BordersGirl

Stop harassing woman and focus on your singing career 😂😂

@FlemminNatalie 💅

@Drea_1005 @mereapplewatch 👀

@Drea_1005 @GenieTheSmart

Now you've really pissed him off!!!

@ScottKirch27 #VivaSanchez 💪🏻

A couple of quick (not really 😂) things: I didn’t say anyone was perusing anyone. I just wanted to be clear because you used quotes. I said pursuing. Second, I don’t intend to litigate the RO here on Twitter. You can feel free to read and interpret the 209A statute however you’d like but you should try not to just cherry pick and argue against individual phrases that you think benefit you and look at the whole thing. Another thing is your continued assumptions. You claim that she’s handed over EVERY bit of evidence as if it’s the end of the process and she no longer has any input but that is incorrect. The initial ex-parte application is simply to demonstrate to the judge that she has enough to warrant a temporary order and be granted hearing for an extended order. Nothing in the process precludes her from offering additional evidence or testimony to bolster her petition and in this case with the vast amount of evidence available, it’s not only likely that she will, it would be impractical for someone to try and present all of their evidence up front in a case like this. It’s simply too much. The initial appearance before the judge is to prevent frivolous requests but it’s not designed for the judge to hear the whole case. It’s more like an initial probable cause hearing to make sure the petitioner can make a plausible claim and has made a prima facie case. The fact that it’s ex-parte in nature is designed as a feature to both allow the initial review/screening process and address situations that may be urgent while still assuring that the accused has a right to be heard and present his own evidence BEFORE the judge makes factual determinations beyond just plausibility. That’s the due process part. Both parties will get the chance to make their case in front of the judge anew. My comparison to a PC hearing shouldn’t be confused though because while there are those due process rights that the state has granted having recognized the potential punitive effects granting of an RO can have on a respondent, this is not a criminal trial. There isn’t a reasonable doubt standard and while there is some liberty interest at stake, it is not a criminal case. The judge simply needs to view the evidence and determine by the preponderance of the evidence and testimony if they believe there is a sufficient basis to issue the order based on the elements outlined in the statute. The judge has made her initial determinations that the pleadings were sufficient to warrant court intervention on a temporary expedited basis and schedule the hearing. That’s all that happened so far. Your continued assumptions that “You’re nervous because you know that there is a very real chance that this order doesn’t get extended and if it isn’t you know how bad that will look for both you and her.😣😏” don’t mesh with reality and are another example of you proclaiming how I feel without any basis in reality. I have no personal stake in the outcome. The court should act on its own assembly of the petition. I wouldn’t describe myself as being particularly nervous though I do hope my friend can get the court to grant the relief that I wholeheartedly believe she deserves. I simultaneously have seen restraining orders denied that in my opinion should be granted and vice versa. No one knows going into a hearing like this how the judge will react to the evidence presented. God knows your own bootleg PR client can tell you that he himself has complained in the past that he wasn’t treated fairly or that the judge was somehow biased in the issuance or denial of various restraining orders. Without editorializing about my opinion of those cases, there just is no telling what will happen in court. When it gets to that point, there really aren’t any winners but sometime it’s necessary. I believe the judge will recognize it for what it is and appropriately extend the order for a period of one year. 🤷🏻‍♂️

i know i say this all the time but i love my snowhoes because we’re literally just a group of girlypops who like each other. who support each other. who trust each other. and who certainly don’t betray each other. i feel very fucking lucky.

I have a novel idea.. maybe try featuring some content that doesn’t involve degrading, harassing, and victimizing women and you won’t get these in your inbox.. seems YouTube has opinions of their own regarding YOU and your channel! funny how that works huh 🙃😆

@j3nnyb00m Imagine being two of the biggest bullies on YouTube using said degradation and defamation for content and actually being surprised that they are reported

@cryptik_imp @Trevor042727065 This reminded me of seeing yall in the wild the other day 😭😭😭😭 @Trevor042727065

Block and walk ✌🏻✌🏻

A malignant #narcissist could make a pacifist lash out in anger. Everyone has a breaking point and the narcissist doesn’t stop until they reach yours. … then they play the victim role and make their victim look like the perpetrator.

There are many horrible people on this platform, but this guy is the top of the list. Wears hats sold in the women's section, and threatens to physically assault women online.

No, I’m saying you’re not a victim and in fact are a victimizer who thinks you can intimidate your way into whatever outcome you want. You think journalism is cleverly threatening people with your audience, the only actual power you have. You love to play the game. You should’ve just walked away the hundreds of times I told you to. You simply had to continue to push a lie to cover up your own felonious behavior and relentlessly harass anyone and everyone possible to try and get what you wanted. You should’ve listened to your attorneys when they told you to cut the shit. Your problem is you. You should’ve focused on silencing yourself.

Oh damn I forgot this tactic on my prediction list. The famous Aidan Kearney reframe where you say the other person said something they didn’t and argue against that instead. Classic! 😂 That person called me out on something I did so they have TBDS. 🥴 No, dumbass, you slowly lost my support with your own actions once it became clear you weren’t really about standing up to corruption more than you were about using it to your own advantage.

Life is strange. You arrive with nothing, spend your whole life chasing everything, and still leave with nothing. Make sure your soul gains more than your hands.

@racoongirl_OF @sortatargetdog Of course he did 🙄 I turned it off as soon as Kelsey left

@BordersGirl911 @sortatargetdog And then after the interview he goes on to compare Kelsey to Karen and throws more jabs at Karen for not making a public statement in support of Kelsey. And then tells someone to die in a hole bc they told him to leave Karen alone 🙄 Ya know...the usual.

Too soon for an interview? Esp with an interviewer who lacks emotional intelligence to handle the situation with any nuance or sensitivity.

@HWOnYourCase @SeanBroadwick @glamma70733 @little_foot777 @DoctorTurtleboy “Person D, for dumb” 🪦

Dear fucknut. Shut up. You have no fucking idea what he did or didn’t do. Literally nothing you said in your post is correct. Stop making yourselves look like morons by saying people did or didn’t do something when you have no clue. It really is remarkable how you don’t understand how dumb you make yourselves look, repeatedly. Let’s have an example. You are person D (for dumb) in this scenario. Person A crashes their car into Person B and Person C witnesses it. Person A leaves the scene. Person A then tells everyone, I didn’t even hit the car. The car tried to hit me. Person C says, that’s not true. I witnessed you crash into that car. You come in as Person D. Despite you not being there and having no idea what happened, and say, that’s not true, Person A didn’t do anything wrong. He just had to swerve to avoid the crash when Person B tried to ram him with his rear bumper. Were you there? No. Do you know what kind of cars they were driving? No. Could you have any factual knowledge relevant to the circumstances? Nope. Fuck off with all that nonsense Person D.

Hey @little_foot777, did you think blocking me was gonna prevent me from responding to your blatant lies and nonsense so you could go on unchecked? Every single thing you just said ignores the fact that it happened in reverse. Instead of your little story that he was defending himself what you’re actually supporting is the prospect that she should’ve been silenced by HIS threats. Imagine being a woman and peddling lies for an obsessed ex-boyfriend that he should be able to get away with silencing his ex by threatening and controlling her. You’re gross.