This is unreasonable. Jim Watkins is complaining that researchers here mention Jews. And he says that instead we should be researching the legal case against Maxwell … who is a Jewish criminal, almost certainly controlled by the government of Israel. Yeah, I guess we could criticize Maxwell without mentioning her ancestry. But that doesn't make us into legal scholars. How the hell are we supposed to research the legal merits of the case? Should we just teach ourselves about three years' worth of law-school courses in thirty minutes? Or are we supposed to hire lawyers to explain it? What exactly does Jim want from us here?
So we have a bunch of legalese. No clear meaning. The dates jump out. The case was originally filed years ago, then apparently stopped. Then, years later, documents from the case are still being unsealed. So who can make sense of this rat's nest? Is there a lawfag in the house?
> Gurarantee ya there are some lawfags here looking at it, if you are too lazy.
I'm energetic enough to look at this drivel, but realistic enough to know that without a law degree, my analysis is uninformed. But okay, I'll call you on your "guarantee" – suppose there are lawfags looking at it. If that's true, they should be able to answer Jim's criticism.
Well, okay, lawfags, now is your time to shine. Educate the rest of us.
>with the exposure of the narratives of ingersoll-larpwood i can only conclude that the only "research" done here is about jews
I had not noticed ingersoll-larpwood before but I will look at it now. Thanks.
https://www.ingersolllockwood.com/our-history/