First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Res ipsa loquitur

United States

#26 Jan 27, 2013
Pattys winning photo wrote:
So yes, a California Federal Judge is correct
LA Times didnt fk up lol
It would be a federal judge IN Cali, you dipshit. And yes, the media fcks it up often, and those working in the profession will catch it.

What would happen if you filled a petition and the named court was "California Federal Court"? It would be rejected by any court you submitted it to, because there is no such thing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#27 Jan 28, 2013
United States District Court, which deals in Federal law.. I dont think calling it Federal Court in a news article is a big error since the average Joe would more likely understand.. State court as opposed to federal court.. Stil dont see why it was taken to federal when it seems to be a state issue. Seems Obama is going to revamp federal law to some degree but not before more scientific testing is done. Seems one study has shown chronic pot smoking is linked to lower IQ in adults, severe memory loss. These tests should have been done dcades ago before legalizing it ever occurs.
There are no scientic tests linking pot as any medical benefits. Just because your stoned out of your mind doesnt mean it helps with pain. Morphine has been proven in cancer patients not pot.. Its been the chronic pot smokers pushing stupid therories but have never been proven.
I have always said any mind altering drug is the same as any of them. But this Judge wasnt wrong in his decision. Because theres no long term testing to prove otherwise. Of course pot heads believe what ever sounds good to justify their use

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#28 Jan 28, 2013
Chronic pot smoking is someone that smokes 4 times per week lol fking stinkmore smokes it more than 4 times a day.severe memory loss.. Cant remember one lie to the next. No scientific testing there LOL when someone cant remember what they said yesterday, there is damage..

You would need to be toast if you dont think decades of drug abuse doesnt cause damage. It does

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#29 Jan 28, 2013
In the repeat of a question so that the Loon can understand, "can she GET any dumber?" LOL....bet we will see it happen!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#30 Jan 28, 2013
Inquiring MlNDS wrote:
In the repeat of a question so that the Loon can understand, "can she GET any dumber?" LOL....bet we will see it happen!
Cathy Cmelo why do you insist on projecting? You are a certified loon. Mental wards, nutmeds, thats makes you a lunatic.. we all, yes because miserable, unhappy people care what others do and say. Its a diversion :)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#31 Jan 28, 2013
She fills the shoes for all three:
Dumb
Dumber and
Dumbest
res ipsa loquitur

Houston, TX

#32 Jan 28, 2013
Pattys winning photo wrote:
So yes, a California Federal Judge is correct
LA Times didnt fk up lol
You are the biggest JACKASS walking the planet!

I found the L.A. Times article and nowhere does it say "California Federal Court". Do you know why? It's because the DECISION DIDN'T COME FROM ANY COURT IN CALIFORNIA!!! It wasn't from the Ninth circuit, which only provides more proof that you can't comprehend anything you read.

The ruling came from the D.C. CIRCUIT, which is NOWHERE NEAR CALIFORNIA. Where the hell did you get "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT" in all that reading?!?! And it's even more laughable that you tried to blame your own idiocy on the L.A. Times, and say the average Joe would know that it's the federal court in California. LMFAO

HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

Marijuana still a drug with no accepted medical use, COURT says

APPELLATE judges defer to federal health experts and side with the DEA.

WASHINGTON Marijuana will continue to be considered a highly dangerous drug under federal law with no accepted medical uses, after a U.S. APPEALS COURT Tuesday refused to order a change in the government's 40-year-old drug classification schedule.

The decision keeps in place an odd legal split over marijuana, a drug deemed to be as dangerous as heroin and worse than methamphetamine by federal authorities, but one that has been legalized for medical use by voters or legislators in 20 states and the District of Columbia.

THE ARTICLE THEN GOES ON TO SAY:

Judge Harry Edwards, WRITING FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, said the judges did not dispute that "marijuana could have some medical benefits." Instead, he said, they were not willing to overrule the DEA because they had not seen large "well-controlled studies" that proved the medical value of marijuana.

WHERE DO YOU SEE "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT" or even "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL JUDGE" in there? JUST THE FACT THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BEGINS WITH THE WORD 'WASHINGTON' TELLS YOU IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR CALIFORNIA. THE DECISION CAME FROM THE D.C. CIRCUIT, YOU DUMBFUCK!

Way to go Ms. "Ball State Paralegal Degree" that worked for "2 lawyers".:::APPLAUSE:::::

stick to scrubbing toilets. It's pretty hard to fucck that up.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33 Jan 28, 2013
res ipsa loquitur wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the biggest JACKASS walking the planet!
I found the L.A. Times article and nowhere does it say "California Federal Court". Do you know why? It's because the DECISION DIDN'T COME FROM ANY COURT IN CALIFORNIA!!! It wasn't from the Ninth circuit, which only provides more proof that you can't comprehend anything you read.
The ruling came from the D.C. CIRCUIT, which is NOWHERE NEAR CALIFORNIA. Where the hell did you get "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT" in all that reading?!?! And it's even more laughable that you tried to blame your own idiocy on the L.A. Times, and say the average Joe would know that it's the federal court in California. LMFAO
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:
Marijuana still a drug with no accepted medical use, COURT says
APPELLATE judges defer to federal health experts and side with the DEA.
WASHINGTON Marijuana will continue to be considered a highly dangerous drug under federal law with no accepted medical uses, after a U.S. APPEALS COURT Tuesday refused to order a change in the government's 40-year-old drug classification schedule.
The decision keeps in place an odd legal split over marijuana, a drug deemed to be as dangerous as heroin and worse than methamphetamine by federal authorities, but one that has been legalized for medical use by voters or legislators in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
THE ARTICLE THEN GOES ON TO SAY:
Judge Harry Edwards, WRITING FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, said the judges did not dispute that "marijuana could have some medical benefits." Instead, he said, they were not willing to overrule the DEA because they had not seen large "well-controlled studies" that proved the medical value of marijuana.
WHERE DO YOU SEE "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT" or even "CALIFORNIA FEDERAL JUDGE" in there? JUST THE FACT THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BEGINS WITH THE WORD 'WASHINGTON' TELLS YOU IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR CALIFORNIA. THE DECISION CAME FROM THE D.C. CIRCUIT, YOU DUMBFUCK!
Way to go Ms. "Ball State Paralegal Degree" that worked for "2 lawyers".:::APPLAUSE:::::
stick to scrubbing toilets. It's pretty hard to fucck that up.
You didnt include this:

Tuesday a California Federal Court ruled

Really you a stupid.drug.addict who plays fake lawyer online.. Your argument is per usual BS..
Yes a California Federal.Appeals located in California...here study up

Www.uscourts.org/federalcourts.org

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34 Jan 28, 2013
Hint

Www.uscourts.org/FEDERALCOURTS

Stick to AOL fake lawyer
res ipsa loquitur

Kansas City, MO

#35 Jan 28, 2013
Pattys winning photo wrote:
<quoted text>
You didnt include this:
Tuesday a California Federal Court ruled
Really you a stupid.drug.addict who plays fake lawyer online.. Your argument is per usual BS..
Yes a California Federal.Appeals located in California...here study up
Www.uscourts.org/federalcourts.org
Your link goes to NOTHING.

Here is the link to the L.A. Times article from last Tuesday:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/22/natio...

That is the D.C. CIRCUIT. Not the Ninth Circuit. But it's okay, you can continue to make an ass of yourself, because I am enjoying it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#36 Jan 28, 2013
Druggie it sure wasnt a NH Federal court.. Lame ass, loser .. Hmm I know Circuit 9 covers California not New Hampshire..lame ass!
You are unintellgent, your entire basis for argument is LOW IQ. Typical for a pissed of pothead.. Stick to your fake.aol lawyer
Advise a victim of stalking to plead guilty to mutual consent LOL

Your stupid argument is moot and pointless..

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#37 Jan 28, 2013
I will no longing respond to your juvenile moot idiocy unless you can prove Circuit9 doesnt cover California and now covers New Hampshire
Its strongly apparent the courts decision has pissed off California.pothead

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#38 Jan 28, 2013
In correct. Two seperate rulings
res ipsa loquitur

Victorville, CA

#39 Jan 28, 2013
Pattys winning photo wrote:
I will no longing respond to your juvenile moot idiocy unless you can prove Circuit9 doesnt cover California and now covers New Hampshire
Its strongly apparent the courts decision has pissed off California.pothead
Why would I have to prove that Circuit 9 covers California? That's not what the discussion was about. You are trying to steer away from the fact you spent the last two days making a complete ass of yourself. Here's a recap of the discussion:

1. Patty makes a blog stating that "the California Federal Court" ruled Pot is as dangerous as heroin. Anyone can still see that blog. I'm posting on it! LOL

2. Patty insists that The L.A. Times wrote "California Federal Court", even "California Federal Judge", and that the average Joe would know the decision was made in a California court.

3. The ruling was made by the D.C. Circuit Court and by a D.C. circuit Judge---nowhere near California.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/22/natio...

In summary: Patty is a dumbass that can't understand what she reads. When corrected, Patty will then lie to say it was referenced that way by an L.A. Times reporter, which it was not. Patty will then post links that lead to nowhere, insisting they will take you to a "California Federal Court" decision from last Tuesday relating to marijuana. ROFL

By the way, I have friends that work at the Ninth Circuit. I know where it is and its jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit is not relevant to the discussion at all, just as you throwing "New Hampshire" in means nothing. The decision came from the D.C. Circuit court, but somehow you read an entire article and missed that. I guess in Patty's world, if the story comes from the L.A. Times, the occurrence was in California. Nevermind the word "Washington" that begins the first paragraph, which immediately alerts the reader to the natiion's capital, where the decision was made.

Gotta love that IVY TECH education!

:-/
res ipsa loquitur

Netherlands

#41 Jan 28, 2013
Pattys winning photo wrote:
In correct. Two seperate rulings
Now you expect everyone to believe that the circuit court ruled twice on the same issue?

You don't bring an issue from one circuit to another. It goes from the circuit to the United States Supreme Court.

You also specified the content of the ruling, the day, and the L.A. Times article, which was published last Tuesday, just as you said.

You make yourself look even more stupid trying to lie your way out of it, because you can't. It's confirmed. You are an idiot by your own words. You displayed your lack of intelligence in your inability to understand a simple news article. American newspapers are written at reading levels ranging anywhere from 6th to 10th grade. I guess we now know that yours is well below that.
jacanus donovani

AOL

#42 Jan 28, 2013
Res ipsa loquitur wrote:
The "California federal court"?!
You don't see anything wrong with that?!
Look, Patty. Only 3 posts into the blog you were given an "out" and wouldn't take it. Instead, you chose to fall deeper into that dark hole of stupidity.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#44 Jan 28, 2013
She saw the long thread attempting to explain it to her but she just cannot comprehend, or stay on topic. She gets lost in the explanation, just like she did in school and stops reading. Then she makes a fool of herself. She cannot pay attention, she cannot understand anything but one or two sentences at a time.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hancock Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
weed 11 hr cozie1916 1
I'm sitting and staring and waiting Sun desire belmore 1
Competition draws non-profits Oct 14 reality is a crutch 1
reckless conduct - patricia donovan Oct 9 PattyHater 21
BLACK MOON "Twins"cakes (Nov '07) Oct 7 rememberLowell 111
When someone confessions to mental illnesses in... Oct 6 Burt Rambeau 11
Desire Belmore resembles Pee Wee Herman Oct 6 Sharon 3

Hancock News Video

Hancock Dating
Find my Match

Hancock Jobs

Hancock People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hancock News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hancock

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]