Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Chronicles of a stable genius - all the biggliest stuff

Muz said:
Watch from 13.55 and be amazed.

Click to expand...


Muz, from your professional experience, do you understand what it means for a court to refuse to try a case because the plaintiff lacks "standing"? Please explain it to me, if you do.

For example, if you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your Android phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you, Muz, instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence.

Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - do you understand why that is so?

I'll let you do your own research by submitting this question to any A.I. COPY AND PASTE the following paragraph into any A.I. website. (I tested it on three A.I. websites, and they all say the same thing, agreeing with my legal understanding.)

If you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence. Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - please explain what "lack of standing" means - and does a plaintiff having lack of standing automatically mean that the plaintiff's evidence was either non-existent or weak evidence? Please provide your answer in very simple language that even simple people can understand.​

Next, after you've come to an basic knowledge of "lack of standing" --- consider that 99% of the population -- which includes you, Muz -- have fallen for the Media's lie that just because most of those cases were thrown out for technicalities like "lack of standing" - it meant that there was no evidence of fraud.
 
Last edited:
johnsmith said:
Muz, from your professional experience, do you understand what it means for a court to refuse to try a case because the plaintiff lacks "standing"? Please explain it to me, if you do.

For example, if you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your Android phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you, Muz, instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence.

Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - do you understand why that is so?

I'll let you do your own research by submitting this question to any A.I. COPY AND PASTE the following paragraph into any A.I. website. (I tested it on three A.I. websites, and they all say the same thing, agreeing with my legal understanding.)

If you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence. Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - please explain what "lack of standing" means - and does a plaintiff having lack of standing automatically mean that the plaintiff's evidence was either non-existent or weak evidence?​

Next, after you've come to an basic knowledge of "lack of standing" --- consider that 99% of the population -- which includes you, Muz -- have fallen for the Media's lie that just because most of those cases were thrown out for technicalities like "lack of standing" - it meant that there was no evidence of fraud.
Click to expand...

All 60 thrown out clown. All sixty.

He lost. Its that simple.
 
Muz said:
All 60 thrown out clown. All sixty.

He lost. Its that simple.
Click to expand...
Ok, Muz is, as expected, totally closed-minded.

But anyone else out there, I offer you to simply gain more information but checking the meaning when a court rejects to try a case due to "lack of standing".

In my experience of dialoguing with people who are not lawyers, virtually zero % of non-lawyers know what "lack of standing" means. I'm not saying no one knows - it's just that I haven't met any in casual and random conversations.

You who claim to be life-long learners, I offer you to just check what "lack of standing" means, and I've made it easy for you. Just copy and paste the following question into any A.I. website, such as perplexity.ai or chatgpt.com
​
If you suddenly see a burglar breaking into your neighbour's house - and you use your phone to video the whole thing - from the burglar breaking the window, and later carrying off your neighbour's valuables. And, what's more, you instantly recognise the burglar by name. And you have all that on video. i.e. you do have evidence. Now, you file a court action against the burglar. And the court throws out your case due to you having "lack of standing" - please explain what "lack of standing" means - and does a plaintiff having lack of standing automatically mean that the plaintiff's evidence was either non-existent or weak evidence? Please provide your answer in very simple language that even simple people can understand.​

Muz is not a good example of a "life-long learner".
 
Last edited:
If Trump wins and went through with his election promise of mass deportations and then Tariffs on China - imagine the carnage in that country. These thick yokels would then really know what a bad economy is.
 
T_S_F said:
Profiteering
Click to expand...

Two things can be going on simultaneously. Hence it is both electioneering and profiteering at the same time - but the timing of it indicates it is weighted towards electioneering, with a bit of profiteering thrown in. That is how to think this through systematically.

To say it is one and not the other is a "false dichotomy" (look it up).

If you realised that - but persuaded people it's just profiteering - then that's cunning deception.

If you did not realise that, then that's one-dimensional thinking.
 
Muz said:
All 60 thrown out clown. All sixty.

He lost. Its that simple.
Click to expand...
What they can't seem to answer is if he thinks it's all rigged, why enter again?

NOBODY would enter a rigged competition, especially one they already lost. It's simple. The demented buy it and hand him over cash,
 
johnsmith said:
Two things can be going on simultaneously. Hence it is both electioneering and profiteering at the same time - but the timing of it indicates it is weighted towards electioneering, with a bit of profiteering thrown in. That is how to think this through systematically.

To say it is one and not the other is a "false dichotomy" (look it up).

If you realised that - but persuaded people it's just profiteering - then that's cunning deception.

If you did not realise that, then that's one-dimensional thinking.
Click to expand...
This guy is out to make money and sell books,

He probably doesn't give a f who wins. This kind of behaviour and strategy is common with writers. No conspiracy here. Pure marketing.

Books take years to write. They're not 1 minute posts using AI.
 
@ TSF

Regards the Epstein stuff and your 'profiteering' comment.

I was looking around at his twitter last night and everyone was accusing him of trying to shill the story for months and when no one wanted to pony up he released them online and had a bitch.
 
T_S_F said:
If Trump wins and went through with his election promise of mass deportations and then Tariffs on China - imagine the carnage in that country. These thick yokels would then really know what a bad economy is.
Click to expand...
He talked about building a wall last time and nothing was done. It’s probably just his pre election talk
 
Pasquali said:
He talked about building a wall last time and nothing was done. It’s probably just his pre election talk
Click to expand...

He literally doesn't know what a tariff is. An economics bloke in an interview told him outright it would raise prices for those goods in the US and Trump just looked back at him and said 'no it won't'.
 
Muz said:
He literally doesn't know what a tariff is. An economics bloke in an interview told him outright it would raise prices for those goods in the US and Trump just looked back at him and said 'no it won't'.
Click to expand...
Did he explain why it wouldn’t?
 
Muz said:
@ TSF

Regards the Epstein stuff and your 'profiteering' comment.

I was looking around at his twitter last night and everyone was accusing him of trying to shill the story for months and when no one wanted to pony up he released them online and had a bitch.
Click to expand...

I think he was accused of doing the same last time with other information he released. He sold 5 million books last time, so you can see why he'd hold on to the juice at a critical time with eyeballs on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top