Over in the comments of this post at Sonoran Conservative, a John Doe commenter mentions something called a supersedeas, or appeal bond.
This was a new term of legal art for me. But, they say you learn something new every day. I’ll let Wikipedia explain:\
After litigation and a civilcourt ruling, the losing party can appeal against the judgment. At this point, both the plaintiff and defendant could have similar kinds of concerns. An appeal takes time and can be dragged out in some cases for many years. After the case (and any other processes) are finally decided, whichever party wins will perhaps be more “out of pocket” from its costs. Also time will have passed, and the losing party may be bankrupt or have used the time to frustrate any potential future payments in the event of losing.
Therefore, it is often either a requirement of the law, or a possible point in a ruling, that prior to commencing its appeal processes, the losing party must provide a surety bond – money it pays to the court or a third party, to demonstrate its good faith, intention and commitment to meeting the ruling if it loses, and in some cases to show that their appeal is not frivolous or merely a tactic to delay or avoid payment. This is known as a supersedeas (or “appeal”) bond, and shows that they can and will cover the damages or fees awarded – including any additional costs of the appeal.
The bond may not be – and often is not – the exact value of the ruling. In some cases it is significantly larger since it is planned to cover interest or other costs which may arise on appeal.
A supersedeas bond is often paid in full – and may be handled via insurance or underwriting in some cases.
What are some of the advantages of a supersedeas bond?
Obtaining a supersedeas bond may appear to be judicial red tape; however, it serves the best interest of the defendant and plaintiff. The appellant uses a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment, meaning appellant does not have to pay the full amount of the judgment until the appellate court makes a ruling and then only if the ruling is to affirm the judgment. A surety bond also replaces the need for collateral. The plaintiff, or party to whom the money judgment is awarded, is fully protected by the bond and ensured payment, that is if the appealing party can afford the bond.
Appeals are NOT FREE, even for a poor, poor, judgment proof pitiful pro se pauper.
Sure hope that field goal attempt works out…*snerk*
…to consider that if you measure the cosmic probability of Bill Schmalfeldt prevailing at trial next week against the likelihood of a TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE SUN OCCURRING WHILE THE TRIAL IS IN PROGRESS, Schmalfeldt still comes out on the losing end.
Seven new posts just in the last three days, all dedicated to pointage, laughery and mockification of Moobflop McBeetusflesh!
I wonder what could have happened so recently to motivate the rapid creation of YET ANOTHER website dedicated to pointing out the MASSIVE LIFE FAILURES of Homo Simpson?
Surely it couldn’t have been in response to the DUMBFUCKERY of a DUMBFUCK!
Remember, people! Don’t fuck with Moobflop McBeetusflesh or anyone he pre 10 ds to love while telling them he’s like to bend another man over a chair and rape them! You’ll only wind up in his crosshairs, just like me – laughing at him every single day for the rest of his life.
Well, it’s a well known fact that Bill Schmalfeldt once alleged in a federal lawsuit that his cousin Roy Schmalfeldt defamed him by accusing him of rape. Bill Schmalfeldt also dismissed that lawsuit with prejudice, which leaves him legally unable to deny that he is, in fact, a rapist.
If what Bill Schmalfeldt says today – “DENIALS REQUIRE PROOF!” – what other things has he done that he cannot provide proof that he never did?
Did he in fact get kicked to the curb by St. Gail after befouling his marriage bed with Hell’s Kitchen Kate?
Did he in fact live the remainder of his marriage with St. Gail in separate beds because her condition for allowing him into the tincasa was the permanent withholding of spousal privileges?
Did he in fact scam the National Institutes of Health into a pensioned disability retirement?
Did he in fact ever have a job in journalism or radio from which he was not fired?
Was he in fact evicted from the enclave of the NINJANUNS?
Did he in fact violate his lease in Iowa to escape to his new Inflatababe?
Did he in fact fail to inform the states of Wisconsin, Iowa and possibly South Carolina of his disability, thus fraudulently acquiring driver’s licenses in one or more of those states?
Did he in fact administer multiple pairs of Irish Sunglasses to his soulmate throughout their marriage?
Was she in fact too quick for him to catch?
Did he in fact abandon four pets in two states to the streets?
Were those pets in fact served as entrees in various Asian restaurants?
Did he in fact leave the urn behind in Iowa?
Did he in fact murder his first wife and chop her body into stew meat?
Does he in fact no longer take any medications for Parkinson’s?’
As the GREASE-SWEATING BEETUSBUCKET DUMBFUCK says,
DENIALS REQUIRE PROOF!
Based on the Rules of Schmalfeldt, simply because I say so, all these things are true. The only way to disprove them is for DUMBFUCK – in true Alinsky style – to live up to his own rule book and provide sufficient proof to the negative.
And naturally I am the judge of sufficiency.
But only until 9 PM Eastern.
And you know, if anyone thinks of anything else he needs to provide denials for, leave a comment.
Sometimes, with some people…extra precautions are necessary when documenting very dangerous levels of stupidity.
And by dangerous I mean “handling nitroglycerin” dangerous. The kind of dangerous that fear pee-soaked, sandy vagina, nutshuffling penises will delete without warning in a sudden explosion of rank cowardice.
Take this guy, for instance: he might be a world record holder in Twitter cowardice, with the most lost, abandoned or suspended Twitter handles in history. But since he’s a SJW-pussy, Twitter just lets him keep on keepin’ on, as long as his impotent attacks are directed at acceptable targets, even if they are so far out of his intellectual class they might as well be orbiting a different star (and I think that’s everybody who isn’t made of latex and living in a hotel).
This particular DUMBFUCK recently peed himself in an effort to show how the lawsuit in which he is currently sinking fast as a defendant will hinge on HOW TWITTER WORKS rather than on HOW A CONTRACT WORKS.
The reason he wants to argue about Twitter and not about contracts is painfully obvious to anyone with a double digit IQ.
But that’s not the purpose of this post.
The purpose of this post is to explore the reasons why Zombies like myself take screen caps of people’s tweets.
In three simple words: “Because they’re cowards.”
The image you see above is a screencap of a tweet. It’s STOLEN. (shhh! our little secret…)
I made an image file of it, and uploaded it to an image hosting site.
Why would I do that?
So I could EMBED the URL of the tweet underneath it when I included the image in this post. You’ll notice that the cursor changes because the image is a link. Click it, if you want to go to a DUMFUCK Twitter account.
So there must be some advantage to doing this, right?
Indeed there is!
If you were an enterprising zombie, and you chose to delve into the archives on this site, you would find no small number of posts that make somewhat less sense now than they did when they were first published. The reason for this is that I followed the Twitter terms of service and embedded a tweet in the post.
And then the owner of the tweet (GUESS WHO?!?) deleted the tweet, and often the entire account, because he figured out that he might get in trouble for it, and that if he deleted the whole thing the trouble would vanish. Kind of like the old “Family Circus” cartoons:
What I have done – what is necessary to do with someone who refuses to produce documents in discovery – is retain an image of the original tweet, so that certain nutshuffling footlong lovers who enjoy watching men fellate other men
can’t delete the evidence of their perfidy and later deny it ever happened.
So you can call it theft if you like, but wouldn’t it just be easier to use the term that a certain DUMBFUCK himself favors: