dChan
Anonymous ID: 319cf3 May 4, 2019, 8:18 p.m. No.6417249   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7270 >>7316 >>7347

Kentucky Derby was a FF

 

Country House declared Kentucky Derby winner after ‘inquiry ruling’; Maximum Security disqualified, officials say

 

>The HOUSE knocked out Maximum Security

 

In a historical reversal, Country House was declared the winner of the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on Saturday following “an inquiry ruling” and the disqualification of Maximum Security, officials said.

 

The disqualification marked "the first time in 145 years" that "the horse who finished first in the Kentucky Derby was disqualified," the official Twitter account for the sporting event said.

 

>POTUS [1]45

 

Country House was a 65-1 longshot in the race, which included 18 other competitors.

 

 

>2019-04-22 21:31:49 (UTC+1)

 

>Isn’t it amazing that the people who were closest to me, by far, and knew the Campaign better than anyone, were never even called to testify before Mueller. The reason is that the 18 angry democrats knew they would all say ‘NO COLLUSION’ and only very good things!

 

>2019-04-15 18:21:01 (UTC+1)

 

>The Mueller Report, which was written by 18 angry democrats who also happen to be Trump Haters (and Clinton Supporters), should have focused on the people who SPIED on my 2016 Campaign, and others who fabricated the whole Russia Hoax. That is, never forget, the crime…..

 

Code of Honor was second, with Tacitus third. Maximum Security was listed as coming in 17th place.

 

>Code of Honor = 17 = Q

 

Also could dig into Churchill for Churchill Downs. See what else happened in history on this day etc.

Anonymous ID: 319cf3 May 4, 2019, 8:20 p.m. No.6417270   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>6417249

fucked that up forgot link

 

it was a warning to POTUS I believe

 

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/country-house-declared-kentucky-derby-winner-after-inquiry-ruling-maximum-security-disqualified-officials-say

Anonymous ID: 319cf3 May 4, 2019, 8:27 p.m. No.6417344   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7369 >>7433 >>7471

Kentucky Derby was a FF to warn POTUS

 

Country House declared Kentucky Derby winner after ‘inquiry ruling’; Maximum Security disqualified, officials say

 

The HOUSE knocked out Maximum Security

 

In a historical reversal, Country House was declared the winner of the 145th running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on Saturday following “an inquiry ruling” and the disqualification of Maximum Security, officials said.

 

The disqualification marked "the first time in 145 years" that "the horse who finished first in the Kentucky Derby was disqualified," the official Twitter account for the sporting event said.

 

POTUS [1]45

 

Country House was a 65-1 longshot in the race, which included 18 other competitors.

 

POTUS tweets with 18 angry Democrats

 

>2019-04-22 21:31:49 (UTC+1)

 

>Isn’t it amazing that the people who were closest to me, by far, and knew the Campaign better than anyone, were never even called to testify before Mueller. The reason is that the 18 angry democrats knew they would all say ‘NO COLLUSION’ and only very good things!

 

>2019-04-15 18:21:01 (UTC+1)

 

>The Mueller Report, which was written by 18 angry democrats who also happen to be Trump Haters (and Clinton Supporters), should have focused on the people who SPIED on my 2016 Campaign, and others who fabricated the whole Russia Hoax. That is, never forget, the crime…..

 

Code of Honor was second, with Tacitus third. Maximum Security was listed as coming in 17th place.

 

Code of Honor = 17 = Q

 

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/country-house-declared-kentucky-derby-winner-after-inquiry-ruling-maximum-security-disqualified-officials-say

 

This was a warning shot to POTUS

 

Also could dig into Churchill for Churchill Downs. See what else happened in history on this day etc.

 

(tried to clean it up and post again, sorry)

Anonymous ID: 319cf3 May 4, 2019, 8:42 p.m. No.6417513   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7575 >>7629

look into who owns that horse Country House

 

it was a threat to Trump

it's illuminati code which nobody seems to know here

 

sure miss the old times here

used to be glorious and informing

now it's just shit heads that deserve death

for the most part

maybe media matter cunts will get their wish

Anonymous ID: 319cf3 May 4, 2019, 9:20 p.m. No.6417848   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7866 >>7901

Country House odds 65-1

 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES › Rule 65.1. Proceedings Against a Security Provider

 

Rule 65.1. Proceedings Against a Security Provider

 

Whenever these rules (including the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions) require or allow a party to give security, and security is given with one or more security providers, each provider submits to the court's jurisdiction and irrevocably appoints the court clerk as its agent for receiving service of any papers that affect its liability on the security. The security provider's liability may be enforced on motion without an independent action. The motion and any notice that the court orders may be served on the court clerk, who must promptly send a copy of each to every security provider whose address is known

(As added Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; amended Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 12, 2006, eff. Dec. 1, 2006; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

 

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966

 

See Note to Rule 65.

 

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment

 

The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.

 

Committee Notes on Rules—2006 Amendment

 

Rule 65.1 is amended to conform to the changed title of the Supplemental Rules.

 

Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment

 

The language of Rule 65.1 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.

 

Committee Notes on Rules—2018 Amendment

 

Rule 65.1 is amended to reflect the amendments of Rule 62. Rule 62 allows a party to obtain a stay of a judgment “by providing a bond or other security.” Limiting Rule 65.1 enforcement procedures to sureties might exclude use of those procedures against a security provider that is not a surety. All security providers, including sureties, are brought into Rule 65.1 by these amendments. But the reference to “bond” is retained in Rule 62 because it has a long history.

 

The word “mail” is changed to “send” to avoid restricting the method of serving security providers.

‹ Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65.1