re: Judge orders $240,000 in sanctions against Louisiana AG’s office in Caddo Commission case

quote:

---

It’s coincidental that Liz Murill claims the costs she incurred due to a dropped indictment mirror the amount she was fined for acting improperly in her position in an unrelated situation.

---

I think all lawyers and politicians like to keep things fair in the 250k range, any more you are greedy anything less is too cheap to settle for unless you work on a contingency, then it is Katie bar the door they coming for their 1/3rd or more. Also, anything racial starts at a million and goes up.

So no

quote:

---

Why did you mention that you saved a picture I posted nearly 20 years ago,

---

Have the drugs eaten your short-term memory?

Just 2 days ago you replied to another poster, "you spend your time imagining and posting about what I look like."

I replied to you, "I know what you look like. Or, at least what you looked like about 10 years ago.
You posted a photo of yourself, remember? I was shocked you'd post a photo on the internet of your young child with you."

Then you word-saladed, like you usually do, a denial that you ever posted a photo of yourself, which, of course, was a blatant lie.

So I replied, "So, would you like for me to post the photo?"(EDIT: Notice I asked your permission to post the photo rather than just posting it to prove you were lying. I should at least get some style points from the East German judge for doing that.)

And, THAT, ladies & gentlemen, is how a discussion of your photo entered the chat...

Ms. Cubbies, I say this with the utmost respect for you, you're nucking futz!

quote:

---

I did have panic attacks after my daughter was born and was prescribed a medication to address them.

---

Fair enough, but why in the phuck would you reveal that about yourself on an internet message board, unless you were looking for attention or sympathy?

Pathetic...

quote:

---

Were you threatening to post my picture because I think it's weird that other strangers speculate about my weight for fun?

---

One more time...you lied about ever posting your picture on this board. I offered to prove you were lying. In retrospect I should have just posted the photo without asking your permission.

quote:

---

I'm still confused.

---

No doubt...

quote:

---

Fair enough, but why in the phuck would you reveal that about yourself on an internet message board, unless you were looking for attention or sympathy?

---

People reveal lots of random personal things about themselves here, whether it be marital status, type of employment, education level, hobbies, who they voted for, where they live....

Sometimes people offer personal insight in order to contribute to a discussion or make a point. After posting alongside the same people for days, weeks, months, years - a type of comradery forms and perhaps people feel comfortable sharing certain things about themselves.

To be honest, I am very confident in my appearance. I get a lot of unwanted attention from men all the time. A big part of why I like posting here is because I don't receive preferential treatment because of the way I look

quote:

---

Pathetic...

---

Like saving a photo of a stranger for 20 years and threatening to post it for some reasn you refuse to admit to? .

I’m starting to think you keep whinning, lying & complaining about your photo because you’re just narssistic enough to want me to post the photo.

quote:

---

Calling a document a 'resolution' doesn't establish that it became an official resolution under the Commission's governing procedures.

---

Their procedures are irrelevant if they are contrary to state law. To create the document there had to first be a proposal for the document (ie: what it would say). That did not happen in a public meeting, thus it was a violation of state law.

As I said in a previous post, the courts have traditionally looked at post-ratification in a public meeting as mooting it from their purview, but I think that's just taking the lazy way out and here's why:

While "fruit of the poisonous tree" is normally a criminal court philosophy which holds that evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of an illegal government action is inadmissible in court.

If we were to apply the philosophy to this civil matter, then the "poisonous tree" is the initial illegal conduct of the proposal of the resolution being held outside of a public meeting. The "fruit" therefore would be the ratified resolution as it was based off of the illegal proposal.

So instead of the court considering the point moot because the commission did the correct thing after the fact, they should be considering that the whole thing is in error because it started from a legally unavailable source.

quote:

---

There doesn't appear to be evidence that supports that this was proposed and deliberated.

---

So there is evidence that it was first proposed, debated and/or approved in a public meeting prior to the meeting where it was merely ratified? Please provide a link to that meeting.

quote:

---

for 20 years

---

quote:

---

I had no children until 2017

---

The child in your photo looks to be around 6 years old.

So, you even lie about something as simple as your "20 years" claim.

You obviously suffer from pseudologia fantastica. Seek help.

OK whatever. I had a secret child and posted a picture in hopes you would post it 20 years later. You win,.