And it is uncommon knowledge to people that instead of playing smartass like that, a judge unsympathetic to the progressive cause would probably rule against this in this case ongoing since friggin 2018, and saying no to settlements being rare would also not stop such from saying no regardless.
Literally no they wouldn't. You don't understand what a judge can and can't do. But then you don't seem to understand anything. In short, I'm
Keep believing whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
Why I feel good about myself right now: I'm arguing with a clown.
> Be Marduk, claim to know about the US legal system
Here's a well known enough for even me to have heard of example of courts helping with detail based obstructionism in immigration enforcement:
On Oct. 16, the United States reached a settlement in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., a class action litigation filed in 2018 seeking injunctive relief relating to the separation of parents and children at the southwest border. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the...
www.justice.gov
> Think that a settlement means a judge did something, and not the US Department of Justice cucking.
How is that not the judge's fault too? As you said, it takes both parties.
> Think that the two parties in a litigation are the judge and the prosecutor.
> Show everyone that you don't understand US law.
> Continue to do so:
And it is uncommon knowledge to people that instead of playing smartass like that, a judge unsympathetic to the progressive cause would probably rule against this in this case ongoing since friggin 2018, and saying no to settlements being rare would also not stop such from saying no regardless.
Look, no one here actually expects you to understand US law anymore that I understand Polish government. But acting like you do when you clearly don't makes you a clown.
Own your positions, and admit when you've made a mistake, and people might actually respect you. Instead, you prefer to Reeeee about Ukraine/Russia and shout legal gibberish.
Here's a few more times you were wrong this thread, then decided to act like a loon instead of being a man.
Delusional wishful thinking, if it was mostly government it would be easy to starve the hydra.
Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services is a non-profit that works with the United States government to assist in the placement, settlement, and integration of refugees. It was founded in 1939 and has assisted in resettling hundreds of thousands of refugees. LIRS is also active on the southern...
www.influencewatch.org
This is one of big such NGOs, most of its funding is not government, at least not directly.
Here, you tried to prove that LIRS isn't funded by government, but your own citation proves it wrong
>work with US government
Obviously. But how much of its funding comes from US government?
Those are separate questions, don't play these games with me...
Then tried to claim that I was playing games, when games are all you know, as I showed you that it was in fact, 80% funded by government:
Nongovernmental organizations, like charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits, are under scrutiny by DHS for misspent funds.
www.newsnationnow.com
Spoiler, 80% is what commonly known as 'most'.
Then you try to change the topic to "But what about state governments", while openly acknowledging that you are moving the goal posts, engaging in dishonest debate tactics. I could prove you wrong here. But then you'd have some other stupid wrong statement about something else, and we'd be here forever.
Oh, here's my favorite:
> Be Broken Clock, and be correct for once about illegal immigration amounts under Trump.
> Still a moron who doesn't know about how political realities in the US work.
> Find chart that Marduk think shows Trump is bad.
> Chart actually shows Trump is good to anyone who knows anything about how illegal immigration works in the US.
> Then cite paywalled source.
> Abhorsen literally hands you the info you needed to prove your point, because he's done with your flailing about.
> Claim victory.
> Proceed to break the rules of the board as a mod.
> Continues to show they can't parse a rules system correctly. Spoiler: a link to a paywall, plus a method to dodge a paywall, adds up to "detailed guidance to pirate copyrighted material", even when separate they wouldn't.
And yes, dodging a paywall is legally, probably piracy (hasn't been legally tested yet, I don't think, but it's a "probably yes").
Access Rights and the DMCA’s Anticircumvention Provision Traditional media companies, such as newspapers, have struggled to adjust their profit models to the Internet economy. Some newspapers have instituted “paywalls,” digital locks that limit access to online articles with varying degrees of...
www.nyulawreview.org
www.dmlp.org