Two pages back. Two weeks of forced pickle ball with three fatties is now required. Haha Skol brother!
Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens
- Thread starter Bryan74b
- Start date
Master Threads
Two pages back. Two weeks of forced pickle ball with three fatties is now required. Haha Skol brother!
Red Raiders using carry the things they engaged in
/s/ KC Chiefs
/s/ Redskins offense
/s/ my chick(s)
If true which remains to be seen, I've questioned whether a person can be pardoned for only a belief or accusation. I've read previously that the person has to be charged with a crime or convicted. If so, many of those who thought they were in the clear, may not be. Can you say Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, the OBiden's less Hunter, Adam Kinzinger, Faucigele, and a bunch more?
Many who have said they would leave the US and haven't may actually do so now.
Edit: Lots of articles and more saying this ruling didn't happen. Time will tell.
Last edited:
I think that they did this to give them back the 5th amendment.
They figured out that the pardons exposed them more than not getting the pardon.
Jews Are The Problem
“Hence, no Jew, whether orthodox or not, can conscientiously refrain from cooperating with the rest for the elevation of the entire Jewry.” — Moses Hess, pioneer of Zionism and Communism, The Revival of Israel: Rome and Jerusalem (1862) Matthew the Apostle records Jesus as teaching that “Every...www.unz.com
Nasty book. Rape isn’t a sin if it’s a Jew raping a goy. Same goes for murder, Theft, etc
Makes you wonder why his DOJ didn’t quietly charge these dickheads with the crimes they’re accused of, so he could legally pardon them.
Imagine being so retarded that in the hustle and bustle of all the lawfare, these dildos didn’t know how to effectively give a pardon.
Amateur hour.
Imagine being so retarded that in the hustle and bustle of all the lawfare, these dildos didn’t know how to effectively give a pardon.
Amateur hour.
Who know how any court will rule in today's environment? I said the DOJ should have indicted all these people, receive the pardons and then drop the indictments.
So it turns out Ashley St. Claire was just a grifting ho. These conservative “influencers are just as bad as the progressive ones. Sad.
Quite the cocksmith
Court rejects AFL_CIO request for restraining order on DOGE. Court said DOGE people (Big Ballz et al) are federal employees and therefore have access to look inside other agencies at employee records or anything else.
As another post several days ago revealed, DOGE is merely the name change of Obama's USDS - United States Digital Service.
From the Court:
In short, the record indicates that DOGE Team members are federal government “employees . . . who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties,” § 552a(b)(1), and must follow protocols to ensure their access is contained within the bounds of the Privacy Act. But are they “employees of the agency” at which they are detailed? ….
For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that USDS is not an agency. If that is so, USDS may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act. It follows that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood on the merits of their Privacy Act claim, for without the argument that USDS employees may not be detailed under the Economy Act, the Privacy Act claim all but disappears. This is a close question, but plaintiffs have not, at this time, sustained their burden that they are likely to succeed on its merits.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/...pxkCLrat0A6IBQ&vcrmiid=1-g_zWsQUU-Iz9WX3dnbHQ
As another post several days ago revealed, DOGE is merely the name change of Obama's USDS - United States Digital Service.
From the Court:
In short, the record indicates that DOGE Team members are federal government “employees . . . who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties,” § 552a(b)(1), and must follow protocols to ensure their access is contained within the bounds of the Privacy Act. But are they “employees of the agency” at which they are detailed? ….
For the reasons explained above, on the record as it currently stands and with limited briefing on the issue, the case law defining agencies indicates that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood that USDS is not an agency. If that is so, USDS may detail its employees to other agencies consistent with the Economy Act. It follows that plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood on the merits of their Privacy Act claim, for without the argument that USDS employees may not be detailed under the Economy Act, the Privacy Act claim all but disappears. This is a close question, but plaintiffs have not, at this time, sustained their burden that they are likely to succeed on its merits.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/...pxkCLrat0A6IBQ&vcrmiid=1-g_zWsQUU-Iz9WX3dnbHQ
African American that can actually afford multiple baby mommas and babies.
Same kind of weird names too.
Carry on
AgEngDawg
Legendary
LOL He'll yeah. I can relate.
Elon, return to the wife of your youth. You are destroying these kids lives by leaving them with the crazy women.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Comprehensive List of All the so Called Conspiracy Theories That Are Conspiracy Facts- Latest: weaponoffreedom