>>16727673

Anonymous 07/13/22 (Wed) 22:04:2948f593 (15) No.16727673

Anon commenter on the following article cited a case I haven't heard of on /qresearch/ before. Interdasting! Maybe anon found something???

Link to the article (Uvalde story):

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/22/uvalde-pd-continues-stonewalling-hires-private-law-firm-to-block-release-of-school-shooting-recordings/

Link to anon's cited court case (CASTLE ROCK):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

I'm no lawfag - just a lowly memefag. Maybe the tgood ol' night shift autists out there can sift through this and discern. Just passing it along. WWG1WGA, Patriots!

my note: Having read a good part of the ruling document -

which is based on a mother who filed a restraining order against her husband - in court - in a divorce action, which went through stages, ending up giving father visitation rights after notice. The father came by and just took the three girls without notice. Disappeared. Police kept putting mother off for hours, refusing to do anything at all. Father shows up at police station at midnight with an AR15 and is killed in a shootout. The girls are found dead in his car. Mother seeks relief from the city for tolerating the inaction of the police in restraining order protections. Loses up to Supreme Court where she wins.

This is the case that stated that police are no required to protect. They have discretion. But the court explains:

saying that the 14th amendment does not in itself guarantee police protection, but it does become enforceable when a state has taken upon itself to further define the parameters of the expected protections. In this case, Colorado has passed a law that compelled police to enforce restraining orders, removing much of the discretion allowed to police on whether or not to do so. By Colorado law, they MUST enforce.

So, under this ruling: the parents had rights to expect that their children would be protected and had functioned accordingly. If there had been no such guarantee of protection, they would have acted more aggressively to ensure that police WOULD protect the kids.

not a lawyer, just an opinion

>>16728472

PAST BREAD !!!!!

not catching all the posts

caught the Gaetz post on the Judiciary hearing on abortion,

another anon posted another video of Gaetz, cyber chief questions

well

it just so happens that I saw the pic from Hunters files

of the man on the couch with 5 girls

and anon was sasying "it's not Hunter"

so I put the pic in graphics program, turned it , magnified it

and here it is

_____

post of Gaetz questioning FBI cyber chief, (Senator next to Gaetz is laughing)

>>16727851 (pb)

>>16726623 (pb)- full picture w/ young girls

https://media.128ducks.com/file_dl/4571e07e3a632b48007cfb1643dc512f138a96e4ceb4590cf2d19e5c71205d37.mp4/gaetzLaptopFBI.mp4

_____

Is this our cyber chief ???

Word around town is H has a lot of them in his pocket.

And watching Gaetz questioning him, with Senator next to him

laughing ??

I had to wonder if Gaetz ALREADY HAS THE LAPTOP

and knew of those pictures

and knew the cyber chief was in them

and that is why the other Senator was laughing

They already had this guy by the balls.

>>16728722

and just for shits and giggles

those FBI agents

were perpetrating a fraud on the country

if they held a job that required a duty

and did not perform that duty

because that duty did not get performed

when it needed to be performed

give their salaries back from the last 4 years

with a big kick in the ass PENALTY