contextplease

Attorney. Hater. In that order. Sometimes the order changes.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@rickyC1990 @mymixtapez I hate to break this to you, but they don’t practice every single week of the year. So no, it’s not almost $300,000.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@GreenRanger17 @McDonalds What other lawsuit(s) are you referencing. If it’s the hot coffee, one against McDonald’s, that lawsuit was completely warranted.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@cryptothyroid @volcrushed Getting shot because of the first amendment technically works here, because I could say something that could get me shot. However, I think you were thinking of the second amendment.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@ArabellaBabyxxx @AngryVeteran73 @libsoftiktok Being killed because of their sexuality is a good thing ?

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@StreaksAzul69 @libsoftiktok You typed this out and hit post

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@ProjectConstitu @MrsErikaKirk I disagree with her on politics and didn’t care for Charlie’s but that woman doesn’t owe you a damn thing

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@ZelSnea Correct, a jury in a civil trial believed the preponderance of the evidence they were presented with showed that Trump sexually abused her.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@G0dsDescendant @RandPaul Yeah they can’t do that so

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@ZelSnea @Vote4Dick2028 It says “yes” under the did Trump sexually abuse question.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@RubberDuckyDWG @Vote4Dick2028 @TacoforFive1 A preponderance of the evidence is not “basically nothing”. It’s “more likely than not”, which is not easy to prove.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@MAGAMAHACindy Why would the jury ever hear questions about who was paying her legal fees? It’s completely irrelevant and not a fact at issue.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@AlexRageAndLove @jgcarey80 @MorePerfectUS Again, the corporation is its own separate entity. It is separate from the members of the board. It is not an “additional vote”, it’s one vote allowed under the law.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@jgcarey80 @AlexRageAndLove @MorePerfectUS The board members would have to individually be residents and own property to vote, but yes. As for the LLC’s, again, they would have to actually hold title to property, but it is possible and I’ve noted many times that loophole needs to be addressed.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@Fargengru1 @GreyCat53005588 @PonderOrbExe @MorePerfectUS The state of Delaware, the *higher authority*, drafted the city’s charter which allows for the voting. You are a dumbass.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@BearsfordJohn @Newsforce You and I agree on that completely

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@Adumb00000007 @jgcarey80 @MorePerfectUS Read the Citizens United Supreme Court case, then get back to me. “Sure”.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@jgcarey80 @mrqbtw @MorePerfectUS No sir, the corporation casts one vote, whatever the board decides it the single vote cast. Theoretically, if those subsidiary LLC’s actually did own a piece of a parcel of the land as tenants in common, say 100 of them, your hypothetical could come true.

[contextplease @urcontextplease]

@Fargengru1 @GreyCat53005588 @PonderOrbExe @MorePerfectUS First off, citizenship is required for *statewide* elections. This involved a municipality within the state. Second, I couldn’t care less what their website lists, the website it not a statute or case law, I’m not gonna cite the website in court my man.