I've decided that I will not be spouting off an uninformed, kneejerk opinion on a topic I don't have enough information about. Instead I shall cast shame on the idiots who do, and bring further confusion to everyone.

We as a people have been defanged not only by being fed wheelbarrows full of raw unmitigated horseshit, but even the knowledge of where to go to find this information has been buried beneath obscuring layers of horseshit thicker than the planet's crust.
We do not live in a democracy, whose vital functions require a freeflow of information much like pure capitalism requires a completely informed consumer populace. We instead live in an oligopoly of knowledge, where important facts we need to know are denied to us and hoarded away
Much like how we do not live under true capitalism as knowledge we need to make informed decisions as consumers is locked away and hidden behind thicc layers of legal documents, denying us knowledge of our rights under the rules of commerce we allegedly agreed to.
This is how we are denied our rights. By denying us knowledge of our rights, and then by denying us pathways to seek said knowledge, and if not removing them then hiding them within websites hosted on fucking geocities servers and javascript written by lowest bidder.
This is how, then, we are denied even the essential knowledge of what to expect from our political process.

This is not intentional, I hope. It is often a joke in legislatures that a bill is called 'immaculate conception', in that no one knows where the fuck it came from.
I have tried to trace the origins of many harmful bills no one has heard of. To my best knowledge, these bills are randomly dropped in committees, no one knows who writes them, they are passed by committee so committee looks like it did something, then attached to bigger bill.
These bigger bills are often of some relative import, and then they are passed. Then said smaller bills are forgotten about, and sometimes passed several times in varying forms, previous versions utterly ignored until stumbled upon in legal arguments brought before judges.
Then big brained legal scholars who make money arguing over these exact cases declare 'legal redundancy is good!', thus ensuring work continues to exist for them untangling these redundancies.

But you asked question, and I have meandered. So I shall provide a more concise answer
How optimistic am I about the election cases going to SCOTUS?

I do not fucking know.

I have no way of knowing.

What I do know is that NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS.

NOT THE LAWYERS.

NOT THE JUDGES.

NOT THE REPORTERS.

NOT EVEN SCOTUS.

NO ONE HAS A GODDAMN CLUE ANYMORE.

More from Court

1/It seems apparent that the rulings in my case & was the Travis judiciary has allowed/ignored us related to the fear/coercion of #AlexJones and of his audience and employees who harassJudges & jurors.

.@FBI pls investigate the 3.07 violations, donations & defamation/slander..


2/I am aware that such coercion & perception has had real impact on my children’s lives & these cases Alex files against me.

Alex’s counsel has threatened me “accidentally” & tells my representation & others lies to coerce them to stay on team good-ol-boy$.

3/Why doesn’t the Court protect my kids? I filed a Temporary Restraining Order before the Thanksgiving that any judge should immediately grant: #AlexJones publicly intoxicated/getting wasted while he is enjoined (disallowed to) drink while he has my kids. The Court must fear him

4/No judge may be persuaded by coercion or benefits of ruling the way their main donors demand. No litigant can coerce judges or witnesses. Witness tampering very clear, documented by probative evidence as fraud in Alex’s lawsuits against me. .@fbi investigate pls
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.

Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.


First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.

It appeared an overtly political decision.


Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.

A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.


On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.


The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.

The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”

Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.

You May Also Like