Men-Pretending-To-Be-Women DOJ Lawsuits & School Decrees Just Got Hamstrung: Judge Warns Lynch

[My "cult of idiocy" will prevail against your cult of deviant sex obsession on this question of law. Read post #188 and start the grieving process. This far, no farther..
There is no cult of whatever, Sil.

You cannot enforce your religious or cultural principles if the law says LGBT have civil liberties.

Since the judge ruled in Utah everything I told you would come true did come true and everything you hoped for I told you would never happen never happened.
You're going to have to clarify how "LGBT" aren't behaviors. Otherwise, they are the definition of a cult. Good luck.
I don't have to do anything. You have to clarify in court your points, and get a judge to listen to you. Has not happened. Will not happen.
 
] I don't have to do anything. You have to clarify in court your points, and get a judge to listen to you. Has not happened. Will not happen.

Hmm...Let's read this again:

A more comprehensive look at what the judge Ordered with respect to Lynch and company: Federal Judge Absolutely Skewers DOJ Lawyers For ‘Lying’ About Obama’s Immigration Directive

*****

In the order, Hanen found DOJ attorneys misled the Court and opposing counsel on multiple occasions over a three month period as to when the Obama Administration would implement its new immigration directive. The DOJ lawyers said changes would not be implemented until February 18, 2015 when, in fact, the changes had already been implemented and “DHS had already granted or renewed over 100,000 modified DACA applications.” Judge Hanen found that the DOJ lawyers knew all of this, yet “chose not to tell the Plaintiff States or the Court.” (emphasis original). “The Government’s lawyers in this case clearly violated their ethical duties,” Judge Hanen wrote.

In deciding which sanctions to impose, Judge Hanen wrote the conduct of the DOJ lawyers was so egregious that he could strike their pleadings, but he chose not to do so.

Judge Hanen found the appropriate remedy was for the DOJ to provide the Court with a list by June 10, 2016 of all of the approximately 108,000 individuals in the Plaintiff States who prematurely received benefits under the new immigration edict. Judge Hanen will then keep a copy of the list, under seal, until the Supreme Court issues an opinion on the matters in the underlying lawsuit.

He also ensured that the out-of-state attorneys involved in this incident would not be practicing in Texas again any time soon.

“The Court does not have the power to disbar counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state attorneys who act unethically in court. By a seperate sealed order … that is being done,” Hanen wrote.

Finding that ethics are lacking in the halls of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., Judge Hanen also ordered that any D.C. based DOJ attorney who “appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course.” The ethics course must be taught by a recognized expert unaffiliated with the DOJ and should be at least 3 hours, per year. The Attorney General is required to appoint a person within DOJ that will file an annual report with Judge Hanen showing compliance with the order. The order is to remain in effect for the next five years, until 2021.


Lastly, Attorney General Loretta Lynch is required to develop “a comprehensive plan to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again” and file it with Judge Hanen within 60 days. LawNewz.com received a statement from a DOJ spokesperson that simply said: “The Department disagrees with the order.”


*******

It would seem that at least one judge agrees that you're going to have to get really honest really quick with the American Public how EXACTLY it is that a man "is actually a woman" for the purposes of them showering next to one of the 17 million rape survivors.

Did you forget about those gals already? They seem to slip your mind so often. However, they will be brought up in opposing arguments. I'd like to see the judge with the balls to say they have to suffer PTSD (not be able to use their own bathrooms anymore marked "women" because of emotional inability) for the sake of a handful of crazy men pretending to be women, self-diagosed, and any man could say that's why he's in there..

Good luck backing your arguments.
 
That does not say what you want it to say.
From the judge's order to the DOJ:

Lastly, Attorney General Loretta Lynch is required to develop “a comprehensive plan to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again” and file it with Judge Hanen within 60 days.

The unethical conduct in question? Intentionally deceiving either 1. The Courts or 2. The American Public. The problem is, Lynch's lawsuit just filed against North Carolina cites the "Violence Against Women Act" to protect not women, but instead men pretending to be women...to have access to WOMEN'S showers and restrooms!

She is placing women in danger, citing the "Violence Against Women Act" completely fraudulently. If you don't think that act applies to the Texas judge's Order, think again..
 
That is not what I said. I said it has nothing to do with your nonsense. You don't speak for "the men" and others on that order.
 
TemplarKormac has humiliated himself on more than one occasion and the rest of us did it regularly when he was not hiding.

Note that when he is corned her writes a lot, really a lot of nonsense trying to deflect from his inability to carr his points.

That's fine. Many on the far right and some on the far left have the same issue.

You have joined the Cult of Sil's Idiocy, which is your right, but, yeah, we are going to make fun of you.

Reader please note that JakeStarkey is not addressing any of my points, just resorting to ad hominem to deflect away from lack of same.
 
TemplarKormac has humiliated himself on more than one occasion and the rest of us did it regularly when he was not hiding.

Note that when he is corned her writes a lot, really a lot of nonsense trying to deflect from his inability to carr his points.

That's fine. Many on the far right and some on the far left have the same issue.

You have joined the Cult of Sil's Idiocy, which is your right, but, yeah, we are going to make fun of you.

Reader please note that JakeStarkey is not addressing any of my points, just resorting to ad hominem to deflect away from lack of same.
You have no valid points to address is the point.

I humiliated you regularly when you acted out, and you resented it.
 
You have no valid points to address is the point.

I humiliated you regularly when you acted out, and you resented it.

I do, but you refuse to acknowledge them. What are you afraid of?

If you're capable of humiliating me, why aren't you doing that now? Oh, I must've not counted the times you "humiliated" me while on my ignore list. In essence, you were trying to humiliate a brick wall.
 
You have no valid points to address is the point.

I humiliated you regularly when you acted out, and you resented it.

I do, but you refuse to acknowledge them. What are you afraid of? If you're capable of humiliating me, why aren't you doing that now? Oh, I must've not counted the times you "humiliated" me while on my ignore list. In essence, you were trying to humiliate a brick wall.
:) You have always been your own worst foe. You deny reality as you are now. That's OK. Just be straight with the evidence, drop the ideology, and be sensible. You will be fine
 
baby-chooses-750.jpg
 
Me? I won't be. And neither will anyone who does not want to be.

So if you were an attorney for the Church of LGBT, your argument to the Court in this class-action (multi-state) lawsuit would be "your honors, I personally won't be going into the showers naked with women, and neither will anyone who does not want to be." That still leaves out the multitude of males who WILL be going into the showers naked with women and who most certainly DO want to be in there naked with them.

17 million rape survivors with trigger PTSD, naked, in the showers with delusional males. What could POSSIBLY be the argument against that, that would convince the Justices to say "yeah, no....we'd better not..."?

You've lost. Your spouting nonsensical comebacks like the one you just did means you know it, and you're on the run...
 
Sil, honey, there is no church or cult of LGBT.

There is only the Cult Church of Sil.
 
Sil, honey, there is no church or cult of LGBT.

There is only the Cult Church of Sil.
LGBT evangelizes, has rigid dogma, is behavioral, punishes heretics (Anne Heche) and holds inquisitions for those not fully bending at the knee at the rainbow altar.

I'd say, all in all, there is nothing more defined as a virulent religion than the Church of LGBT. The only thing missing is the official label and tax exempt status.
 
Sil, honey, there is no church or cult of LGBT.

There is only the Cult Church of Sil.
LGBT evangelizes, has rigid dogma, is behavioral, punishes heretics (Anne Heche) and holds inquisitions for those not fully bending at the knee at the rainbow altar.

I'd say, all in all, there is nothing more defined as a virulent religion than the Church of LGBT. The only thing missing is the official label and tax exempt status.
Only in your strange mind in the cult and church of Sil.
 

Forum List

Back
Top