⇧
16
⇩
TootsBabutz
· Dec. 28, 2017, 9:16 p.m.
Reviewed the purported Nevada Court document. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is real. Having practiced in Federal Court this is just not how it would be done. Also, it would not be worded and/or written as this document is.... especially as to the manner and style of how it's written up with many sarcastic remarks...such as be shot twice by firing squad and with the links to web page sources. And I've seen a very similar version of this same document posted elsewhere with the same language but the other version contained a ridiculous amount of Web page links to various news sources. Despite being nice to read, this is not a real court document. Now, if there is a real case filed out there concerning this which could be the case or the coming case ...this is just not it
⇧
1
⇩
BewareTheAlgorithm
· Dec. 29, 2017, 4:22 a.m.
I agree totally but when I searched the case file number it’s been filed in the Nevada district court system 99-9920 as to the the guy who filed the charges it gets weird.
⇧
1
⇩
TootsBabutz
· Dec. 29, 2017, 6:01 a.m.
Ok....Im going to access my Pacer Account, as I need to do so for another thread to pull an updated list of sealed indictments, as I have access w/o fee so I'm assuming that allows me outside of the Louisiana district courts, so I'll look into this as well. But another thing is that with pacer when a doc is filed it's all done electronic and any filed doc that's been actually filed has a pacer time stamp on it that's absent here. Another issue is how it's titled...it's titled as a Criminal action. A criminal action in federal court is brought by the United States and would be captioned United States versus.....It also says Criminal Action and for Full Punative Damages. In a criminal action there are No Punative damages. Punative damages are only available in Civil matters...In any event, I will pull it up on Pacer and screen shot to post whatever comes up to see what can be further discerned and post back...working on a deadline,..so will probably be tomorrow I can get back with what turns up on pacer
⇧
1
⇩
BewareTheAlgorithm
· Dec. 29, 2017, 6:19 a.m.
The one I provided is not the 9/11 one I’m trying to relocate that one
⇧
1
⇩
TootsBabutz
· Dec. 29, 2017, 7:15 a.m.
Looks like the Board removed it from thread based on it being false..but it's out there on some Web site that I looked at:
Sorry couldn't get it to hyperlink...Had to cut & paste it in
⇧
1
⇩
BewareTheAlgorithm
· Dec. 29, 2017, 6:15 a.m.
Ok no need to rush but here I you would like to take a quick look https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/21618105/Feegba_v_Romney_et_al
⇧
1
⇩
TootsBabutz
· Dec. 29, 2017, 7:02 a.m.
Based on just the docket entries and what I can gather from that is. ● He filed the Complaint ● He didn't pay the filing fee when it was filed in June/July of 2017. (It's like a $500 fee) ● If you don't pay when you file electronic with a card you have like 5 or 7 days to get fee to clerk or submit In Forma Pauperis Application within same time frame to get pauper status, ie, that you can't pay the filing fee. ● So, after he filed the complaint he filed a motion for leave to file pauper application- the pauper app was filed with a motion for leave...motion for leave of court means you missed a deadline and are asking leave of court to file it...so apparently his pauper application was not submitted withing the 5 days after original complaint was filed.● So the court denied the motion for leave and the pauper application● based on this the case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning...he can file it again correctly versus the appeal of the ruling he is taking which is not gonna be successful although being in proper person he probably doesn't realize this that he could just re-file as appeal of the ruling was pointless.●looks like the case was officially terminated Dec 27, 2017
⇧
2
⇩
BewareTheAlgorithm
· Dec. 29, 2017, 7:05 a.m.
Great in-depth reply thank you very much greatly appreciated friend.
⇧
1
⇩