When does an AC become a subsequent AC.

    Challenger AYC challenges defendant BYC.    AYC hosts challenger series which is won by CYC.

    But  "when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been
    received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided"

    The challenge was received from AYC, so can CYC be considered a challenger before the challenge from AYC has been decided?

    If the answer is "yes", then we are conceding that this paragraph in the DoG can be overcome by mutual consent.

    If we can mutual agree that, can we mutually agree that the next cup will be in AC75s?

     

    You’re mixing up challenge and Challenger. 
     

    think of it like the ‘33 act can the ‘34 act.  The “shall not consider” clause is the ‘33 act and regulates the transaction of a challenge. The club requirements are the ‘34 act and regulate challenger qualifications.  The two do not really mix  

     

  3. 9 minutes ago, Shambolic Tom said:

    Caniglia v Strom was heard by SCOTUS yesterday.

    I haven't seen an oral argument review yet, but found a couple of other articles on the case.

    There's No Place Like Home?

    I think "Home Is Where The Glock Is" would have been a better title.

    “Master of All Emergencies”

    I think Master Of All PANICS would have been a better title. But you'll never seen an appeals court put it quite that way.

     

     

    Oral is pretty entertaining. It’s on the left here. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-157

  4. 14 hours ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

    Voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. It was mentioned above that it was probably settled out of court via monetary compensation. 

    “It was mentioned above” by me, and there is no “probably”. At the time I reported that the settlement was said by a good source to be “high 7 figures”

     

     

     

     

     

     

  5. On 2/13/2021 at 6:31 PM, timmytwinstay said:

     The Defender would seem to have almost, if not an actual fiduciary obligation to “promote friendly completion between foreign countries”

    Of all the posters on SA over the years you are the only one I actually think has a chance of being Larry or one of his right hand men.  And no, their only duty is to defend the first valid challenge they receive.

    I have long maintained that someone should sue to invalidate hip pocket challenges, but I was also in court during the 2007-2010 mess and the judges disabused me of the notion.

     

  6. 16 hours ago, timmytwinstay said:

    The New York Supreme Court has a no nonsense tradition that goes back centuries, and the maneuvering that can take place in other jurisdictions is mostly absent.  In a case such as this, the court will look at the evidence, hear testimony, review the four corners of the Deed of Gift, the law, and previous rulings.  If other “challengers” are allowed joinder (which the plaintiff would likely oppose) then their evidence will be heard.  The court will then make a well-reasoned ruling (that uses its typical economy of words) which places public benefit at the forefront of the decision and everything else a distant secondary consideration.  If your case is righteous, no matter how complicated or contentious, you want the New York Supreme Court to hear it. 

    You started strong but ended up hip deep in bullshit and hyperbole. 

    The court has very clearly and unanimously explained, most recently in 2009,  that it is not the arbiter of the content, fairness or practicability of any challenge so long as it meets the threshold requirements of the deed.  It’s a checklist, and it doesn’t include any room for some bullshit about commercial practice or someone’s legitimate challenge received second in time. Dem judges don’t care. 

    • Like 4
  7. “Favoring” doesn’t mean anything in this context. Monetary penalties are immaterial too. All that matters is timing and validity of the first challenge received following the winning of the cup match. 
     

    and the only way you’re gonna beat a hip pocket challenge is with a very slick drone delivery to an unsuspecting commodore on the official RNZYS tender. 

  8. 1 hour ago, accnick said:

    Congrats, Clean. We had few side effects  from Pfizer--similar to yours-- but friends have had significant ones, even days later. On the plus side, they all seem transient.

    Last one in my family to get it. I actually waited until I was eligible!

    the level of rich white privilege in the vaccine roll out is unreal. And for some reason all the Jews seem to get the Moderna...

    Wouldn’t it be cool if Gates nanobots were real and all the Jews now had superpowers?

    on second thought....Stephen Miller and Jared kushner  

     

  9. 39 minutes ago, Blitzkrieg9 said:

    I have complete faith and confidence that the actual and potential legal shenanigans will continue long into the future!

    I sure hope so. I’m about to move about 3 hrs from the court and would love to go sit in like in the glory days of SA

  10. 6 hours ago, dogwatch said:

     

    I hope volume 3 that he apparently had in progress somehow makes its way into print.

     

    I am told there are people working to make that happen. The YJA can earn its keep!

  11. 1 minute ago, WetHog said:

    Have you argued before the NYSC?  I haven’t been keeping up on every topic in this thread so I may have missed you saying that you have. 

    WetHog  :ph34r:

    Is this supposed to be ironic? Any legal chat is priceless from the poster most likely to have had a lobotomy. 

    • Downvote 2
  12. On 5/4/2019 at 3:50 AM, Shambolic Tom said:

    Sailor Fired for Cursing

    It makes a funny headline but not so funny if you're the target.
     

    I guess the cussing was even worse than the failure to report a minor accident, since it was given as the first reason.

    Makes me think the association president should probably fuck off and show us his wife or girlfriends' tits.

    Only funny when you read the report and realize the lawsuit is more bullshit

  13. 3 minutes ago, Dog said:

    It's not bullshit, Democratic bias is predominant here. Aanyone with a modicum of objectivity can see that. 

    That’s the problem with any highly educated group, dog. If you’re looking for lots of repub bias, you have to go to Reason or Breitbart or Gateway Pundit, but be prepared for a lot of typos and “trust the plan”

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...