>>14524273 PB
<See, you accuse me because you can't see.
Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I don't care if you call me a liar, I don't care if you call me a coward, I don't care if you hate me. I know you hated Him first. I know Truth. I'm standing with Him. I am strong in Him.
And he is strong in you. Keep up the good fight. Be strong be bold. Our purpose is his and we are on his side.
HE>i
Anyone know the backup link to
qresear.ch
Thanks its working now
>>13681018 PB
>>13681018 >>13681073
>>13681007
https://casetext.com/case/latham-v-1953-tr
Searched her name and found this.
Looks like it was dismissed as frivolous.
IDK anything about it. Never heard of her.
Part
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).
A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding that "finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible"); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[A]n action is 'frivolous' when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Charlene Y. Latham filed this complaint on her own behalf ("Plaintiff #1") and on behalf of her parents, David G. Latham and Tracey Y. Latham ("Plaintiffs #2 and #3," respectively), and their "other children and grandchildren" ("Plaintiffs John Doe 1-10" and "Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1-5.") (ECF 2 ¶ 7.) The 35 named defendants include the City of New York; individuals such as Harvey Weinstein, Shawn Carter, Beyoncé Knowles, Kanye West, Robert Kelly, Ghislaine Maxwell, and David Boies; and entities such as Miramax, the Walt Disney Company, Def Jam Recordings, Universal Music Group, Sprint, Viacom, Sony, and "the 1953 Trust," which is the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. Plaintiff alleges that Epstein "initiated" the events giving rise to this complaint.