Conquer Club

Hillary Clinton supporters are learning there are consequences to their irresponsible decision making in voting for Clinton.

- The new tax reform bill which just passed the House of Representatives would eliminate deductions for state income tax payments above a certain threshold, targeted to mean that - while decent Americans will get tax cuts - the tax cuts will be financed by an effective tax increase on citizens of California, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York ... all states that voted for Hillary!

- A NastyWoman™ in Dallas is facing a criminal charge of Disorderly Conduct after putting a sticker on her vehicle which demeaned the majesty of the Presidency.

- The shitshow state of Washington has been humiliated by U.S. Navy aerial flyovers in which giant penises are skywritten over it.

Meanwhile, all their leading celebrity supporters are being jailed or marginalized for sex crimes. Gonna be a long eight years forever for Clinton supporters.

Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

Imagine how much Trump would be able to get done if he didn't have to spend 70-80% of his time fighting a Democrat guerrilla insurrection.

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest

It's fun to have dreams, like that there's a jury in Texas that would award more than $1 to NastyWoman™. Besides, how was she wrongfully arrested? In New York, at least, it's apparently illegal to use profanity "with the intent to cause public annoyance." I'm sure Texas has a similar statute.

NastyWoman™ is going to jail.

mrswdk wrote:Imagine how much Trump would be able to get done if he didn't have to spend 70-80% of his time fighting a Democrat guerrilla insurrection.

What are they gonna insurrect with? They don't believe in firearms, they don't control any branch of government, and their unofficial leaders are all being sidelined from the civic conversation as they defend themselves from sex crime allegations.

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

patches70 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

The warrant being wrong? This ain't rocket science dude.

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

Wow! So now suddenly Duk is championing free speech? I don't know If I should feel relieved or disgusted?

inb4 sorethot's confusion regarding free speech.

Oh wait, damn, he was too quick this time.

-TG

waiting for the snow flakes to come out now,lmfao

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

The warrant being wrong? This ain't rocket science dude.

Wow. You don't understand what "wrongful arrest" means. The woman had a warrant for her arrest issued against her. It doesn't matter if the warrant is wrong, or if she's not guilty of the charge. The police, once becoming aware of the warrant issued against her, arrested her. That's is a lawful arrest, she had a freaking warrant against her. It would have been unlawful if the police didn't arrest her!

Tell me, if you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are arrested by the police, where is the unlawful arrest in that scenario?

Ya'll be silly mo fo's.

She hasn't been nor does it appear likely she'll be charged for the offensive decal on her vehicle, so that's a non issue. The article even says she's been pulled over in the past and wasn't ticketed for the decal or arrested for the decal. It wasn't until she had a warrant issued against her that she got arrested, a warrant for alleged fraud. I'm not seeing a connection between an offensive decal on her vehicle and her alleged fraud.

Now a law lesson for you morons, you can't sue the police for an unlawful arrest unless you are arrested without probable cause or without a warrant issued against you. If you have a warrant issued against you there is no way, no how you can ever win a false arrest case against the police. The police won't even have to invoke qualified immunity in this case if the facts are as the article states, since the woman had a warrant issued against her.

Just because you are a Trump hater doesn't mean you aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else. Arrest warrants mean you get arrested on the spot by the police.

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Imagine how much Trump would be able to get done if he didn't have to spend 70-80% of his time fighting a Democrat guerrilla insurrection.

What are they gonna insurrect with? They don't believe in firearms, they don't control any branch of government, and their unofficial leaders are all being sidelined from the civic conversation as they defend themselves from sex crime allegations.

The democrats don't have to do anything. Up until now the republican party has been very good at thwarting trump themselves. All hail McCain.

waauw wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Imagine how much Trump would be able to get done if he didn't have to spend 70-80% of his time fighting a Democrat guerrilla insurrection.

What are they gonna insurrect with? They don't believe in firearms, they don't control any branch of government, and their unofficial leaders are all being sidelined from the civic conversation as they defend themselves from sex crime allegations.

The democrats don't have to do anything. Up until now the republican party has been very good at thwarting trump themselves. All hail McCain.

A speed bump that's about to get flattened.

Bob Corker is leaving the Senate. Jeff Flake is leaving the Senate. John McCain is possibly suffering from senile dementia, and is in such poor health he might drop dead at any moment (which would allow Governor Ducey - a confirmed Trumpist - to appoint his replacement).

patches70 wrote:She hasn't been nor does it appear likely she'll be charged for the offensive decal on her vehicle, so that's a non issue. The article even says she's been pulled over in the past and wasn't ticketed for the decal or arrested for the decal. It wasn't until she had a warrant issued against her that she got arrested, a warrant for alleged fraud. I'm not seeing a connection between an offensive decal on her vehicle and her alleged fraud.

Now a law lesson for you morons, you can't sue the police for an unlawful arrest unless you are arrested without probable cause or without a warrant issued against you. If you have a warrant issued against you there is no way, no how you can ever win a false arrest case against the police. The police won't even have to invoke qualified immunity in this case if the facts are as the article states, since the woman had a warrant issued against her.
.

Maybe I skimmed the article too quickly. It seemed to me it was saying that the warrant was issued about the decal.

Welcome to modern journalism.

-TG

This,

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Welcome to modern journalism.

-TG

I was going to write, "The article probably did say the arrest warrant was for having a decal. That does not make it true." Then again I suppose it might be. Seems unlikely.

The arrest was because she was a fraudster who stole another woman's identity. (Typical Clinton supporter.)

The sheriff has suggested he might also ask the district attorney to prosecute her for disorderly conduct over the sticker.

It's since been suggested the disorderly conduct prosecution will be unnecessary; she faces two years in prison on the fraud charge so she won't have a vehicle to put a sticker on for the forseeable future.

saxitoxin wrote:The arrest was because she was a fraudster who stole another woman's identity. (Typical Clinton supporter.)

Probably so she could cast like 3-4 fraudulent votes in the election.

saxitoxin wrote:The arrest was because she was a fraudster who stole another woman's identity. (Typical Clinton supporter.)

The sheriff has suggested he might also ask the district attorney to prosecute her for disorderly conduct over the sticker.

It's since been suggested the disorderly conduct prosecution will be unnecessary; she faces two years in prison on the fraud charge so she won't have a vehicle to put a sticker on for the forseeable future.

Fraudster= uncool
Conman= cool

I see how it is.

-TG

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

The warrant being wrong? This ain't rocket science dude.

Wow. You don't understand what "wrongful arrest" means. The woman had a warrant for her arrest issued against her. It doesn't matter if the warrant is wrong, or if she's not guilty of the charge. The police, once becoming aware of the warrant issued against her, arrested her. That's is a lawful arrest, she had a freaking warrant against her. It would have been unlawful if the police didn't arrest her!

Tell me, if you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are arrested by the police, where is the unlawful arrest in that scenario?

Ya'll be silly mo fo's.

She hasn't been nor does it appear likely she'll be charged for the offensive decal on her vehicle, so that's a non issue. The article even says she's been pulled over in the past and wasn't ticketed for the decal or arrested for the decal. It wasn't until she had a warrant issued against her that she got arrested, a warrant for alleged fraud. I'm not seeing a connection between an offensive decal on her vehicle and her alleged fraud.

Now a law lesson for you morons, you can't sue the police for an unlawful arrest unless you are arrested without probable cause or without a warrant issued against you. If you have a warrant issued against you there is no way, no how you can ever win a false arrest case against the police. The police won't even have to invoke qualified immunity in this case if the facts are as the article states, since the woman had a warrant issued against her.

Just because you are a Trump hater doesn't mean you aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else. Arrest warrants mean you get arrested on the spot by the police.

Kid, wrongful arrest doesn't simply mean that the police are wrong. If the warrant for the arrest is wrong, it's a case of wrongful arrest. This really isn't rocket science, p.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:inb4 sorethot's confusion regarding free speech.

Oh wait, damn, he was too quick this time.

-TG

I'm not confused about free speech.
If supporting free speech is the right thing for the U.S. Government and state of Texas to do, then it's the right thing for Conquer Club to do too.

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

The warrant being wrong? This ain't rocket science dude.

Wow. You don't understand what "wrongful arrest" means. The woman had a warrant for her arrest issued against her. It doesn't matter if the warrant is wrong, or if she's not guilty of the charge. The police, once becoming aware of the warrant issued against her, arrested her. That's is a lawful arrest, she had a freaking warrant against her. It would have been unlawful if the police didn't arrest her!

Tell me, if you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are arrested by the police, where is the unlawful arrest in that scenario?

Ya'll be silly mo fo's.

She hasn't been nor does it appear likely she'll be charged for the offensive decal on her vehicle, so that's a non issue. The article even says she's been pulled over in the past and wasn't ticketed for the decal or arrested for the decal. It wasn't until she had a warrant issued against her that she got arrested, a warrant for alleged fraud. I'm not seeing a connection between an offensive decal on her vehicle and her alleged fraud.

Now a law lesson for you morons, you can't sue the police for an unlawful arrest unless you are arrested without probable cause or without a warrant issued against you. If you have a warrant issued against you there is no way, no how you can ever win a false arrest case against the police. The police won't even have to invoke qualified immunity in this case if the facts are as the article states, since the woman had a warrant issued against her.

Just because you are a Trump hater doesn't mean you aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else. Arrest warrants mean you get arrested on the spot by the police.

Kid, wrongful arrest doesn't simply mean that the police are wrong. If the warrant for the arrest is wrong, it's a case of wrongful arrest. This really isn't rocket science, p.

"Wrongful arrest" means to detain someone without proper legal authority. A court is a legal authority authorized to order arrests, ergo, any arrest done under a warrant issued by a properly constituted court cannot - by definition - be wrongful.

You may be thinking of Disagreeable Arrest.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Once the woman in Dallas wins her lawsuit for wrongful arrest, the taxpayers of Texas who voted for Trump will pay the price of trying to stamp out freedom of speech. Sad that it's always the ordinary taxpayer who has to suffer for the evils of the politicians.

What? She wasn't arrested for the decal-

article wrote:Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office records show Karen Fonseca was arrested about 2 p.m. Thursday on an outstanding fraud warrant issued in August by the Rosenberg Police Department. She was in the county jail Thursday night with bond set at $1,500.

She had a warrant out on her. Where is the wrongful arrest? A judge issued a warrant against her.

The warrant being wrong? This ain't rocket science dude.

Wow. You don't understand what "wrongful arrest" means. The woman had a warrant for her arrest issued against her. It doesn't matter if the warrant is wrong, or if she's not guilty of the charge. The police, once becoming aware of the warrant issued against her, arrested her. That's is a lawful arrest, she had a freaking warrant against her. It would have been unlawful if the police didn't arrest her!

Tell me, if you have a warrant out for your arrest and you are arrested by the police, where is the unlawful arrest in that scenario?

Ya'll be silly mo fo's.

She hasn't been nor does it appear likely she'll be charged for the offensive decal on her vehicle, so that's a non issue. The article even says she's been pulled over in the past and wasn't ticketed for the decal or arrested for the decal. It wasn't until she had a warrant issued against her that she got arrested, a warrant for alleged fraud. I'm not seeing a connection between an offensive decal on her vehicle and her alleged fraud.

Now a law lesson for you morons, you can't sue the police for an unlawful arrest unless you are arrested without probable cause or without a warrant issued against you. If you have a warrant issued against you there is no way, no how you can ever win a false arrest case against the police. The police won't even have to invoke qualified immunity in this case if the facts are as the article states, since the woman had a warrant issued against her.

Just because you are a Trump hater doesn't mean you aren't subject to the same laws as everyone else. Arrest warrants mean you get arrested on the spot by the police.

Kid, wrongful arrest doesn't simply mean that the police are wrong. If the warrant for the arrest is wrong, it's a case of wrongful arrest. This really isn't rocket science, p.

"Wrongful arrest" means to detain someone without proper legal authority. A court is a legal authority authorized to order arrests, ergo, any arrest done under a warrant issued by a properly constituted court cannot - by definition - be wrongful.

You may be thinking of Disagreeable Arrest.

Possibly- I'm not au fait with the US legal terms, My understanding is that if the warrant for the arrest is wrong, then the actual arrest may be legally done, but that the arrest itself maybe illegal.

A crude example- a judge could issue a warrant for their next door neighbour over a noise issue. The police could legally enforce that warrant. It could still be a wrongful arrest based on the warrant.

What the libocrites are forgetting is they've already weakened the FIrst Amendment more than anybody.
iow, any speech that could be interpreted by it's opposition as 'hate speech is EXACTLY the sort of speech that most deserves FULL protection.

In Mireles vs Waco, the Supreme Court considered the case of a judge who issued a warrant for the police to not only arrest - but to also beat-up - an attorney he didn't like. The court ruled that the attorney (Mr Waco) who got beat up had no recourse to sue the court as courts can't be sued and judges have absolute immunity, even when they act beyond their authority.

That he may have made a mistake or acted in excess of his authority does not make the act nonjudicial ... judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice ... if Judge Mireles authorized and ratified the police officers' use of excessive force, he acted in excess of his authority. But such an action - taken in the very aid of the judge's jurisdiction over a matter before him - cannot be said to have been taken in the absence of jurisdiction.

Although unfairness and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion, it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/502/9.html

In addition, the police faced no consequences as they were carrying out the orders of a properly constituted court.