skyler

@BrotherCounsel @NoteMyObjection @YouTube You are so full of shit. You are nowhere near Katherine Loftus' level of professionalism and intelligence.

Here is my take on @NoteMyObjection Interview of Kerry Roberts on the Karen Read case. youtu.be/Z0-pU3WnzbA?si… via @YouTube

@NoteMyObjection 😆Love this woman.

@theginnyjamz @JulieCar94 🤣🤣

He is such a clown....

@sortatargetdog @TBWarRoom 🎯

LIKE TRASH: Turtleboy goes on THE MOST EMPASSIONED RANT defending Karen Read and John O’Keefe: “You're f*cking trash. I hope you [anti-FKR] burn in hell…” “I hope they all rot in f*ckin hell for what they did to him and what they did to Karen Read on top of that.” (05/13/23)

@TuesdayGazette @Dan_Donovan_17 It's fascinating. I've always thought he doesn't really believe the foolishness he spews. I think I was wrong...he really is that stupid.

@Dan_Donovan_17 Yep, he ignores Karen’s own words.🫠

I love that Loophole Lawyer now is creating a BRAND NEW narrative. Note that Higgins doesn't attack John in the house (the guy doesn't go in the house) he NOW attacks him on the yard. BUT Karen says she sees John go inside and waits 3 mins calls him and waits 10 more mins.

@TheSpiciestLRQ Unbelievable.

He also said he wants to be sued over it. Incels will do literally anything for attention, including wanting to be sued for defamation.

@RiekaMcCoy Looking forward to it.

Tonight at 7:30 PM ET. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@TuesdayGazette 😀 Such good news. Maybe Read and Kearney will finally be held responsible for the damage they have done to these individuals, as well as the entire community. No-one deserves to be treated the way they've been treated.

Karen Read and Aidan Kearney are served with a lawsuit for the Defamation of witnesses in Karen’s criminal trial.

@DixieNormu95224 All that to say nothing.

We’ve officially reached the scroll back 15 years phase with these cowards.. Nothing says strong argument like digging up a 2011 Facebook post to go after someone. No facts. No substance. Just personal attacks. But yeah… this is definitely about protecting the town. And standing up for other townfolk... I've never seen such weak pussies in my life.. Again they never will say this to your face, they will hide behind their computer because they are trashbags

When accounts with no history, no ties to the community, and no prior engagement suddenly appear just to push one specific narrative… people should ask why. Real community discussion doesn’t start with brand new profiles dropping talking points. It starts with people who are actually part of the community. Interesting sequence here. A person not from Canton posts a very specific line of attack on X about George, the Tilden House, costs, and alleged misuse. Then, just a few hours later, a new profile appears in a Canton Facebook group and starts pushing the same exact subject. What makes it stand out? The Facebook profile appears to have just joined the group on April 7, of 26. No prior posting history in the group. And then suddenly jumps right into a highly specific accusation-filled discussion involving the same topic that had just been pushed on X. Could that be a coincidence? Sure. But people are also allowed to notice patterns. Because this does not look like someone who has been part of the day-to-day life of the group and organically joined the conversation. It looks like someone showed up with a purpose. They want to present themselves as proud, upstanding voices of the town…while operating behind anonymous or newly created accounts. If you truly believe what you’re saying, why hide? Accountability should apply to everyone not just the people you’re targeting.

@ALL_WEDO_ISWORK He is beyond dumb. Something in his brain is way off kilter.

Literally the dumbest dude in America.

@HeyDizzzy @steele_ric56543 @TuesdayGazette A vehicle pedestrian side swipe does not usually result in broken bones. Didn't you know that?

@steele_ric56543 @TuesdayGazette And what have you got to say about this Tuesday? x.com/i/status/20411…

The Foreskins tryin play dumb🤦‍♀️I can't y'all 😂

Based on her "amended complaint" alone, her attorneys showed that they are anything but talented. Are you familiar with the legal concept of conclusory... It is when an assertion is made without evidence to support the assertion. Statements that are conclusory are not considered valid. Most of Read's "amended complaint" is conclusory. It's hard to believe it was actually submitted by attorneys.

@Wake_Island1984 I don't know Karen Read. I have no basis to believe her or not believe her. But I know she has talented attorneys who make accurate and compelling legal arguments.

I don't think that paragraph sums up the House Defendants' position well at all. Though I don't agree with it, their position is that Karen Read's complaint should be dismissed *regardless* of whether her allegations are baseless, or whether they're on sound footing. The House Defendants want the complaint dismissed because of who they are, not because of what they did or did not do. Even if it's true that the House Defendants conspired to frame Ms. Read, plant evidence, mislead investigators, and provide false testimony, Judge Caspar should nevertheless dismiss the complaint, they say. They don't want Judge Caspar even to get to the question of whether or not Ms. Read's factual allegations have merit.

@LDTEmeritus Come on...They want the claim dismissed because it is legally unsound. The decision will be based on the law. It has nothing to do with what "they want".

@LDTEmeritus @Wake_Island1984 The depositions have not been completed. The responses to her silly "amended complaint" have been. They are definitely worth reading. Try to have an open mind.🤔

@Wake_Island1984 Again, I don't know Karen Read. You'd have to ask her that question. But I have little doubt she's abiding the guidance of her lawyers. I would. I wasn't aware the House Defendants' depositions have been completed. When was Brian Higgins' deposition?

@LDTEmeritus The responses to Read's inept and conclusory "amended complaint" were perfect. There is a huge difference between your opinions and the actual law. Educate yourself.

The House Defendants have brought a motion to dismiss Karen Read's federal court claims on two grounds. The first ground is their allegation that Ms. Read's suit is a "SLAPP" suit, or a "strategic lawsuit against public participation." The House Defendants argue that their various reports to police, investigators, and others, as well as their trial testimony, amount to protected "petitioning activity" under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law (M.G.L ch. 231, § 59H). They say their reports and testimony are so well established under the law as "protected petitions" to the government, that Ms. Read must prove, affirmatively, that the House Defendants' various machinations were "devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law." In her federal suit, Ms. Read argues that the House Defendant's gave knowingly false reports to police and investigators, colluded with one another to "get their story straight" and misdirect the Commonwealth's investigation away from themselves and toward Ms. Read, and gave knowingly false testimony at trial. The House Defendants' motion argues that even if all that is true - the false reports, the collaboration, the false testimony - the federal suit still must be dismissed because making false statements like that in official proceedings is *always* a "protected activity." The House Defendants were mere bystanders doing their civic duty, and cannot be sued, regardless of their motivations, they say . . . and Ms. Read cannot prove the House Defendants had no basis to lie to the police and investigators, or to provide knowingly false testimony. No, really. That's the essence of it. No joke. The second basis for the motion to dismiss is that Ms. Read's complaint doesn't state a claim for relief under any recognized principle of law. They first argue that all House Defendants have absolute immunity under the law to make misleading statements to investigators and provide false testimony - and there's nothing the law or the court can do about it. They say that the statutes of limitation for some for the claims have expired - even if the House Defendants coordinated with officials to withhold mandatory information from Ms. Read in a manner that prevented her from bring certain claims. The House Defendants also say Ms. Read's federal civil rights claim must be dismissed because her complaint doesn't show *any* coordination with state officials. None. None whatsoever, as a matter of law. Visiting Michael Proctor at home and using his sister as an informational conduit "doesn't count," they say. As for civil conspiracy? The House Defendants say Ms. Read hasn't alleged they knew, at the time, that trying to frame her for a murder they knew she didn't commit was a "wrongful act." (In case you're wondering, yes - these arguments get more ridiculous as the arguments rear the end.) Finally, the House Defendants, who now want to be called the "Commonwealth Witnesses," but who most people still call the "McAlberts," say that Ms. Read can't possibly state a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress because deliberately trying to frame an innocent woman for a murder she didn't commit isn't "sufficiently outrageous" or "atrocious" under Massachusetts common law. I'm certainly looking forward to the response from Ms. Read's legal team!

@TheFutureFlashx @theghostofTB12 @LDTEmeritus 🎯 Yes, for your own sake, please do.

@theghostofTB12 @LDTEmeritus He’s leading you astray. Seek better guidance

He attributes the O'keefe's not receiving justice to the investigation? As imperfect as it may have been, that investigation resulted in the right person being charged. We all know why the O'keefe's did not receive justice. If this self-serving pinhead gets into office, we're in trouble.

@RD_419 @fourensicroom Wow! You can't say anything, but yet what you do say condemns the CPD and MSP?

Since the Turtleriders are absolutely losing their minds over us posting about their leader, we’ll just keep going.

@fourensicroom Much respect for these four remarkable women. 😃

@Jaytheman6 @scooperon7 It's not uncommon for licensed clinicians to work in tandem with police officers when calls involve "mental health crises".

@scooperon7 A clinician? What’s a clinician doing answering 911 calls?

Just in: Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox and Suffolk County District attorney Kevin Hayden confirm person having mental health crisis who attacked a Boston police officer and a clinician with a sword this AM was shot and killed by police… investigation ongoing #7News