missscottssunlamp
Group Capt. Mandrake
missscottssunlamp

The explanation I have heard is that there is a burden of proof put on the person in the conservatorship to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are “fit” and don’t need it. The reality is that having mental illness is so taxing even when you are coping well (see the Spoons approach). So, making phonecalls,

“new world order globalist.” (I am not delusional enough to be familiar with the latter terms)

Can you imagine? How dare these Q people say untrue and “nonsensical stuff” about innocent people like poor Mr. Lahmeyer, a man who would never, ever spread such falsehoo.....what’s that? Ah, I see. Fuck you, Lahmeyer; you chose to lie down with dogs. You chose to hang with the face-eating leopards.

Live by the Conspiracy Theory, die by the Reptilian Humanoids putting nano-bots in the drinking water.

so they are turning on each other now?  I’m good with this.

I put on a few pounds during COVID and now half of my wardrobe is apparently designed by Herve Leger.

The style of dress was engineered…in the ‘80s by the French designer Herve Leger.

That’s the vibe I get too...horrible evangelical housewife who, because the Tea Party demands nothing of its candidates except that they “remind me of me”, has found herself vaulted into federal government. She is dumb as a stump.

the company maintained that it was under the impression that the conservatorship was voluntary until Spears’s testimony.

Me too me too!

So, am I reading this right? All these important men (lawyer, manager, that fabulous father of hers) have just been collecting money and not working on her behalf? Now that their fuckery has been exposed, they’re resigning? And why did I read somewhere that despite collecting thousands of dollars a month from his

Technically, the prosecutor making an agreement not to prosecute to encourage him to testify rather than plead the Fifth is a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That’s literally what happened. Unlike a Miranda warning, they specifically said what you say cannot be used against you in a

That’s a completely different thing though. The quid pro quo you’re talking about involves prosecutors getting a benefit, a guaranteed conviction without having to go through the cost and uncertainty of a trial, in exchange for giving the defendant a benefit, dropping and/or reducing some of the charges, avoiding the

This case is hard, because Cosby sucks so much. But ask yourself this- if a DA made a deal with a low level drug offender saying “if you testify in this other case, we won’t prosecute you for your drug case” and then a year later, that DA left and a new one stepped in and said “Well, that deal was with the other DA,

Boy, if you ever wanted an example of how the criminal “justice” system serves to protect the powerful, this is it. A prosecutor makes a basically secret, informal agreement with a powerful man to help the powerful man in a civil trial regarding the same conduct, and that secret, informal agreement then forms the

Shitty outcome. But it’s not a procedural technicality.

As aggrivating as it is, the SC made the right decision. The DAs fucked up royally.

I feel like this article overlooks the most important and depressing thing here.

Ah, the dreaded monster zucchini, lift up a few leaves, and ah, wtf am I going to do with this?

I love how in letters like this, parents act like their kids were shown a video and there was no lesson plan or discussion around it. Like it just entered the classroom devoid of context and the teacher told them to take from it whatever they could.