Topic: FAO: staff members RE RE RE: imminent legal threat
beckyderp !DONgSbOYdw started this discussion 6 years ago #87,963
Friends, recently a certain fora user (I will use the initials “M.M.” to protect his privacy) has threatened to report us to the FBI for cyber harassment. He then demanded that certain pictures be removed.
I would like to remind you about the serious legal jeopardy we now face, if we attempt to delete any such pictures in the future. It is actually obstruction of justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 provides:
The Sixth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Kernell’s conviction. An anonymous person posted that he had reported the matter to the FBI, and Mr. Kernell then deleted the evidence. Friends, I submit to you that we are doing no different by deleting family harassment after we’ve been duly warned about an FBI investigation that is coming.
Similarly, in United States v. Lanham, the Court upheld the convictions of prison guards for falsifying records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. 617 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2010). The guards placed a prisoner in a cell with the intention of "scaring" him and later, he was raped. The guards became concerned and decided to "get their stories straight," writing false statements about the reason for placing the prisoner in general population. What is most concerning about this case is that the convictions were affirmed despite their being no active investigation at all at the time the false statements were made. But “a reasonable fact-finder could find that Sydnor warned Lanham and Freeman that they had to get their stories straight in anticipation of an investigation” and accordingly, the conviction was upheld. Id. at 887. This was without any knowledge of an actual investigation!
Friends, I know we want to help M.M., but is it worth 20 years in the pokey? Do we not have an obligation to cooperate with the FBI investigation that has surely started by now? I urge you to follow the law and do NOT delete any evidence of cyber harassment.
Thank you.
I would like to remind you about the serious legal jeopardy we now face, if we attempt to delete any such pictures in the future. It is actually obstruction of justice.
18 U.S.C. § 1519 provides:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I direct your attention to United States v. Kernell, affirming the conviction of a 4chan user who hacked Sarah Palin's email account, "[email protected]." 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012). After Mr. Kernell posted the new password to /b/, an anonymous user claimed to have reported the matter to the FBI. Mr. Kernell: (1) "cleared the cache on his Internet Explorer browser, removing the record of websites he had visited during that period"; (2) "uninstalled the Firefox internet browser, which more thoroughly removed the record of his internet access using that browser, and ran the disk defragmentation program on his computer, which reorganizes and cleans up the existing space on a hard drive, and has the effect of removing many of the remnants of information or files that had been deleted"; and (3) "deleted a series of images that he had downloaded from the Palin email account." Id. at 749. He was sentenced to a year and a day in prison, plus three years' probation, for this and other charges. The Sixth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Kernell’s conviction. An anonymous person posted that he had reported the matter to the FBI, and Mr. Kernell then deleted the evidence. Friends, I submit to you that we are doing no different by deleting family harassment after we’ve been duly warned about an FBI investigation that is coming.
Similarly, in United States v. Lanham, the Court upheld the convictions of prison guards for falsifying records under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. 617 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2010). The guards placed a prisoner in a cell with the intention of "scaring" him and later, he was raped. The guards became concerned and decided to "get their stories straight," writing false statements about the reason for placing the prisoner in general population. What is most concerning about this case is that the convictions were affirmed despite their being no active investigation at all at the time the false statements were made. But “a reasonable fact-finder could find that Sydnor warned Lanham and Freeman that they had to get their stories straight in anticipation of an investigation” and accordingly, the conviction was upheld. Id. at 887. This was without any knowledge of an actual investigation!
Friends, I know we want to help M.M., but is it worth 20 years in the pokey? Do we not have an obligation to cooperate with the FBI investigation that has surely started by now? I urge you to follow the law and do NOT delete any evidence of cyber harassment.
Thank you.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, obstruct justice | 8 | 42% | |
| No, do not obstruct justice | 11 | 58% |
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,006,097
I love you.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,098
Looks like Indy fails again!Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,100
Write-in: Not sure.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,101
All bee cause of theeAnonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,102
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,104
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,106
So since he has decided to threaten to go to the FBI, have you banned him? I think you should if you haven't already done so.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,108
lolbud
I daresay that Mr. M.M. has not improved the situation for himself.
I daresay that Mr. M.M. has not improved the situation for himself.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,109
Cyber Harassment Law and Legal Definition
Cyber harassment refers to online harassment. Cyber harassment or bullying is the use of email, instant messaging, and derogatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks. Cyber harassment can be in the form of flames, comments made in chat rooms, sending of offensive or cruel e-mail, or even harassing others by posting on blogs or social networking sites. Cyber harassment is often difficult to track as the person responsible for the acts of cyber harassment remains anonymous while threatening others online.
Cyber harassment refers to online harassment. Cyber harassment or bullying is the use of email, instant messaging, and derogatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks. Cyber harassment can be in the form of flames, comments made in chat rooms, sending of offensive or cruel e-mail, or even harassing others by posting on blogs or social networking sites. Cyber harassment is often difficult to track as the person responsible for the acts of cyber harassment remains anonymous while threatening others online.
Svet !jzYkdX7lIw joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,114
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,120
So I don't get it. He's going to file a lawsuit about his family pictures being posted, but it prevents the legal deletion of those posts in the future?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,125
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,128
A question or three if I may.
Doesn't each member of a family need to directly complain. Unless one member has power of attorney for the other members, I doubt one person can take legal action for the body electric.
2: If my guess is correct? One member of a certain family was arrested and convicted in a Federal court of law. Prevention of Publishing that fact will violate freedom of expression + Truth Justice and the American way.
3. Then there is the matter of a known pedophile. Repression of freedom of speech that is protected by the US Constitution is not a toy.
Doesn't each member of a family need to directly complain. Unless one member has power of attorney for the other members, I doubt one person can take legal action for the body electric.
2: If my guess is correct? One member of a certain family was arrested and convicted in a Federal court of law. Prevention of Publishing that fact will violate freedom of expression + Truth Justice and the American way.
3. Then there is the matter of a known pedophile. Repression of freedom of speech that is protected by the US Constitution is not a toy.
Anonymous N double-posted this 6 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,129
Oooops
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,132
Sounds like M.M. is a little butthurt...Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,134
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,135
link to pics plz
Anonymous P double-posted this 6 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,136
Also welcome back mountainman
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,138
@1,006,135 (P)
All of them can be found on TC with a simple search. Others can be found using Google.
All of them can be found on TC with a simple search. Others can be found using Google.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,139
Doxxy joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,145
Don't share this with anyone. FBI headquarters is located 1.4 miles from where Sytax has his meetings at Qualcomm Bld Q.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,147
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,148
@1,006,138 (Q)
> All of them can be found on TC with a simple search. Others can be found using Google.
Stop being a pussy and post them
> All of them can be found on TC with a simple search. Others can be found using Google.
Stop being a pussy and post them
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,149
beckyderp !DONgSbOYdw (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 0 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,150
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,157
@1,006,128 (N)
> Prevention of Publishing that fact will violate freedom of expression + Truth Justice and the American way.
I think about this angle a lot. When Alex Jones was banned by Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify a while back the common retort to freedom of speech arguments was that the First Amendment only says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So if Facebook says "we don't want to publish your speech so we're banning you" your first amendment rights haven't been abridged because the government isn't blocking your speech, only a private company and you're free to post on Voat or Gab or 4chan or whatever.
I remember a while back when Reddit tried to take a pro-freedom of speech stance. They had some subreddits like r/coontown, r/jailbait, r/beatingwomen, r/fatpeoplehate, etc, that could generously be described as distasteful. Of course different subreddits are all separated from each other and you could just go look at cat pictures or whatever and never have to see any subreddits you didn't want to. Then-CEO Yishan Wong said:
It's been argued the Second Amendment was written in a time where the state of the art in assault weapons was the flintlock musket - a gun which can be fired maybe 3-4 times a minute by a skilled shooter and so the "right to keep and bear arms" shouldn't necessarily apply to, say, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine which any idiot can use to mow down school kids by the dozen. But the First Amendment was written in a time where the state of the art in communication was the feather pen and parchment. At that time, the government was the only thing that could "deplatform" someone. Today, Congress isn't needed to deplatform people because the small oligopoly that controls payment processing and domain registration can effectively shut anyone out of the internet if they piss enough people off.
If the literal text of the Second Amendment - shall not be infringed - is supposed to be understood in a modern context, shouldn't the First Amendment as well? Or maybe the Second Amendment should only apply to 1789 weapons and the First Amendment to 1789 communication technology?
> Prevention of Publishing that fact will violate freedom of expression + Truth Justice and the American way.
I think about this angle a lot. When Alex Jones was banned by Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify a while back the common retort to freedom of speech arguments was that the First Amendment only says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So if Facebook says "we don't want to publish your speech so we're banning you" your first amendment rights haven't been abridged because the government isn't blocking your speech, only a private company and you're free to post on Voat or Gab or 4chan or whatever.
I remember a while back when Reddit tried to take a pro-freedom of speech stance. They had some subreddits like r/coontown, r/jailbait, r/beatingwomen, r/fatpeoplehate, etc, that could generously be described as distasteful. Of course different subreddits are all separated from each other and you could just go look at cat pictures or whatever and never have to see any subreddits you didn't want to. Then-CEO Yishan Wong said:
We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. https://web.archive.org/web/20130522053100/http://gawker.com/5952349/reddit-ceo-speaks-out-on-violentacrez-in-leaked-memo-we-stand-for-free-speech
I find it interesting because he points out that it is, in fact, not legally required for Reddit to give anyone a right to say anything on their platform, but he was willing to host any legal content because he believed in freedom of speech as an idea. You don't see that attitude much anymore. We seem to have gone from Voltaire to "I support censorship as long as it's not the government doing it" as a culture and it worries me.It's been argued the Second Amendment was written in a time where the state of the art in assault weapons was the flintlock musket - a gun which can be fired maybe 3-4 times a minute by a skilled shooter and so the "right to keep and bear arms" shouldn't necessarily apply to, say, an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine which any idiot can use to mow down school kids by the dozen. But the First Amendment was written in a time where the state of the art in communication was the feather pen and parchment. At that time, the government was the only thing that could "deplatform" someone. Today, Congress isn't needed to deplatform people because the small oligopoly that controls payment processing and domain registration can effectively shut anyone out of the internet if they piss enough people off.
If the literal text of the Second Amendment - shall not be infringed - is supposed to be understood in a modern context, shouldn't the First Amendment as well? Or maybe the Second Amendment should only apply to 1789 weapons and the First Amendment to 1789 communication technology?
Anonymous N replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,162
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,164
!5VYWpP.nqc replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,165
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,166
Another thought comes to mind. M.M is going to have to report himself to the FBI for cyber harassment. There are multiple examples of posts by M.M harassing several members of MC, including multiple Mods of MC. That includes images of members family. Includes asking for intimate photos of becky. Making sexually suggestive requests that include dozens of posts relating to body fluid-gasses of a female Mod of MC.
M.M. has posted multiple images of MC posters without permission. M.M. has posted full names of MC users without permission. M.M has doxed or attempted to dox MC members residence's without permission.
M.M has actus reus ad hominem ad infinitum ad quod damnum.
M. M quasi lex ruptor etiam notum est ex lege, quia indiget nisi ut culus dontated semper loquitur de asino
M.M. has posted multiple images of MC posters without permission. M.M. has posted full names of MC users without permission. M.M has doxed or attempted to dox MC members residence's without permission.
M.M has actus reus ad hominem ad infinitum ad quod damnum.
M. M quasi lex ruptor etiam notum est ex lege, quia indiget nisi ut culus dontated semper loquitur de asino
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,167
@previous (V)
> M.M has actus reus ad hominem ad infinitum ad quod damnum.
>
> M. M quasi lex ruptor etiam notum est ex lege, quia indiget nisi ut culus dontated semper loquitur de asino
Nice autistic keymashing, asswipe.
> M.M has actus reus ad hominem ad infinitum ad quod damnum.
>
> M. M quasi lex ruptor etiam notum est ex lege, quia indiget nisi ut culus dontated semper loquitur de asino
Nice autistic keymashing, asswipe.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,168
@1,006,166 (V)
Getting nervous, Syntax? LOL your years of stalking and harassing are finally catching up with you!
Getting nervous, Syntax? LOL your years of stalking and harassing are finally catching up with you!
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,169
@previous (J)
I believe serious analysis - research - MC search engine, will prove that Syntax has only responded to M.M net bullshit by M.M. It has been pointed out that Syntax is so close daily to FBI office. The only thing catching up with Syntax is a celebration on Sunday.
I believe serious analysis - research - MC search engine, will prove that Syntax has only responded to M.M net bullshit by M.M. It has been pointed out that Syntax is so close daily to FBI office. The only thing catching up with Syntax is a celebration on Sunday.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,173
Ok, I definitely don't want to violate federal laws. HOWEVER, let's say, hypothetically, I didn't believe we were under investigation, and as a matter of routine board maintenance, deleted all the offending posts, purely by coincidence. Could I or the fora still be liable?
We have several posters whom are not USAmerican citizens. Could they, with no knowledge of or explicit guidance from any U.S. person(s), delete the offending material and the forum avoids persecution that way?
Again, to the several dozen FBI agents who are definitely either reading or not reading this forum as we speak, I do NOT want to violate any federal, state, local, international, galactic, universal, and/or multidimensional laws that may or may not exist either previously, currently, or in the future. I am just simply asking hypothetical questions. Thank you.
We have several posters whom are not USAmerican citizens. Could they, with no knowledge of or explicit guidance from any U.S. person(s), delete the offending material and the forum avoids persecution that way?
Again, to the several dozen FBI agents who are definitely either reading or not reading this forum as we speak, I do NOT want to violate any federal, state, local, international, galactic, universal, and/or multidimensional laws that may or may not exist either previously, currently, or in the future. I am just simply asking hypothetical questions. Thank you.
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 31 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,178
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,179
Anonymous X replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,180
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Ok, I definitely don't want to violate federal laws. HOWEVER, let's say, hypothetically, I didn't believe we were under investigation
M.M is the one and only one that should be under investigation by Federal Agencies.
Sticking with your not wanting to violate
> galactic, universal, and/or multidimensional laws
A quick Gsearch results in a wealth of information and I mean a huge depository. Starts with
Friends this is the Law of one page that supersedes all Government Statutory Admiralty Laws, Civil Laws, tort Laws and treaties on the planet. This means it supersedes all municipal, provincial and federal laws and regulations as well as trade deals that violate this law. Also; Authentic Common Law is all about do no harm. This means you cannot deliberately hurt someone, emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually, energetically, or financially. If you have not harmed anyone deliberately in this way and have not damaged property people have no right to harass or violate your free will. Government people would do well to head these words! Share this page with others! However if someone attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself without being further violated by the government, judiciary, police departments at any level. On the other hand if someone has deliberately hurt someone, emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually, energetically, or financially; They should be teleported to another galaxy.
No interference with our sovereignty under spiritual and common law and mother earths code of conduct. This will happen without foreign government systems, law systems and without the bar association that were all operating treasonously against the rights of all galactic citizens. We will demand compensation for the Monarchy parasitic financial usery including foreign banker fraud. New Galactic society spiritual common law regional courts will harmonize under the Galactic Common Justice Department. By the people for the people who are born here or anywhere in the galaxy or other galaxy's in good standing. Immigration will be encouraged back to there home countries after money is released! Especially the Satanist and criminals welcomed with open arms against the will of informed conscious citizens. Our Common law courts will harmonize with common law applications globally!
> Ok, I definitely don't want to violate federal laws. HOWEVER, let's say, hypothetically, I didn't believe we were under investigation
M.M is the one and only one that should be under investigation by Federal Agencies.
Sticking with your not wanting to violate
> galactic, universal, and/or multidimensional laws
A quick Gsearch results in a wealth of information and I mean a huge depository. Starts with
Friends this is the Law of one page that supersedes all Government Statutory Admiralty Laws, Civil Laws, tort Laws and treaties on the planet. This means it supersedes all municipal, provincial and federal laws and regulations as well as trade deals that violate this law. Also; Authentic Common Law is all about do no harm. This means you cannot deliberately hurt someone, emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually, energetically, or financially. If you have not harmed anyone deliberately in this way and have not damaged property people have no right to harass or violate your free will. Government people would do well to head these words! Share this page with others! However if someone attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself without being further violated by the government, judiciary, police departments at any level. On the other hand if someone has deliberately hurt someone, emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually, energetically, or financially; They should be teleported to another galaxy.
No interference with our sovereignty under spiritual and common law and mother earths code of conduct. This will happen without foreign government systems, law systems and without the bar association that were all operating treasonously against the rights of all galactic citizens. We will demand compensation for the Monarchy parasitic financial usery including foreign banker fraud. New Galactic society spiritual common law regional courts will harmonize under the Galactic Common Justice Department. By the people for the people who are born here or anywhere in the galaxy or other galaxy's in good standing. Immigration will be encouraged back to there home countries after money is released! Especially the Satanist and criminals welcomed with open arms against the will of informed conscious citizens. Our Common law courts will harmonize with common law applications globally!
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,181
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,182
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,184
Anonymous Z-2 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,186
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,187
@previous (Z-2)
That still does not answer my original question.
Who is "Syntax"?
Pretend I cannot see any pictures.
That still does not answer my original question.
Who is "Syntax"?
Pretend I cannot see any pictures.
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,189
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,190
!5VYWpP.nqc replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,191
Anonymous Z-3 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 58 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,194
@OP
> Do we not have an obligation to cooperate with the FBI investigation that has surely started by now?
Umm... No. This is Trump's America. No one cooperates with FBI investigations anymore. Call it a witch hunt and fake news and move on.
> Do we not have an obligation to cooperate with the FBI investigation that has surely started by now?
Umm... No. This is Trump's America. No one cooperates with FBI investigations anymore. Call it a witch hunt and fake news and move on.
Anonymous Z-3 double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,195
Anonymous Z-4 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,198
@OP
How many UIDs does Syntax have in this thread? Also that's some very fine paralegal work, well done.
How many UIDs does Syntax have in this thread? Also that's some very fine paralegal work, well done.
Anonymous Φ joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,210
@previous (Z-4)As with multiple personalities, he has multiple numbers.
> Also that's some very fine paralegal work, well done.
becky is a member of the bar in her state.
Meta and Fake anon, should consider paralegal as an option.
Syntax took two years of law (torts) at UCLA and learned a lesson of value about the law. Leave that to others Just make sure they are not learning the law you need them to know, on your money.
Syntax will also say he found the topic very amusing/entertaining.
Anonymous Z-4 replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,213
@previous (Anonymous Φ)
So, at least 6 UIDs, and you're talking about yourself in the third person? Have you talked to yourself in this thread too?
So, at least 6 UIDs, and you're talking about yourself in the third person? Have you talked to yourself in this thread too?
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,215
@previous (Z-4)
Re: conf call re Qualcomm and Space Force with President Trump toodles zOoooOoooOoooOooooOOOOoooommmmmMmmMmMmmmmmmmmMMMMMmmmmmmMmmm
Re: conf call re Qualcomm and Space Force with President Trump toodles zOoooOoooOoooOooooOOOOoooommmmmMmmMmMmmmmmmmmMMMMMmmmmmmMmmm
Anonymous Φ replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,217
@1,006,213 (Z-4)
Only a totally fully dumb as all fuck stupid person replies to self in a thread. Multiple mods read and look at who is doing what in a thread. To reply to self is so out of order as to cause a Mod to have a possible brain bleed.
Syntax does indeed enjoy ceeing M.M accuse him of this. Proof that the hole in lung caused brain damage beyond what he had prior to trip to China.
Oh and Syntax thanks you for the question.
Only a totally fully dumb as all fuck stupid person replies to self in a thread. Multiple mods read and look at who is doing what in a thread. To reply to self is so out of order as to cause a Mod to have a possible brain bleed.
Syntax does indeed enjoy ceeing M.M accuse him of this. Proof that the hole in lung caused brain damage beyond what he had prior to trip to China.
Oh and Syntax thanks you for the question.
Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,218
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,229
@1,006,157 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Newspapers existed in the 1790s...
https://www.loc.gov/newspapers/?dates=1790-1799
Edit misread dates in your post
Here's a more applicable link
https://www.loc.gov/newspapers/?all=true&dl=all&end_date=1790-06-30&sb=date&searchType=advanced&start_date=1600-06-01
The earliest newspaper available at the library of congress dates from 1623-4
Book publishing was equally an industry at the time, whether private or institutional
Newspapers existed in the 1790s...
https://www.loc.gov/newspapers/?dates=1790-1799
Edit misread dates in your post
Here's a more applicable link
https://www.loc.gov/newspapers/?all=true&dl=all&end_date=1790-06-30&sb=date&searchType=advanced&start_date=1600-06-01
The earliest newspaper available at the library of congress dates from 1623-4
Book publishing was equally an industry at the time, whether private or institutional
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,006,231
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
But it's 2019 now, and only obscure Internet forums can uphold the First Amendment.
But it's 2019 now, and only obscure Internet forums can uphold the First Amendment.