Federal Court Summons Soros, Podesta, Clinton and others for Racketeering and Corruption

a reply to: F4guy

I think you missed my point. I wasn't comparing civil cases vs. criminal cases. My post was in response to the idea that civil cases are essentially useless.

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Skyfloating

It's another civil case.

Doesn't really mean anything

It did look too good to be true.

Interesting list of names though...

You used to post some of the most thought provoking threads on ATS.

This is just....drivel.

Partisan drivel, with zero fact checking.

This is about the best example of the post truth world as one can get.

Well done.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Annee

Secret service agent that has been after hillary for a while.

the Clinton's and Obama's must have really pissed off a bunch of secret service guys because Bongino is a former service guy too and for some reason they really don't like them

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Skyfloating

It's another civil case.

Doesn't really mean anything

It did look too good to be true.

Interesting list of names though...

You used to post some of the most thought provoking threads on ATS.

This is just....drivel.

Partisan drivel, with zero fact checking.

This is about the best example of the post truth world as one can get.

Well done.

ugh

that's all I have to say to you

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: Skyfloating

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Skyfloating

It's another civil case.

Doesn't really mean anything

It did look too good to be true.

Interesting list of names though...

There's a benefit to this civil case that's being overlooked here. In a civil case you can subpoena a witness to testify and bring documents with them.

Once that's out in the open, regardless of the civil case outcome, that testimony and documents can be used for future court proceedings.

I don't know where you went to law school, but you can also subpoena witnesses in a criminal case. Look at Rule 45 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the state equivalent. You can also subpoena documents in a criminal case. It's called a subppoena duces tecum. The real difference is that any idiot can say anything and sue anyone in a civil case and summons will be issued. There is no filter in a civil case. A felony criminal case can only be filed with the concurrance of a group of citizens who decide, as a prerequisite to fiing, if there is merit to the allegations in the complaint. I could file a suit against Trump alleging that he was a lizard person and a summons would be issued. The real lizards could probably then win a suit against me for defamation.

Sure. And if during the civil case that accused Trump if being a lizard, it is discovered, that although he may not be proven to be a lizard, but there was testimony that he grabbed alizards crotch, a criminal case could then be opened?

Lets me honest here. If Hillary could sue for defamation, she would have already. Trump accused Hillary of being a criminal in public forums during an election, how many times? No suit.

a reply to: Skyfloating

We can only hope this actually leads somewhere and isn't just another repetition in a long line of, "If I have to tell you one more time..."

originally posted by: Chadwickus

You used to post some of the most thought provoking threads on ATS.

That was back in the days I was completely ignorant of the actual conspiracy.

They never thought she would lose.

And they also never thought the real conspiracy would come to light. I now consider these "thought provoking topics" you admire, drivel. Its good to be awake, except that to the MSM-fed lemmings it looks different.

a reply to: toysforadults

Sorry but it just looks like a couple of people that are upset their jobs didn't pan out the way they wanted and are now going after their employer.

Bitterness.

a reply to: Skyfloating

All I want to see is that damned feminist Hillary burn like the witch she is. Only then will I have any real faith in our system.

a reply to: toysforadults

So insightful!

a reply to: Skyfloating

Well just because you used to believe in drivel doesn't mean what you believe now can't be drivel too.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Skyfloating

All I want to see is that damned feminist Hillary burn like the witch she is. Only then will I have any real faith in our system.

Poop is about to hit the fan. Democrats are even worried that Obama has gone silent lately. As Trump said this morning, Maxine Waters is the new face of the Dim party.

Civil RICO is notorius as legal harrassment, but, courts can be very touchy about frivilous cases.

LOL ... but at least some of you get another surge of enthusiasm that all your enemies, real and imagined, well be dealt with.

a reply to: carewemust

I know Democrats. I just asked them.

They're not worried about Obama, Clinton or anything else in regard to this bogus RICO harrassment suit, in fact, they had no idea what I was talking about.

Just thought you'd want to know, you know ... perspective.

a reply to: Skyfloating

Well, now I'm curious ... having read and at least respected your once-upon-a-time writing.

Where can we find the "new you" stuff?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: F4guy

I think you missed my point. I wasn't comparing civil cases vs. criminal cases. My post was in response to the idea that civil cases are essentially useless.

In determining racketeering or corruption, they are totally useless. Even a win in the civil case means nothing. Since the burden of proof is lower in the civil case, it can not be used for either res judicata (the thing has been decided) or collateral estoppel purposes. The Rules of Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and jury requirements are different.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Skyfloating

This appears to be a nothingburger. There is no indictment here.

Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. The disclosures are what might end up exposing some criminal activities by the nature of the evidence provisions is what people are trying to tell you.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Skyfloating

All I want to see is that damned feminist Hillary burn like the witch she is. Only then will I have any real faith in our system.

Evil, if she really is so evil, will get it's karma. I suspect a very warm spot is reserved if she doesn't have a REAL come to Jesus type of epiphany. Burned like a witch just seems so Puritanical and maniacal. This deep division is what the Marxists want and they use their organization to take over the choke points like , cough cough CIA/FBI leadership.

This thing will never even get to court.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

There's a benefit to this civil case that's being overlooked here. In a civil case you can subpoena a witness to testify and bring documents with them.

Once that's out in the open, regardless of the civil case outcome, that testimony and documents can be used for future court proceedings.

Provided that the plaintiff can show that he has been injured or suffered a loss at the hands of the defendants; he must have "skin in the game." Case dismissed.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

After all the years and years these snakes have been coiling tighter and tighter around humanity, how they openly gloat at their domination of us lowmen, how they gather at their favorite meetings with no concern (Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove, etc), I find it absolutely remarkable that there has not been a single successful vigilante, or group of people, who have had enough, take justice into their own hands. I can't think of not one poisonous chef, sneaky butler, brake tampering mechanic, or lopper happy landscaper to just do everyone a favor.

Where is our William Wallaces? Our V's of vendettas? Our Boondock Saints?

Apperantly, right where we must really want them. In our imaginations.