2000 years ago they'd have called her a prophet

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I think, the poor woman is certifiable and should be fitted with a coat with a built-in hug!

If she thinks she's getting coded signals from the TV, she's probably schizophrenic, or at the very least, prone to psychotic breaks.

So there doesn't seem to be much blame to assign there.

The judge, however, needs to have his head examined. What he did in signing the TRO is inexcusable, and as I said above, he should be removed from the bench.

rl

_____________________________________

Aw yeah! I agree, that judge should also be fitted!


Chuck

[pirana 0]

The judge is one of the 2:

1 - If he did not read it, he is an overworked bureaucrat rubber-stamping things without paying any attention. Still his fault though; he choose to be a judge and owns full responsibility for his actions, regardless of how much "the system" begs for the blaming. If this is the case, there is the added insult of now seeing judges play the victim card.

2 - If he read it, he is an absolute moron for granting the TRO.

Either way, the irony is that the lady with the demons in her head is the one to watch. This is the kind of mental illness that leads to things like the murder of John Lennon. It's just so incredibly inane that SHE got the TRO.

My only other point would be to ask what lawyer did this for her (assumming it did require a lawyer to handle). How low does the bar go?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

My only other point would be to ask what lawyer did this for her (assumming it did require a lawyer to handle). How low does the bar go?

I can absolutely guarantee you that she did this on her own.

As for the other presumption implied in your post...sigh...what can I say...? sigh...
Let's put it this way: I no longer waste my breath arguing against the wuffo presumption that skydivers have a death wish, either. Hopefully you'll see the comparison.

P.S. - if you ever get arrested for drunk driving coming home from a Christmas party some day, call an architect or electrician to represent you. What possible difference could it make?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

As for the other presumption implied in your post...sigh...what can I say...? sigh...
Let's put it this way: I no longer waste my breath arguing against the wuffo presumption that skydivers have a death wish, either. Hopefully you'll see the comparison.

Sigh...what can (you) say? For what?

I certainly don't see the comparison.

Please explain, if it is worth your breath. I completely agree with Pirana.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Andy9o8 2]

Let's put it this way: I, too, agree completely with everything Pirana said, up until the last paragraph. As for the last paragraph, it'll just wind up being a thread hijack; and in any event, no, it's not worth any more of my breath.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The purpose of a restraining order is to protect someone from a credible threat. But the Nestler case raises questions about whether restraining orders have drifted from their original intent.

Absolutely false.

Anyone can see how obvious it is that a restraining order cannot "protect" anyone from anything.

The purpose of a restraining order actually seems to be to provide a minor charge that can be added onto the charge of murder when an irate husband murders his wife despite being ordered not to go near her.

They're worse than useless: they engender a false sense of security. They make women drop their guard, because they think that a murderous ex is going to be so worried about disobeying a restraining order that he'll decide not to MURDER her.


-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"