Johnnyessence:
yes, there is still much time bro. let's keep our fingers crossed.

The Electoral College is meeting on Monday, and once they cast their votes, if Biden gets the required 270, then it DOES NOT matter the outcome of the Supreme Court case, because there is no provision in the US Constitution that allows the Electoral College votes to be cancelled after voting has taken place. Their votes will be forwarded to Congress for confirmation. The SCOTUS only has power to suspend or postpone the Electoral College meeting before they vote, not after voting. The only feasible way out now is if there are enough Faithless Electors that will make Biden not to reach the 270 mark. Only God can make a difference now and turn things around. It's highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will resit again to revisit the new application on Monday before the Electoral College voting happens. Only a Divine intervention can make a difference.

grandlexuz:


How did it go with the supreme court.? I told you Friday was around the corner. Are you back from Jupiter?

I'm still at Venus, we want to buy fuel inside our train

Johnnyessence:
Texas sued under Article II but SCOTUS rejected it under Article III. As one door shuts, another opens.

Yes, correct, I know. The decision was about improper filing not the complaint itself. So basically what the SCOTUS said was like,. 'Motion to leave' is denied but 'Motion to file' would have been acceptable. So now they have to go back and refile the case properly. But the PROBLEM now is TIME is running out

Fantastic! Just like some fanatic Blue States like California and New York want to leave the Union. America is not like Nigeria that we are being FORCED with bombs and guns and the threat of death to stay together. The Union is NEGOTIABLE and "divorce" is allowed because there isn't any explicit provision in the American Constitution which prevents or prohibits a state from seceding from the union.

In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

I'm READY for you people in Foreign Affairs today, 12th of DODGEcember 2020. No weapon mention fashioned against me shall prosper

[img]https://media1./images/19c9101643d14a0bb63466dc6cc1a7c2/tenor.gif?itemid=17396986[/img]

RCCG Pastor Ize Iyamu right now — But Baba said I will win too na

Eddie4God:
Lol,
We told them, bt they decided to keep decieving themselves. Meanwhile, trump is cashing out big time. More than $200 millions as at last count. Watchout, he will use the money to create a political action committee (PAC) & maybe use some to settle his debts.
On a serious note what excuses will trumpist say na?
Iamzik Righteousness89 Jashub Openbusiness Johnnyessence drskyfly007 Shelumiel you people should come ohhh, your saviour & anoited one has been thrashed again by no less than the United States Supreme Court. Pls come with your excuses & wailing.

Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election

The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, sought to bar Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from casting their electoral votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.


The Supreme Court has received more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs and motions seeking to intervene.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.

The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

The order, coupled with another one on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that a conservative court with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump refused to be drawn into the extraordinary effort by the president and many prominent members of his party to deny his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his victory.

It was the latest and most significant setback for Mr. Trump in a litigation campaign that was rejected by courts at every turn.


Texas’ lawsuit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, challenged election procedures in four states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It asked the court to bar those states from casting their electoral votes for Mr. Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ legislatures. That would have required the justices to throw out millions of votes.

Mr. Trump has said he expected to prevail in the Supreme Court, after rushing the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October in part in the hope that she would vote in Mr. Trump’s favor in election disputes.


“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Mr. Trump said of the election a few days after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in September. “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”

He was right that an election dispute would end up in the Supreme Court. But he was quite wrong to think the court, even after he appointed a third of its members, would do his bidding. And with the Electoral College set to meet on Monday, Mr. Trump’s efforts to change the outcome of the election will soon be at an end.



Mr. Trump’s campaign did not immediately issue a statement. In an appearance on the conservative network Newsmax soon after the decision was announced, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, said that the campaign’s legal effort would continue, insisting that his team had originally planned for “four or five separate cases.”

“We’re not finished, believe me,” he said with a laugh at the end of the interview.

The president, who at a White House Hanukkah party earlier in the week eagerly mentioned the pending court case in his remarks, was scheduled to attend another holiday party around the time the ruling came down. But around 8:30 p.m., guests were informed that Mr. Trump would not be coming down from the residence to speak.

Friday’s order was not quite unanimous. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a brief statement on a technical point. But it was nonetheless a comprehensive rebuke to Mr. Trump and his allies. It was plain that the justices had no patience for Texas’ attempt to enlist the court in an effort to tell other states how to run their elections.


The majority ruled that Texas could not file its lawsuit at all. “The state of Texas’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing,” the court’s order said.


Justice Alito, taking a slightly different approach, wrote that the court was not free immediately to shut down lawsuits filed by states directly in the court. “In my view,” he wrote, “we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

But that was as far as those two justices were willing to go. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief,” Justice Alito wrote, “and I express no view on any other issue.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers had anticipated the court would give the president and the Republican attorneys general something that could be characterized as supportive, in the form of a dissent or a lengthy commentary. Instead, there was simply the brief statement from the two justices.

Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”


“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.

Despite the court ruling, Mr. Trump’s campaign plans to continue describing the election outcome as illegitimate. On Friday night, it announced that it would be running ads on YouTube, which has started accepting political ads again after a moratorium, making that very case.


Biden is considering Cuomo for attorney general.
‘Our institutions held’: Democrats (and some Republicans) cheer Supreme Court ruling on election suit.
In the Texas case, the Supreme Court received more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs and motions seeking to intervene, from Mr. Trump, from coalitions of liberal and conservative states, from politicians and from scholars.

Among them was a brief filed by more than 100 House Republicans who fell in line to claim that the general election — the same one in which most of them were re-elected — had been “riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities.” More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general expressed similar support on Wednesday.


Legal experts almost universally dismissed Texas’ suit as an unbecoming stunt. In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.

In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort. “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.

On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with his own brief. “Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”

Claims that the election was tainted by widespread fraud have been debunked by Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, William P. Barr, who said this month that the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”


Some 20 states led by Democrats, in a brief supporting the four battleground states, urged the Supreme Court “to reject Texas’ last-minute attempt to throw out the results of an election decided by the people and securely overseen and certified by its sister states.”

Georgia, which Mr. Biden won by less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million cast, said in its brief that it had handled its election with integrity and care. “This election cycle,” the brief said, “Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do: it implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”

Starting even before Election Day, Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have filed nearly five dozen challenges to the handling, casting and counting of votes in courts in at least eight different states.

They generally lost those cases, often drawing blistering rebukes from the judges who heard them. Along the way Mr. Trump has not come close to overturning the election results in a single state, let alone the minimum of three he would need to seize victory from Mr. Biden.


The first batch of actions preceded the election and sought to end or pare back voting measures that states across the country had put in place to deal with the coronavirus crisis. In Texas, for instance, Republicans pursued a failed effort in federal court to stop drive-through voting in Harris County, home to Houston. A similar move was made in Pennsylvania to stop the state from accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Mr. Trump and his allies switched tactics after the election, filing a barrage of suits in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Georgia claiming that all manner of fraud had compromised the vote results.

They made accusations that truckloads of illegal ballots were brought in under cover of darkness to a convention center in Detroit; that poll workers in Atlanta were given suitcases full of fake ballots for Mr. Biden; that Iran and China, working with local elections officials, had hacked into and manipulated algorithms in voting machines.

While some of these claims were supported by sworn statements from witnesses, judge after judge in case after case ruled that the evidence was not persuasive, credible or anywhere near enough to give Mr. Trump the extraordinary relief he requested: a judicial order overturning the results of an election.


What is left is a judicial mopping-up exercise. Several suits that the president and his supporters have lost in lower courts are now on appeal, in both the state and federal systems, but the appellate process is quickly running up against a crucial deadline on Monday when the Electoral College meets and Mr. Biden is expected to prevail in the voting, all but sealing the results of the election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court-election-texas.html

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/

Cc: Mynd44

Go to EFCC office at Ikoyi, you will find people that can teach you yahoo yahoo work there free of charge

The Red Pill, giving females sleepless nights since 350BC . I was even going to make a comprehensive exposé on it but no time yet. You females are in serious trouble. When I have time and I'm in the mood to write, what I will write shall shake and the reset the relationship world for another 1000 years - Facts Only!

SUPERPACK:
Going by your argument no rapist can be jailed. Why? No written agreement, no video evidence, no picture of the incident, no witness and lastly no verbal agreement. Go and read the case and witness accounts they are using against R Kelly in court, and even Bill Cosbey that was convicted. Go and read about Ronaldo's rape case that was settled out of court, where the only physical evidence was both him and the girl seen dancing at a club. For your information verbal agreement are enforceable and are legally binding in court, as long as it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Just don't pick on the wrong person in life, the court is blind.

What you are saying is inaccurate. To convict a rapist, you need beyond word of mouth, you need tangible PROOF, sufficient proof. That's why in developed countries, they look for semen or hair samples on the victim and cross examine it with the samples taken from the suspect. If it matches, then that's sufficient proof that her accusation of rape is factual. In undeveloped countries like Nigeria, the victim goes for medical test, where the doctors do a physical examination of her vagina to check for possible clues that can establish whether there is any thing to show or back up the claim of rape. If the doctor finds, he then issues a medical report and this serves as an evidence the victim can tender in court to back up her accusation. And then you can have a meaningful trial. Otherwise, with just word of mouth alone, the case will be dismissed.

In Bill Cosby's rape case, it wasn't just one victim, there were over 50 accusers. And many of them said similar stories on the method he used to rape them - drugging their drinks. But was that sufficient proof to convict him? Definitely no. Cosby didn't appear in Court over one case. There were multiple trials at different times and the first trial on his rape case ended as a mistrial, because the jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, which means word of mouth is always insufficient. It was his retrial case at the time of #meToo rape movement that he got convicted. And there were other evidences provided. So it wasn't word of mouth testimony alone that convicted Cosby.

As for CR7 rape case, Ronaldo paid the girl money before to shut up and forget about the case. Then later the girl came back, obviously, she wants more money. The case is not over yet. And for Ronaldo to have paid her the first time, he definitely has something to hide, he definitely slept with that girl, and possibly without her consent and she definitely has something on him.

Kobicove:


That's where you're wrong, for a contract to be binding it does not necessarily have to be in writing...if you can prove it then you have a solid case.

I will give you an example...

Let's assume you are a popular musician and you meet a lady who has a career as a banker or a teacher then you convince her to resign from her job in order to always accompany you on your musical tours with the promise that you will marry her.

The fact that she has given up or sacrificed her career at your instance in order to be with you is enough evidence that she has suffered loss; this ground is strong enough for an experienced and motivated lawyer to build a case against you in a court of law!

IF SHE CAN PROVE IT pretty much sums this issue. And the answer is SHE CAN'T. Word of mouth agreement or unwritten promise is NOT sufficient proof. Word of mouth testimony cannot be accepted in any Court as sufficient evidence to convict another person. Word of Mouth from a woman that a musician told her to quit her job with the promise to marry her is not proof. Even if she has pictures and videos showing her going on tours with him, it still doesn't prove he was the one that told her to quit her job for her to make claims on monetary loss. You can't just think the Court will accept whatever someone says as accurate without any tangible proof to back it up.

Assuming she even has maybe a tape recording of the man asking her to quit or promising marriage, that will even give her small hope that the trial will endure. But coming with ordinary word of mouth to Court and expect you will win, is IMPOSSIBLE. The case will be thrown out. Even if the man accepts that he promised to marry her, he still cannot be penalized by the Court for changing his mind because there was no notarized agreement or contract for marriage between them.

She bought a Nigerian used CLA 250, she try, she really try

Kobicove:


It is not a criminal act per sé but a legal action can be brought against you in a court by an aggrieved party.

All she needs to prove is that she suffered loss or detriment as a result of relying on your false promise

I'm not a lawyer or litigation expert, BUT I do know that a word of mouth agreement or promise that was undocumented and not made as a legal contract agreement or a testimonial agreement, cannot give you a win in Court, especially for a romantic matter. You can make the case, but you can't win it. It will be thrown out faster than it came in.

Kobicove:
It is a crime to obtain favours from another person using fake promise of marriage

Be warned!

Please can you share which Federal or State law in Nigeria that makes it a crime. I'm not interested in making any arguments For or Against your comment. I just want to learn.

Those frustrated ones in Romance Section that call themselves "evening newspapers" are coming for you

To Cuppy this tune, press Breast, em, sorry, I mean, press 1

"Runnin' around here like some brand new pussy that's about to get fxcked" - DMX, 1999

I've just passed the half-way mark reading. All i can say for now is WOW ....and ..... OP, while I continue to read the rest of your story, please I will need you to start filling these 2 forms below:

1) Side chick application form
2) fxck buddy agreement form

So everything can be very clear from the get go what your new appointment is all about.

Guys in other news, Anthony Joshua is fighting Pulev tomorrow. Anthony Joshua is from Sagamu too, like this OP. It will be an interesting watch. Don't miss the fight oh.

Gayatri:

I understand Sir, thank you!

I'm still reading your romance novel na, d tin long, so am taking my time. I wee talk soon. Dunt rush me abeg

Gayatri:


I appreciate.. Thank you for sounding like a brother i never had..

You never had a brother....eeeyah, no wonder, you're acting like a happy sheep smiling sheepishly on the way to the slaughter house

Ok. I just finished reading the story. Quite an interesting one. It gave me some bit of poignant mixed emotions like making me laugh, that horror movie kinda evil laugh though ; it made me feel pity, made me feel angry or maybe a bit disgusted, and made me feel nostalgia and a bit of pain about some of my own past stupid moments and stupid decisions in other areas of life.

It seems like, one way or another, one time or another, one aspect of life or another, everyone has their own share of having stupid moments and making stupid decisions. I think it's a ground zero curse on humanity, everyone at one point in time has done something very stupid. So I won't "condemn" you in this regard. You're not the first to do something stupid and you won't be the last. I think that's why Albert Einstein said, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” ― Albert Einstein. But like they say, Learn from mistakes, preferably OTHER PEOPLE'S mistakes.

Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm right, I don't know, you tell me, BUT what I see is: i see a woman with courage, I see a woman with raw naivety and I sense a woman with a good heart to some extent, and I see that's where these your "moves" are coming from.

Really, such qualities look like a wonderful thing on paper but in the real world out there, when mixed together, those are exactly the kind of qualities that will get you "killed" (quote and unquote). Courage + Naivety + Good heart = Trouble raised to power 2 . You will walk straight into danger smiling like a fool, dancing kumbaya , I know this for a fact because I've been there, done that.

And do you know why this combination is dangerous? It's because bravery makes you confront challenges head-on, you won't run, you will face your fear like a champion. All that is a wonderful thing really, but then naivety gives you a "wrong assessment" or "no assessment" at all of what you are walking into, and then a good heart makes you feel what you're doing is "okay", in short with a good heart, everything is "okay" . If you need a perfect description of what trouble looks like, this is IT . Being brave, nice and stupid at the same time is how a rat ends up in the belly of a snake.


The only reason I want to wholeheartedly contribute is because from your communication I can see you have humility and a good heart with good manners, a quality very rare with the females of this generation, But before I continue, I have to tell you that I can be very blunt, am not a Mr Nice guy oh, in short, me ehnn, bomb dey my head, nuclear bomb, an sumtyms ma mouth can scatter and rearrange pipu's DNA. So if u kno u are d over sensitive type, tell me now, lemme sherrup oh, so dat I wunt kontinu. But if you have a thick skin like a Rhinoceros and don't mind hearing the truth even if it stings like a 1000 bees, then I can talk.

This bum bum is not big na. Assuming it were very big, her yansh will have pushed you to fall off the bike when you were snapping this pervert picture. Big bum bum no go kee u ohh

chubinwa:
Been a very sharp observant, I have come to find out that most women's breast are unequal. one tends to be bigger than the other. I now ask, what could be the cause of this inequality

unequal sucking is the cause. For some mysterious reasons, men don't suck both breasts equally. Any grown woman can attest to this truth. It is either men are sucking the right more than the left breast, or sucking the left more than the right breast. Therefore there must be inequality, according to Law of Equilibrium. Every woman knows I'm saying the gospel truth.

This girl na Akwa Ibom girl, her name is not Blessing Grey. Her name is Inyeneobong. That is obviously a SCAMMER's profile impersonating her, and then it seems like some of you bloggers are either working for scammers or you're scammers yourselves. Because you keep promoting these SCAM profiles, and then some uninformed people will add them as friends on FB, the more their page grows and becomes active, the more it looks like those scammers are legit. Until they start scamming their victims. This is wrong. You guys should STOP promoting scammers and/or stop being part of scammers networks.

If na breast, 3 years, I go pass exam and graduate. But if na Curvy Yansh be the Course, ehhhhh, na carryover over oh, I have no plans to graduate from that University plzzzz, we die here. Wetin curvy yansh dey curve for this world ehnnn, nawa May God continue to have mercy on me
[img]https://media1./images/dc91b50bd97c85235102bb518a14ad99/tenor.gif?itemid=3561134[/img]

michaelpop50:


You are toxic and mentally and emotionally ruined

I'm in a happy mood, so i'm ignoring hopeless egotistic fools like you today. Come back tomorrow.

Una don carry yahoo yahoo reach Afghanistan fah? Do you know you are putting Nigerians and even Blacks over there at extreme risk if you defraud people in countries like that and they can kidnap and sell or even kill any Blacks they find in retaliation? STOP IT!

Mark this post down, na Chelsea go win the UCL this Season. My boys don catch fire again, chaiiii, Chelsea game dey sweeeeet me for body like hot party jellof and goat meat