- Joined
- Sep 10, 2020
- Messages
- 36,468
- Reaction score
- 32,519
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Reread. Yes you did.I never said otherwise.
She can be tried in absentia is what you said. But no she can't.
Reread. Yes you did.I never said otherwise.
Quote where I claimed that she could be prosecuted in civil court.Reread. Yes you did.
Well, we are in the age of masked goons in vans roaming around.
Like what?
Quote where I claimed that she could be prosecuted in civil court.
She should be tried in absentia in Texas.
LMAO you don't get "tried" in civil court. Only people getting prosecuted are being "tried". Nice try!
You’ve never heard of a civil trial? Wow.
In a civil trial the issue is tried not the person. Nice backpedal.
ETA:
The issue in a civil trial can not be tried in absentia. Your logic fails.
I never said otherwise.
Reread. Yes you did.
She can be tried in absentia is what you said. But no she can't.
Is it just that they are awful, or that they are awful while wrapping themselves in Christian narratives?Why is it that so many Righties are such awful people?
Both?Is it just that they are awful, or that they are awful while wrapping themselves in Christian narratives?
She should be tried in absentia in Texas.
Have you answered the question about being tried in absentia in civil court yet?Then too bad. Your credibility will never recover from this.
Watch the conversation.
See how the language flows, with meaning, one post after another?
Don't know why you're quoting that there. Anyway, where did you answer my points about civil litigation and retain credibility?Yes. See post 278 in this thread.
Texas has no standing to enforce anything that happens outside of it's jurisdiction. That's just a legal fact.