It seems as though a certain individual has this idea that because something wasn’t explicitly said, doesn’t make it true.
Let’s say you’re in a court case and the court publishes a routine order that conforms to existing precedent – for example, say, hypothetically, a pro-se plaintiff is given a Roseboro Order. Continue reading
In Schmalfeldt v. Grady et al, the court issued a “Roseboro Order” which essentially is an explanation to a pro-se plaintiff on what happens during the Motion To Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment phases.
Can’t make this up. The left have equated US forces landing on the beaches of France on D-Day to those of Antifa.
https://twitter.com/Scott_Gilmore/status/897582269308653568
Actually, this is the more accurate picture..
Soldiers raise Soviet flag over Reichstag
From the Unintended Consequences of Social Media to Connect with the World Department:
In 2011, nearly one third of Divorce filings had the word Facebook in it.
Afternoon nap..
From the Government knows everything department:
The Poverty Line was designed assuming that every household had a housewife who was a skillful cook.
Beach surprise..
To set this up, imagine that you are a disabled person and you have an appointment with a judge along with a three day trial. This has been set for many months and there is plenty of time to plan and prepare for comfortable travel and accommodations.
A reasonable, intelligent person would consult with the rules, attorneys or other legal specialists and understand what things need to happen to help you get through the trial.
Unless you’re Bill Schmalfeldt, who doesn’t seem to think ten seconds in front of him. During a hearing to compel Schmalfeldt to comply with a discovery order, Judge Hecker made it clear that Schmalfeldt needed to get a copy of and follow Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure. Continue reading
Sonoran Conservative 