Media wants names of Chauvin jurors

[BillB]

https://www.news957.com/2021/08/16/minnesota-prosecutors-oppose-releasing-chauvin-juror-names/

"Prosecutors asked a judge Monday to reject a request by a coalition of media outlets to unseal the names of the jurors who convicted ex-Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin of murder in the death of George Floyd, saying it could subject them to harassment and make it harder to seat a jury for the trial of three codefendants next year.
....

"Attorney Leita Walker said the media and public have a right to information about a jury, and that anonymous juries are rare and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as in cases involving gangs or organized crime."

Uh, Leita, how does that not apply to the Minneapolis Police Department?

Obviously, the jurors were under tremendous pressure to acquit Chauvin, faced with the wrath of the police, violently unhinged right-wingers (like the ones who stormed the Capitol), and other assorted low-IQ nutcases who think it's perfectly okay to murder a handcuffed suspect over an alleged petty crime (if he's black). The jurors are still in grave danger from these imbeciles. I hope the judge has the common sense to extend their protection.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 16, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<aa573950-071b-4a11...@googlegroups.com>):

> https://www.news957.com/2021/08/16/minnesota-prosecutors-oppose-releasing-chau

> vin-juror-names/
>
> "Prosecutors asked a judge Monday to reject a request by a coalition of media
> outlets to unseal the names of the jurors who convicted ex-Minneapolis police
> Officer Derek Chauvin of murder in the death of George Floyd, saying it could
> subject them to harassment and make it harder to seat a jury for the trial of
> three codefendants next year.
> ....
>
> "Attorney Leita Walker said the media and public have a right to information
> about a jury, and that anonymous juries are rare and only allowed in
> exceptional circumstances, such as in cases involving gangs or organized
> crime."
>
> Uh, Leita, how does that not apply to the Minneapolis Police Department?

They’re neither a gang nor organized crime. Duh.

[BillB]

Oh, you want to play the semantics game with me?

"A gang is a group or society of associates, friends or members of a family with a defined leadership and internal organization that identifies with or claims control over territory in a community and engages, either individually or collectively, in illegal, and possibly violent, behavior."

Sounds like an apt description to me. That's why they are being investigated by the feds for systemic civil rights violations and other crimes.

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-third-precinct-served-as-playground-for-renegade-cops/571076562/

[risky biz]

Serious question- is this BillBlabbermouth gnome an example of why a degree in sociology is laughable or an example of someone who is making his claim of a degree in sociology laughable? He displays every pedigree of someone that never made it through junior high school.

[risky biz]

The jurors names would have been released immediately if they had failed to convict.

[BillB]

lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 7:36:45 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

This is poor BackupBillB being embarrassed at me PROVING him wrong. So he just
adds lies to previous lies. He's still stuck with me slapping him in the back of his
pointed head and rubbing his snotty little nose is his, "I know he guilty because I saw
a video."

Me, and the court, and the defense, and the Chief of Police, and expert forensic witness
PROVED him wrong. So EVERY TIME I rub his nose in his fuckup, he drops that thread and,
like here, starts a new one with new lies.

(It's kinda fun, really)...

[BillB]

I'm not embarrassed by you. I an embarrassed for you. And yes, I was right. Chauvin was convicted in about 30 seconds (jury time). You were wrong, as you always are, because you know nothing about the law. Sorry if the truth hurts. Now go have your nap.

[risky biz]

~ lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.

Dream of having your education?

You try to change the focus of a conversation to imaginary math errors when you finally realize that the main subject reveals how utterly stupid you are- and the imaginary math errors you whimper about only reveal how ignorant you are of basic math.

You repeatedly spell basic English words incorrectly and then fail to convince anyone that it's the fault of a spellchecker.

You are often unable to produce a coherent sentence in English.

You revel in describing police officers as more criminal than criminals if the criminals are black. You have some kind of a black thing going on in your psyche. Example- referring to a black criminal that walked up to two police officers from behind and shot both of them in the head-

'I saw the story on Fox News.com They said the shooter acted "without warning or provocation". I was like...WTF?? Have you people been asleep for the last two months? There is a genocide occurring. Black people are fighting a war for their lives with the police.'

Having your education couldn't possibly be a dream. That's what's called a nightmare.

There's only the slightest possibility that you actually have a degree in law and acquired a license to practice. And even if you did I doubt that you haven't been disbarred. There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database.

[BillB]

LOLOL...what a donkey. He is STILL in denial!!

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:58:00 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 7:52:22 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> > ~ lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.
> >
> > Dream of having your education?
> >
> > You try to change the focus of a conversation to imaginary math errors

~ LOLOL...what a donkey. He is STILL in denial!!

Sure thing, pretend attorney.

> when you finally realize that the main subject reveals how utterly stupid you are- and the imaginary math errors you whimper about only reveal how ignorant you are of basic math.
> >
> > You repeatedly spell basic English words incorrectly and then fail to convince anyone that it's the fault of a spellchecker.
> >
> > You are often unable to produce a coherent sentence in English.
> >
> > You revel in describing police officers as more criminal than criminals if the criminals are black. You have some kind of a black thing going on in your psyche. Example- referring to a black criminal that walked up to two police officers from behind and shot both of them in the head-
> >
> > 'I saw the story on Fox News.com They said the shooter acted "without warning or provocation". I was like...WTF?? Have you people been asleep for the last two months? There is a genocide occurring. Black people are fighting a war for their lives with the police.'
> >
> > Having your education couldn't possibly be a dream. That's what's called a nightmare.
> >
> > There's only the slightest possibility that you actually have a degree in law and acquired a license to practice. And even if you did I doubt that you haven't been disbarred. There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database.

Sure thing, pretend attorney.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> ~ lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.
>
> Dream of having your education?

I said you are not qualified to even dream of having my education, because it would be 100% impossible for someone of your very limited intelligence to attain it. That's just a cold, hard fact.

>
> You try to change the focus of a conversation to imaginary math errors when you finally realize that the main subject reveals how utterly stupid you are- and the imaginary math errors you whimper about only reveal how ignorant you are of basic math.
>
> You repeatedly spell basic English words incorrectly and then fail to convince anyone that it's the fault of a spellchecker.
>
> You are often unable to produce a coherent sentence in English.

It seems unrealistic that someone who is "often unable to produce a coherent sentence" could receive a grade of 90% and an academic prize in English at one of the world's top ranked universities. This is another instance where you are not qualified to even dream of matching my ability or achievements (despite your obsession with my typing mistakes, which I could not care less about).

> You revel in describing police officers as more criminal than criminals if the criminals are black. You have some kind of a black thing going on in your psyche. Example- referring to a black criminal that walked up to two police officers from behind and shot both of them in the head-
> 'I saw the story on Fox News.com They said the shooter acted "without warning or provocation". I was like...WTF?? Have you people been asleep for the last two months? There is a genocide occurring. Black people are fighting a war for their lives with the police.'
>

And, as usual, I was correct. There were both warnings and provocation. In fact, the theory from the LAPD itself was that the shooting was provoked by the killing Dijon Kizzee , who was shot 16 times after being targeted for a bicycle infraction, of all things (all of which occurred in the context of all the previous unjustified killings of black men by rogue police, including George Floyd's murder).

> Having your education couldn't possibly be a dream. That's what's called a nightmare.

It would be a dream for you to believe you could ever come anywhere remotely close to equaling my educational attainment.

> There's only the slightest possibility that you actually have a degree in law and acquired a license to practice.

Once again proving your stupidity and complete lack of common sense.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/24862880827/in/dateposted-public/ (<== law school yearbook)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/30333027418/in/dateposted-public/ (<== articling performance evaluation)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/51385170221/in/dateposted-public/ (<== call and membership certificate)

>And even if you did I doubt that you haven't been disbarred. There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database.

More abject stupidity. As I already informed you, the Law Society of BC's website lists every lawyer who has been disbarred, suspended, or otherwise disciplined. You will not find my name there anywhere. Not only have I not been disbarred, but I have never been the subject of any professional discipline whatsoever. People like me who are 100% honest, truthful and supremely competent don't need to worry about such things.

Interesting, though, that you now admit to having searched every public database for my name. That's quite a task!! Yet you claim you are not obsessed with me. LOLOL How many hours a day would you estimate you spend thinking about me? You really need to control your jealousy. It's not healthy. You just have to come to terms with the fact that I am better than you in every meaningful way.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<efe09306-77cd-4dc7...@googlegroups.com>):

> https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/30333027418/in/dateposted-public/
> (<== articling performance evaluation)

Yes yes yes, I believe we have already conceded that you were a fine clerk.
Good boy.

[BillB]

Still parading your ignorance?

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<d8b9f4bf-791b-4936...@googlegroups.com>):

Just following your lead. Googled it, and read what the experts have to say.
Do you have a problem with that? Do you always find yourself on the wrong
side of the consensus? Maybe it’s you...

[BillB]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<d8b9f4bf-791b-4936...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:16:51 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<efe09306-77cd-4dc7...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/30333027418/in/dateposted-public
> > > > /
> > > > (<== articling performance evaluation)
> > > Yes yes yes, I believe we have already conceded that you were a fine clerk.
> > > Good boy.
> >
> > Still parading your ignorance?
> Just following your lead. Googled it, and read what the experts have to say.
> Do you have a problem with that? Do you always find yourself on the wrong
> side of the consensus? Maybe it’s you...

You did not understand what you read (which is completely understandable given your limited intelligence and education). Law clerks do not represent a multi-billion dollar client in superior courts as I did. There is no consensus (or belief) among the educated that law clerks (a job which, by the way, would be FAR beyond your ability) are the same as articled students.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<724ff573-e4d8-4384...@googlegroups.com>):

I didn’t say “law clerk” now did I? I said you were a fucking clerk.
“Law clerk” has its own meaning, although what you do and what you are
permitted to do are mostly the same, except for who you are working for. You
were a fucking clerk. Don’t be ashamed. But don’t brag about it, either.

[BillB]

LOL..what a moron

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<407270b0-9f6b-4cf9...@googlegroups.com>):

Why are you so ashamed? And just to clear things up a bit, are articling
students allowed to practice law?

[BillB]

I not ashamed for you. I'm just laughing at your total ignorance. It's always good for a laugh.

>And just to clear things up a bit, are articling
> students allowed to practice law?

I'm not sure about the semantics, but this MIGHT help educate you (but I doubt it).

https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/resource-centre/key-resources/ethics-and-professionalism/what-can-a-student-at-law-do/#:~:text=Once%20you%20have%20been%20confirmed%20by%20the%20Law,a%20lawyer%20can%2C%20except%20those%20things%20specifically%20proscribed.

Of course, virtually 100% of articled students of my caliber (and far below that standard) will be fully qualified to practice law in a matter of months anyway. I think I forgot to mention that my bar exam results were the highest in the province.

And no, you would not qualify to work for me in any capacity. Any position with me would require someone capable of learning, which you clearly are not.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 4:44:34 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > ~ lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.
> >
> > Dream of having your education?

~ I said you are not qualified to even dream of having my education, because it would be 100% impossible for someone of your very limited intelligence to attain it. That's just a cold, hard fact.

The cold, hard fact is that my I.Q. is WAY higher than yours. I estimate you at sub-110, which you apparently think is high.

> > You try to change the focus of a conversation to imaginary math errors when you finally realize that the main subject reveals how utterly stupid you are- and the imaginary math errors you whimper about only reveal how ignorant you are of basic math.
> >
> > You repeatedly spell basic English words incorrectly and then fail to convince anyone that it's the fault of a spellchecker.
> >
> > You are often unable to produce a coherent sentence in English.

The load of bullshit below ignored.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 8:01:57 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ I not ashamed for you. I'm just laughing at your total ignorance. It's always good for a laugh.


Did you mean to say, 'I not ashamed for you. I just laughing at your total ignorance. It always good for laugh.'?

Or were you actually trying to say it in English?

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 12:44:34 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 4:44:34 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:46:55 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > ~ lol...who do you think you are kidding, donkey? You aren't even qualified to dream of having my education.
> > >
> > > Dream of having your education?
> ~ I said you are not qualified to even dream of having my education, because it would be 100% impossible for someone of your very limited intelligence to attain it. That's just a cold, hard fact.
>
> The cold, hard fact is that my I.Q. is WAY higher than yours. I estimate you at sub-110, which you apparently think is high.

LOL...what a buffoon. Every single stooge has the same fantasy.

> > > You try to change the focus of a conversation to imaginary math errors when you finally realize that the main subject reveals how utterly stupid you are- and the imaginary math errors you whimper about only reveal how ignorant you are of basic math.
> > >
> > > You repeatedly spell basic English words incorrectly and then fail to convince anyone that it's the fault of a spellchecker.
> > >
> > > You are often unable to produce a coherent sentence in English.
> The load of bullshit below ignored.
> > It seems unrealistic that someone who is "often unable to produce a coherent sentence" could receive a grade of 90% and an academic prize in English at one of the world's top ranked universities. This is another instance where you are not qualified to even dream of matching my ability or achievements (despite your obsession with my typing mistakes, which I could not care less about).
> > > You revel in describing police officers as more criminal than criminals if the criminals are black. You have some kind of a black thing going on in your psyche. Example- referring to a black criminal that walked up to two police officers from behind and shot both of them in the head-
> > > 'I saw the story on Fox News.com They said the shooter acted "without warning or provocation". I was like...WTF?? Have you people been asleep for the last two months? There is a genocide occurring. Black people are fighting a war for their lives with the police.'
> > >
> > And, as usual, I was correct. There were both warnings and provocation. In fact, the theory from the LAPD itself was that the shooting was provoked by the killing Dijon Kizzee , who was shot 16 times after being targeted for a bicycle infraction, of all things (all of which occurred in the context of all the previous unjustified killings of black men by rogue police, including George Floyd's murder).
> > > Having your education couldn't possibly be a dream. That's what's called a nightmare.
> > It would be a dream for you to believe you could ever come anywhere remotely close to equaling my educational attainment.
> > > There's only the slightest possibility that you actually have a degree in law and acquired a license to practice.
> > Once again proving your stupidity and complete lack of common sense.
> >
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/24862880827/in/dateposted-public/ (<== law school yearbook)
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/30333027418/in/dateposted-public/ (<== articling performance evaluation)
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/37636522@N05/51385170221/in/dateposted-public/ (<== call and membership certificate)
> > >And even if you did I doubt that you haven't been disbarred. There must be a reason why you aren't listed as an attorney on any public database.
> > More abject stupidity. As I already informed you, the Law Society of BC's website lists every lawyer who has been disbarred, suspended, or otherwise disciplined. You will not find my name there anywhere. Not only have I not been disbarred, but I have never been the subject of any professional discipline whatsoever. People like me who are 100% honest, truthful and supremely competent don't need to worry about such things.

Oh, look...poor riskytard had to run away from the facts again. LOLOL Just like jerrytard.

> > Interesting, though, that you now admit to having searched every public database for my name. That's quite a task!! Yet you claim you are not obsessed with me. LOLOL How many hours a day would you estimate you spend thinking about me? You really need to control your jealousy. It's not healthy. You just have to come to terms with the fact that I am better than you in every meaningful way.

Ran away again. I guess he's gone to search some more databases for me. LOLOL But he's not obsessed with me. Really!

[BillB]

This is what I've reduced the poor little feller to. Get ready folks, he's going to be scouring every post now for typing errors. LOLOL That just shows you how high his IQ is. He wasn't kidding!

[Splashie]

24

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 17, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<5f87dbf9-c280-4abc...@googlegroups.com>):

So did you article in Manitoba, Alberta, or BC?

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 2:28:20 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ Ran away again. I guess he's gone to search some more databases for me. LOLOL But he's not obsessed with me. Really!

You claimed that you were recognized as a lawyer by an organization and I looked on that website, and only there, to confirm what you said. That took less than 30 seconds. Your name was nowhere in evidence there.

Why do you consider it so unacceptable that someone seeks to confirm something that you're so loudly blabbing about yourself?

Your attempted explanation of why your name wasn't there sounds fishy. I think that's the source of your discomfort rather than your fantasy about an obsession with you. You're obsessed with yourself. That's always been obvious.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 11:09:51 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 2:28:20 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
> ~ Ran away again. I guess he's gone to search some more databases for me. LOLOL But he's not obsessed with me. Really!
>
> You claimed that you were recognized as a lawyer by an organization and I looked on that website, and only there, to confirm what you said.

You need to keep better track of your lies. I know it must be hard when there are so many many of them. You specifically said my name doesn't appear on ANY legal database, which obviously means you searched every one you could find.

>That took less than 30 seconds. Your name was nowhere in evidence there.

And I explained to your ignorant ass why. I also showed you a photo of my call and membership certificate. What's your low-IQ conspiracy theory on that one?

> Why do you consider it so unacceptable that someone seeks to confirm something that you're so loudly blabbing about yourself?

I accept that you (like the other two stooges) are obsessed with every detail of my life, and I understand it is rooted in jealousy. I just find it very weird and creepy, that's all.

> Your attempted explanation of why your name wasn't there sounds fishy.

Only to a complete moron who is fully detached reality. You also made this clearly moronic comment:

"There's only the slightest possibility that you actually have a degree in law and acquired a license to practice. And even if you did I doubt that you haven't been disbarred."

And that was AFTER you were shown a photo of my call and membership certificate. LOLOL Then when I REposted it along with a photo of my graduation entry in my law school yearbook AND my stellar performance evaluation after I completed my articles, you ran away like a little bitch calling it "a load of bullshit." LOLOL
You really do need a psychiatrist. Show him or her all your posts obsessing over me and denying obvious reality. There is help available for people like you and the other two stooges. Projecting your failure in life on others is not a healthy defense mechanism.

> I think that's the source of your discomfort rather than your fantasy about an obsession with you. You're obsessed with yourself. That's always been obvious.

I have no discomfort. Why would I? Are you making up low-IQ stories again?

[BillB]

lol...another stooge obsessed with every minute detail of my life. If you must know, I passed the bar exams in all three jurisdictions, but I articled in Manitoba.

And this is important to you....why?

[VegasJerry]

That's your problem......

> I an embarrassed for you.

Heh. (It don't get no funnier that this....)

> I was right...
> Chauvin was convicted...
> you know nothing about the law....

> Sorry if the truth hurts.

That' why I have you bleeding... LOL

[BillB]

You have me laughing, at you and the other stooge getting cornered in defending this monstrous convicted murderer.

[Splashie]

30

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<222f8b53-c8aa-4614...@googlegroups.com>):

Because I was wondering where I had seen the words ‘working as a clerk
under a lawyer”, concerning articling. This is the link:
https://www.lawyeredu.org/canada.html

Those words appear under the details for 4 provinces, and articling does seem
to be basically the same process in all the provinces. If it’s not, please
tell me how your articling differed from being a clerk as described up there
in Canada.

And BTW, why did it take you so long to get admitted? That was more than two
years after that gushing review you posted. Even if that review was for your
first week on the job, which it wasn’t, articling seems to be only a year
at most. Did you keep flunking the tests?

[BillB]

It appears that's one usage in the Maritime provinces, but it's not at all the type of "clerk" you are referring to.

"Judicial clerks should not be confused with legal clerks (also called "law clerks" in Canada), court clerks, or courtroom deputies who only provide secretarial and administrative support to attorneys and/or judges."

That has absolutely nothing to do with what articling students do. In fact, I had my own administrative assistant and legal secretary when I articled (one of the benefits of working for a multi-billion dollar corporation). Articling students perform the same duties as lawyers, but under the supervision of a qualified principal lawyer. I gave you a comprehensive description of what articling students do....did you bother to read it? Apparently not.

> And BTW, why did it take you so long to get admitted? That was more than two
> years after that gushing review you posted. Even if that review was for your
> first week on the job, which it wasn’t, articling seems to be only a year
> at most. Did you keep flunking the tests?

No, as I disclosed yesterday, I had the highest bar exam scores in the province (commensurate with the rest of my academic career since kindergarten). People like me don't flunk at anything. I was called to the bar in 1994, immediately after I completed my articles.

But the question remains...why are you obsessed with every minute detail of my life? You and the other stooges really need to control your jealousy. Just accept the very plain fact that you have never been in my league, and you never will be. It's nothing to be ashamed of, and it doesn't mean you are barred from living a perfectly adequate life. Just make the most of the limited natural abilities your genetics and environment bestowed on you. Be happy with what you've got. I just got lucky. I had two hyper-intelligent parents.

[VegasJerry]

> You have me laughing....

No, I have you bleeding.

> at you and the other stooge getting cornered in defending this monstrous convicted murderer.

Cornered? Where? Here, I'll rub you sore nose in it again:

"Me, and the court, and the defense, and the Chief of Police, and expert forensic witness
PROVED him wrong. So EVERY TIME I rub his nose in his fuckup, he drops that thread and,
like here, starts a new one with new lies."

And that leaves you bleeding.

LOL!

[VegasJerry]

Yet you STILL can't show:

Name, address, link, number, owner of that law firm that hired you as a lawyer because they loved you.

lol

[BillB]

Sure, jerrytard, that's why you have snipped and run from the fact-check that proves you wrong FIVE TIMES now (and those are just the ones I remember). You are just a senile old coward, and an RGP laughing stock. Deal with it.

Now go have your afternoon snack. I think your nurse might be serving that pear baby food you love so much.

[BillB]

I CAN, but there is no logical reason for it. This has already been explained to you at least twice. I do not want a senile, incoherent old drunk calling my ex-colleagues to check up on me. That would be embarrassing for me and, more importantly, a colossal waste of their extremely valuable time.

[Splashie]

He literally said he passed the bar exams in all three provinces, and that he articled in Manitoba, therefore it is logical to infer that he was called to the bar in Manitoba first (1994) and in B.C. later (1996).

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<dff94768-159c-498b...@googlegroups.com>):

I said nothing about judicial or legal clerks, I said fucking clerk. You
posted a gushing review, and it’s clear that it was in your earliest days
at that firm. You were doing nothing but what a clerk of any sort would do at
that time. If you want to brag about a performance review, post something
from when you did law. Or better yet, try to think about why you would post
anything of the sort in the first place.

> That has absolutely nothing to do with what articling students do. In fact, I
> had my own administrative assistant and legal secretary when I articled (one
> of the benefits of working for a multi-billion dollar corporation). Articling
> students perform the same duties as lawyers,

Not when they first start.

> but under the supervision of a
> qualified principal lawyer. I gave you a comprehensive description of what
> articling students do....did you bother to read it? Apparently not.
>
> > And BTW, why did it take you so long to get admitted? That was more than two
> > years after that gushing review you posted. Even if that review was for your
> > first week on the job, which it wasn’t, articling seems to be only a year
> > at most. Did you keep flunking the tests?
>
> No, as I disclosed yesterday, I had the highest bar exam scores in the
> province (commensurate with the rest of my academic career since
> kindergarten). People like me don't flunk at anything. I was called to the
> bar in 1994, immediately after I completed my articles.

The call cert you posted is from 96. I’m sure you can see where the
confusion lies.

> But the question remains...why are you obsessed with every minute detail of
> my life?

It’s a shame that you don’t have the awareness to figure that out. It’s
related to why people stare at train wrecks. We’re just gawkers. You are a
grown man in your late 50’s, you have many claimed accomplishments and
abilities, yet you are down here playing in the mud with people who you
can’t stop referring to as your inferiors, and inferior by a long shot.
Think about that. Why in the fuck would anyone in your claimed position do
that? I knew a cocktail waitress in LV that certainly had an ego, just like
you, but also had serious self esteem issues. Those things can coexist. You
are clearly a narcissist, but you seem to have a need to convince everyone on
the planet that you are special. Or do you just want company? I can believe
that you have no *real* friends. I don’t see why anyone would want to be
your friend. You might be clever and glib, but you’re just one of the mean
girls, nothing more. People tire of that, and they move on.

[BillB]

It's endlessly funny how you have absolutely no embarrassment or compunction about pontificating on things you know absolutely nothing about. That's why I promoted you to lead stooge.

> > That has absolutely nothing to do with what articling students do. In fact, I
> > had my own administrative assistant and legal secretary when I articled (one
> > of the benefits of working for a multi-billion dollar corporation). Articling
> > students perform the same duties as lawyers,
> Not when they first start.
> > but under the supervision of a
> > qualified principal lawyer. I gave you a comprehensive description of what
> > articling students do....did you bother to read it? Apparently not.
> >
> > > And BTW, why did it take you so long to get admitted? That was more than two
> > > years after that gushing review you posted. Even if that review was for your
> > > first week on the job, which it wasn’t, articling seems to be only a year
> > > at most. Did you keep flunking the tests?
> >
> > No, as I disclosed yesterday, I had the highest bar exam scores in the
> > province (commensurate with the rest of my academic career since
> > kindergarten). People like me don't flunk at anything. I was called to the
> > bar in 1994, immediately after I completed my articles.
> The call cert you posted is from 96. I’m sure you can see where the
> confusion lies.

Yes, it lies in your low-IQ brain.

> > But the question remains...why are you obsessed with every minute detail of
> > my life?

> It’s a shame that you don’t have the awareness to figure that out. It’s
> related to why people stare at train wrecks. We’re just gawkers. You are a
> grown man in your late 50’s, you have many claimed accomplishments and
> abilities, yet you are down here playing in the mud with people who you
> can’t stop referring to as your inferiors, and inferior by a long shot.
> Think about that. Why in the fuck would anyone in your claimed position do
> that? I knew a cocktail waitress in LV that certainly had an ego, just like
> you, but also had serious self esteem issues.

LOL...I'm sure I must have some faults somewhere, but low self-esteem certainly isn't one of them.

Those things can coexist. You
> are clearly a narcissist, but you seem to have a need to convince everyone on
> the planet that you are special. Or do you just want company? I can believe
> that you have no *real* friends.

You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly bizarre.

I don’t see why anyone would want to be
> your friend. You might be clever and glib, but you’re just one of the mean
> girls, nothing more. People tire of that, and they move on.

No, I am a very kind person. Always have been. You aren't very good at reading people.

[VegasJerry]

> Sure, jerrytard, that's why you have snipped and run from the fact-check that proves you wrong..

Heh, WRONG again dipshit, It does NOT, and you can’t show where it does.

Now I’ve reduced poor BackupBillB to the desperation of a presumed “fact-check” that states THEIR OPINION that the unseen parts of the video MUST be with Officer Chauvin knee on Floyd neck and ONLY when the video starts, does Chauvin’s knee quickly move to Floyd’s back. Heh, now THAT is BackupBillBs desperation Backup.

THAT is how I’ve reduced this sniveling, lying, embarrassed, pretend lawyer - who cannot get unstuck from his tar baby story of - “I saw a video with his knee on his neck and THAT proves it’s murder.”

Come on, BackupBillB; show us that “PROOF.”

(And off he goes to Run, Hide, then start ANOTHER lying dodging thread…

(Heh, I just fucking LOVE embarrassing this fool….)

[VegasJerry]

> I CAN, but .....

"KNEW YOU COULD'T" (R)

LOL!

(God DAMN this is fun....)

> there is no logical reason...
> This has already been alibied...
> I do not want a senile...
> embarrassing for me...

No shit... Heh

[BillB]

QUICK, JERRYTARD, SNIP IT AGAIN!!

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/09/instagram-posts/instagram-post-ignores-full-floyd-video-falsely-cl/

There are literally HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of sources that confirm everything said there. Jerrytard is far too busy worshipping a convicted murderer to read any of them. What a putz. By the way, how was your baby food? Yummy, right?

[BillB]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 7:04:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

.>You

> posted a gushing review, and it’s clear that it was in your earliest days
> at that firm. You were doing nothing but what a clerk of any sort would do at
> that time.

>>Articling >> students perform the same duties as lawyers,

> Not when they first start.

I know you have endless weird and fantastical fantasies about me (and I do understand why), but I'm curious how you came up with that particular one. How is it "clear" to you that the review was done in my "earliest days" at that firm (which was actually the legal department of a Crown corporation). There seems to be an awful lot of things that are "clear" to you that have absolutely no basis in reality.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<28d6e4a0-e59b-47c6...@googlegroups.com>):

> You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly
> bizarre.

I guess you missed that part about “train wreck”. Your behavior is truly
weird. You could be described simply as “an asshole”, but it goes much
deeper. You should be proud that more than “asshole” is needed to
describe someone of your stature.

[BillB]

I'm an "asshole" and "weird" for defending myself from constant and baseless personal attacks by the three stooges? I guess you didn't notice that I am entirely polite to people who don't personally attack me?

Why didn't you answer my question? How was it "clear" to you that my performance review was done in the "earliest days" at "that firm.?" Are you running away from that claim now?

[Dutch]

You're no peach yourself.

[BTSinAustin]

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:36:02 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> https://www.news957.com/2021/08/16/minnesota-prosecutors-oppose-releasing-chauvin-juror-names/

>
> "Prosecutors asked a judge Monday to reject a request by a coalition of media outlets to unseal the names of the jurors who convicted ex-Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin of murder in the death of George Floyd, saying it could subject them to harassment and make it harder to seat a jury for the trial of three codefendants next year.
> ....
>
> "Attorney Leita Walker said the media and public have a right to information about a jury, and that anonymous juries are rare and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as in cases involving gangs or organized crime."
>
> Uh, Leita, how does that not apply to the Minneapolis Police Department?
>

> Obviously, the jurors were under tremendous pressure to acquit Chauvin, faced with the wrath of the police, violently unhinged right-wingers (like the ones who stormed the Capitol), and other assorted low-IQ nutcases who think it's perfectly okay to murder a handcuffed suspect over an alleged petty crime (if he's black). The jurors are still in grave danger from these imbeciles. I hope the judge has the common sense to extend their protection.


It's all just fallout from the "Got ya" media environment we are in. Find something on someone, anything!

Perfect example: Saw an article today about the guy that is taking over Jeopardy. Some small media outlet reviewed all 43(?) of his podcasts to see if they could "Get him" and they did, he had to fake apologize for some sexist remarks on a comedy podcast FFS.

Just more of the same.

Now imagine if Chauvin had been acquitted. Would you be up in arms if the press was trying to out the jurors?

[BillB]

I didn't know they had settled on a Jeopardy host. I thought Anderson Cooper and Joe Buck both did a good job.

Honestly, it is very difficult for me to imagine Chauvin being acquitted under any circumstances, because the evidence against him buried him about 100 feet deep. But I wouldn't want the jurors outed under any circumstances. Not in an explosive case like this, unless there were some evidence of outright fraud.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<6ca6d056-99c8-45bd...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<28d6e4a0-e59b-47c6...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly
> > > bizarre.
> > I guess you missed that part about “train wreck”. Your behavior is truly
> > weird. You could be described simply as “an asshole”, but it goes much
> > deeper. You should be proud that more than “asshole” is needed to
> > describe someone of your stature.
>
> I'm an "asshole" and "weird" for defending myself from constant and baseless
> personal attacks by the three stooges?

Huh? Where did I say that? You’re an asshole for sure, but it has nothing
to do with “defending yourself”. You’re an offensive asshole, not
defensive.

> I guess you didn't notice that I am
> entirely polite to people who don't personally attack me?

Like Dutch?

> Why didn't you answer my question? How was it "clear" to you that my
> performance review was done in the "earliest days" at "that firm.?" Are you
> running away from that claim now?

Nope. When was it done? You do remind me of some 3d grader running home to
mommy, yelling every step of the way, “mommy mommy I got a gold star!!!”
Why are you so determined to impress a small group of people who don’t know
you, and who don’t want to know you, and who you don’t know and never
will? You really are a freak show.

[Splashie]

Executive producer Michael Richards (no, not Cosmo Kramer) was named the permanent host. The article to which Brian is referring was published on the Ringer, basically Richards is your garden variety sleazebag who's been named in lawsuits stemming from his time as a producer on The Price Is Right as well as making the inappropriate comments towards his co-host and his assistant on his podcast. https://www.theringer.com/tv/2021/8/18/22631299/mike-richards-jeopardy-host-search-process-past-comments

The more interesting details appear to be how he got the job in the first place, he apparently sabotaged Ken Jennings (who most people thought was Trebek's hand picked successor) by refusing to be flexible in a taping date and hosting those shows himself, and some of the celebrity guest hosts by giving them directions without disclosing that he himself was a candidate for the job.

Michael

[BillB]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<6ca6d056-99c8-45bd...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<28d6e4a0-e59b-47c6...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly
> > > > bizarre.
> > > I guess you missed that part about “train wreck”. Your behavior is truly
> > > weird. You could be described simply as “an asshole”, but it goes much
> > > deeper. You should be proud that more than “asshole” is needed to
> > > describe someone of your stature.
> >
> > I'm an "asshole" and "weird" for defending myself from constant and baseless
> > personal attacks by the three stooges?
> Huh? Where did I say that? You’re an asshole for sure, but it has nothing
> to do with “defending yourself”. You’re an offensive asshole, not
> defensive.

I know what you find "offensive:" That I like people of color and that I acknowledge the devasting effects of brutal and long-term systemic racism.

> > I guess you didn't notice that I am
> > entirely polite to people who don't personally attack me?

> Like Dutch?

Yes, I'm polite to Dutch. I'm polite to Hankins. I'm polite to BTS. I'm polite to Alim. And on and on. Yes, we have our good natured snipes against one another, but I destroy them like I do you stooges.

> > Why didn't you answer my question? How was it "clear" to you that my
> > performance review was done in the "earliest days" at "that firm.?" Are you
> > running away from that claim now?


> Nope. When was it done?

Why don't you just tell me how it was "clear" to you? If it was "clear" you have had a reason to believe that, right? Are you a rational being? I have my doubts.

You do remind me of some 3d grader running home to
> mommy, yelling every step of the way, “mommy mommy I got a gold star!!!”
> Why are you so determined to impress a small group of people who don’t know
> you, and who don’t want to know you, and who you don’t know and never
> will? You really are a freak show.

I posted to refute specific and absurd accusations by all the stooges. It took me 20 years to do so. I can tell you don't like being proven wrong and humiliated over and over again at all. I understand. Try not talking out your ass so much.

[BillB]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> Yes, I'm polite to Dutch. I'm polite to Hankins. I'm polite to BTS. I'm polite to Alim. And on and on. Yes, we have our good natured snipes against one another, but I destroy them like I do you stooges.

Sorry, meant to to type DON'T destroy them.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<06c15209-a785-4598...@googlegroups.com>):

Sure you did.

[BillB]

Aren't you going to tell me how it was "clear" to you? I can't be the only one who is curious about your supernatural insights.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<781025b7-982a-4cdc...@googlegroups.com>):

When was it?

[BillB]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<781025b7-982a-4cdc...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:49:31 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<06c15209-a785-4598...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'm polite to Dutch. I'm polite to Hankins. I'm polite to BTS. I'm
> > > > > polite to Alim. And on and on. Yes, we have our good natured snipes
> > > > > against
> > > > > one another, but I destroy them like I do you stooges.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, meant to to type DON'T destroy them.
> > > Sure you did.
> >
> > Aren't you going to tell me how it was "clear" to you? I can't be the only
> > one who is curious about your supernatural insights.
> When was it?

Why do you keep dodging my question? You said you were clear. Why would you have to ask me when it was when it is already clear to you? How were you clear? All of a sudden you don't seem so clear after all. This is a distinct pattern with you. You habitually talk out your ass and say you "know" things when you don't know shit. You should really work on that if you hope to have ANY credibility whatsoever, although it might be a little late for that.

[VegasJerry]

*** Knew you couldn't show ***

> > Now I’ve reduced poor BackupBillB to the desperation of a presumed “fact-check”
> > that states THEIR OPINION that the unseen parts of the video MUST be with Officer
> > Chauvin knee on Floyd neck and ONLY when the video starts, does Chauvin’s knee
> > quickly move to Floyd’s back. Heh, now THAT is BackupBillBs desperation Backup.
> >
> > THAT is how I’ve reduced this sniveling, lying, embarrassed, pretend lawyer - who
> > cannot get unstuck from his tar baby story of - “I saw a video with his knee on his
> > neck and THAT proves it’s murder.”
> >
> > Come on, BackupBillB; show us that “PROOF.”

*** Knew you couldn't show ***

> > (And off he goes to Run, Hide, then start ANOTHER lying dodging thread…
> >
> > (Heh, I just fucking LOVE embarrassing this fool….)

> QUICK, JERRYTARD, SNIP IT AGAIN!!

See?

> https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/09/instagram-posts/instagram-post-ignores-full-floyd-video-falsely-cl/

And it Politifact says it themselves... (Heh)

> There are literally HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of sources that confirm everything said there...

(Heh) "Hundreds 'OR' thousands of sources?"

*** Knew you couldn't show ***

> Jerrytard is far too busy worshipping....
> What a putz....

> By the way, how was your baby food? Yummy, right?

Heh. And off he runs.....

(DAMN this is fun....)

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<28d6e4a0-e59b-47c6...@googlegroups.com>):
> > You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly
> > bizarre.

> I guess you missed that part about “train wreck”.

Well, I called it sniveling. But in any case, he whimpers, whines, dodges, lies, deceives
and refuses to *** SHOW *** anything.

> Your behavior is truly weird.....

Heh...

[BillB]

Whhat it says is your repeated claims are "FALSE" and that Chauvin had his knee of Floyd's neck for at least 8 minutes, and they quote the Chief's testimony that confirms that FACT.

> > There are literally HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of sources that confirm everything said there...
>
> (Heh) "Hundreds 'OR' thousands of sources?"

Yes, hundreds or thousands. In other words, too many to count. And you have ignored all of them because they interfere with your worship of the murderer.

>
> *** Knew you couldn't show ***

I did show, and you are STILL in denial.

> > Jerrytard is far too busy worshipping....
> > What a putz....
> > By the way, how was your baby food? Yummy, right?
> Heh. And off he runs.....

> (DAMN this is fun....)

It's fun being humiliated and making a fool of yourself every day? You have an odd sense of fun, but you share that with the other stooges.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<e9e0633d-eafb-4e8e...@googlegroups.com>):

I thought you finished school in 94. The tone, to me, sounded like a “good
boy” for a child. And something about familiarizing yourself with all your
files is not something I’d expect to hear after several months. The next
review was in 12 months, and articling is only about 12 months. If they
intended to convert you to an attorney, and that was coming up, there would
be another review sooner.

Fire away, child. Be sure to tell me how smart you are, and to call me
stupid.

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 10:33:42 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<28d6e4a0-e59b-47c6...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > You have a seemingly endless number of fantasies about my life. It's truly
> > > bizarre.
> > I guess you missed that part about “train wreck”. Your behavior is truly
> > weird. You could be described simply as “an asshole”, but it goes much
> > deeper. You should be proud that more than “asshole” is needed to
> > describe someone of your stature.

> I'm an "asshole" and "weird" for defending myself from constant and baseless
> personal attacks by the three stooges?

Yea, except YOU'RE the stooge and none of it is baseless...


> I guess ...

Yea, we know...

> you didn't notice that I am entirely polite to people who don't personally attack me?

How does "Entirely polite" differ from just Polite?
(This is so much fun...)

< more whining and dodging ....>

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:

> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:36:02 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > https://www.news957.com/2021/08/16/minnesota-prosecutors-oppose-releasing-chauvin-juror-names/
> >
> > "Prosecutors asked a judge Monday to reject a request by a coalition of media outlets to unseal the names of the jurors who convicted ex-Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin of murder in the death of George Floyd, saying it could subject them to harassment and make it harder to seat a jury for the trial of three codefendants next year.
> > ....
> >
> > "Attorney Leita Walker said the media and public have a right to information about a jury, and that anonymous juries are rare and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as in cases involving gangs or organized crime."
> >
> > Uh, Leita, how does that not apply to the Minneapolis Police Department?

See how BackupBillB dodges, whines, lies and fabricates; all while refusing to SHOW anything?

> > Obviously, the jurors were under tremendous pressure to acquit Chauvin

Then you should have no trouble showing this...

> Now imagine if Chauvin had been acquitted. Would you be up in arms if
> the press was trying to out the jurors?

Oh, oh! You asked BackupBillB a question....

[BillB]

Holy crap, you are as bad as riskytard at arithmetic. You knew that I said I was called to the bar in 1994, and you also knew that articling takes about a year, so when did I graduate law school? This shouldn't be that hard. I think even riskytard is capable of figuring this one out! The date on the review indicates it was done in May, 94. Further I already said it was done at the end of my articles.

And how is the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar corporation putting it on record that I am one of the strongest articling students he has ever seen (in 30 years) anything like talking to a child. It was because of this evaluation that I was offered a permanent position even though there was a hiring freeze in effect.

This is just another example among dozens where you THINK you are "clear" on something when in fact you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:58:38 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:36:02 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > https://www.news957.com/2021/08/16/minnesota-prosecutors-oppose-releasing-chauvin-juror-names/
> > >
> > > "Prosecutors asked a judge Monday to reject a request by a coalition of media outlets to unseal the names of the jurors who convicted ex-Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin of murder in the death of George Floyd, saying it could subject them to harassment and make it harder to seat a jury for the trial of three codefendants next year.
> > > ....
> > >
> > > "Attorney Leita Walker said the media and public have a right to information about a jury, and that anonymous juries are rare and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as in cases involving gangs or organized crime."
> > >
> > > Uh, Leita, how does that not apply to the Minneapolis Police Department?
> > >
> > > Obviously, the jurors were under tremendous pressure to acquit Chauvin, faced with the wrath of the police, violently unhinged right-wingers (like the ones who stormed the Capitol), and other assorted low-IQ nutcases who think it's perfectly okay to murder a handcuffed suspect over an alleged petty crime (if he's black). The jurors are still in grave danger from these imbeciles. I hope the judge has the common sense to extend their protection.
> >
> >
> > It's all just fallout from the "Got ya" media environment we are in. Find something on someone, anything!
> >
> > Perfect example: Saw an article today about the guy that is taking over Jeopardy. Some small media outlet reviewed all 43(?) of his podcasts to see if they could "Get him" and they did, he had to fake apologize for some sexist remarks on a comedy podcast FFS.
> >
> > Just more of the same.
> >
> > Now imagine if Chauvin had been acquitted. Would you be up in arms if the press was trying to out the jurors?
> I didn't know they had settled on a Jeopardy host. I thought Anderson Cooper and Joe Buck both did a good job.
>

> Honestly...

(Heh. BackupBillB using the word,"honstly.")

> it is very difficult for me to imagine Chauvin being acquitted under any circumstances

That's because, as I've shown, you don't know shit about the law.

> because the evidence against him buried him about 100 feet deep.

Heh... Like the Video you keep dodging that PROVED his knee was NOT on Floyd's neck?
Or the autopsy that PROVED his knee was NOT on Floyd's neck?
Or the testimony of the Chief of Police confirming that his knee was NOT on Floye's neck?
Or the Chief Pathologist's testimony confirming that Floyd continues to breathe?

THAT evidence? What the fuck evidence are YOU talking about? You're incorrect interpertation
of the first video?

(I love the smell of bitch slapping BackupBillB in the morning).

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 10:23:04 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

Then ONCE AGAIN, "You show have no trouble showing us."

Otherwise, I’ve PROVED, it is I that have destroyed you.

You Run & Hide, every time I mention your employment and your error where you misinterpreted a video.

You’re stuck kid… And I’m enjoying every minute of it….

> I can tell you don't like being proven wrong and humiliated over and over again at all.

But that’s what I’ve done to you….

[BillB]

Everything you said is 100% false. I have proven it, as have others. You live is some sort of dementia-induced alternate universe. You are going to worship the murderer no matter what. You are a sick fuck. There is no other possible interpretation.

[VegasJerry]

NO, it does NOT. And I've PROVED that it doesn't by showing THEIR statement.

Lying is this fool's last refuge....

> > > There are literally HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of sources that confirm everything said there...
> >
> > (Heh) "Hundreds 'OR' thousands of sources?"

> Yes, hundreds or thousands. In other words, too many to count.

So when I asked you to show?

> > *** Knew you couldn't show ***

> I did show,

NO, you did NOT.

> > > Jerrytard is far too busy worshipping....
> > > What a putz....
> > > By the way, how was your baby food? Yummy, right?

> > Heh. And off he runs.....
>
> > (DAMN this is fun....)

> It's fun being humiliated...

No wonder you keep coming back to us for more...

> You have an odd sense of fun, but you share that with the other stooges.

Yep...

[VegasJerry]

Heh. Do I own this bitch or what?

> I have proven it... (Which he obviously hasn't)
> You live is some sort of dementia-induced alternate universe...
> You worship the murderer...
> You are a sick fuck....

Heh, like I said, "Do I own this bitch or what?"

[Splashie]

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:55:49 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:

> Heh, like I said, "Do I own this bitch or what?"

What.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007159353/george-floyd-arrest-death-video.html

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<b7b0dd14-9ebd-4cd1...@googlegroups.com>):

That just goes to show - I hope you’re sitting down - that I don’t keep
records of everything you say, or anything you say really, and don’t much
care about anything you say, and rarely believe what you say. I am here to
provide the hate you crave.

> and you also knew that articling takes about a
> year, so when did I graduate law school? This shouldn't be that hard. I think
> even riskytard is capable of figuring this one out! The date on the review
> indicates it was done in May, 94. Further I already said it was done at the
> end of my articles.
>
> And how is the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar corporation putting
> it on record that I am one of the strongest articling students he has ever
> seen (in 30 years) anything like talking to a child. It was because of this
> evaluation that I was offered a permanent position even though there was a
> hiring freeze in effect.
>
> This is just another example among dozens where you THINK you are "clear" on
> something when in fact you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are
> talking about.

Wow, this from a guy who sweats a little in a heat wave, and blames it on
climate change. Republican-made climate change. Are you clear on that?

[BillB]

Stop trying to cover up your stupidity with lame excuses. This is YESTERDAY we are talking about, and YOU said that articling takes about a year. You also responded to a post where I told you I was called in 1994. What is it with you fools that you just CAN NOT admit you made a stupid mistake? And why would it be CLEAR to you if you pay no attention to anything? Even your deliberate lies make no sense on their face.

> > and you also knew that articling takes about a
> > year, so when did I graduate law school? This shouldn't be that hard. I think
> > even riskytard is capable of figuring this one out! The date on the review
> > indicates it was done in May, 94. Further I already said it was done at the
> > end of my articles.
> >
> > And how is the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar corporation putting
> > it on record that I am one of the strongest articling students he has ever
> > seen (in 30 years) anything like talking to a child. It was because of this
> > evaluation that I was offered a permanent position even though there was a
> > hiring freeze in effect.
> >
> > This is just another example among dozens where you THINK you are "clear" on
> > something when in fact you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are
> > talking about.

> Wow, this from a guy who sweats a little in a heat wave, and blames it on
> climate change. Republican-made climate change. Are you clear on that?

I am clear that an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence supports the fact that Earth is warming because of human activity, and that the cumulative consequences over the coming decades will range from "very bad indeed" to "devastating." I am also very clear that Republicans have disingenuously denied the science and done everything they can to block mitigation for decades, including confusing and conning gullible victims like you. Finally, I am very clear that even if there were only a 10% chance that all these scientists are right (which is an absurdly low probability I am using just for the sake of argument), then it is IMMORAL not to address the problem as best we can. We have no right to risk the planet's livability for future generations just so we can make a quick buck and live in a state of slightly increased luxury.

Are YOU clear on all that? Because you were certainly clear about when my performance review was done, even though it was plainly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that you were wrong.

[Dutch]

Nobody with any integrity or decency tries to "out" jurors. That is
right up there with trying to overturn the results of a free and fair
election.

[Splashie]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/30/donald-trump-doj-officials-2020-election-memos-house-oversight

Michael

[VegasJerry]

But then a surprise video, a witness recanting, expert court testimony and an autopsy proved different.

[BTSinAustin]

And right up there with "got ya" journalists that spend all day looking for 20 year old tweets. Must feel so good to out them and get them fired right?

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 19, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<97e34b22-1270-42f5...@googlegroups.com>):

Does that give you a better idea of how much I give a fuck about what you
say?

> and YOU said that articling takes about a year. You
> also responded to a post where I told you I was called in 1994.

More proof of how I hang on your every word.

>
> > Wow, this from a guy who sweats a little in a heat wave, and blames it on
> > climate change. Republican-made climate change. Are you clear on that?
>
> I am clear that an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of scientific
> evidence supports the fact that Earth is warming because of human activity,
> and that the cumulative consequences over the coming decades will range from
> "very bad indeed" to "devastating." I am also very clear that Republicans
> have disingenuously denied the science and done everything they can to block
> mitigation for decades, including confusing and conning gullible victims like
> you. Finally, I am very clear that even if there were only a 10% chance that
> all these scientists are right (which is an absurdly low probability I am
> using just for the sake of argument), then it is IMMORAL not to address the
> problem as best we can. We have no right to risk the planet's livability for
> future generations just so we can make a quick buck and live in a state of
> slightly increased luxury.
>
> Are YOU clear on all that? Because you were certainly clear about when my
> performance review was done, even though it was plainly obvious to anyone
> with two brain cells to rub together that you were wrong.

What I am certainly clear on is your naive, wide-eyed trust in anything that
you can think is science for the smart folks. Smart folks like you. Another
words, dumb folks. The only consensus is that human activity is having some
effect on climate. That’s it. Nothing about severe weather events
increasing because of climate change. But you just go on “knowing”
things. You are very smart. Repeat that a few thousand times, like you do
every day.

[BillB]

I think we've already established exactly how much your clarity is worth. Nothing. You are nothing but an uneducated, ignorant fool. You've gone through life that way, and you will die that way. Wallow in it.

[Bill Vanek]

On Aug 20, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<cb220a75-aa49-43bf...@googlegroups.com>):

Aren’t you forgetting a couple of things? “I’m smart, you’re
stupid”? “Am not, you are!!!”? Have you lost your will to live? Can I
help with something?

[BillB]

Are you clear on all that? LOL