A super dieend quick de-reading of Naomi Klein's (?) book entitled Lo Nogo in n episodes.*
So the general mode in "consumer"-capitalism is what we literally see is wares and their prize only. Images (situationists) or brands (Klein) took over. What one

Let's remember that L. Lin Wood - according to a lawsuit filed by three attorneys who worked with/for him - allegedly called them to his house at 1 a.m. in the midst of a personal crisis, they sat with him to make sure he was okay, and tthe next day he fired them all via email.

Let's also recall that, shortly thereafter, according to the same Complaint, it is alleged he held a 3.5 hour phone call wherein he - again according to the Complaint - verbally berated these attorneys nonstop.

Then proceeded, the attorneys who worked with him allege, to send multiple abusive email messages to them with unhinged ramblings about Almighty God guiding him.

Note: Literally ANY email that includes the words "you are the ones who are crazy, not me" is immediately suspect.

Sidenote: Voicemails that insist an action seems crazy but really isn't and makes completely sense are, in my general experience with domestic abuse cases, red flags.

Counter-claim - when the defendant in a case “counter-sues” the plaintiff. So in this case JD is the plaintiff, AH is the defendant, she has counter-sued JD - in layman’s terms that’s her saying ‘you sued me, so I’m going to sue you!”. 🙄

AH’s counter-claim is actually rather poorly drafted (IMO!) and, to quote AH herself is “very dramatic”. It contains very little in the way of valid case law (see my video on caselaw) to support her claims and, to me, actually does read like someone throwing a tantrum!

Her counter-claim, when you cut through the crap, seeks: Declaratory Judgment, seeks to pursue a defamation claim against JD, and to pursue a claim against JD under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (“Bot-Gate”)

So… Declaratory Judgment. This duplicates the Anti-SLAPP immunity that AH has included in her Defence so this part of the counter-claim DUPLICATES an argument she has already made. The Judge decided that Declaratory Judgment was not appropriate.

So the issue she sought to resolve with the DJ is already being dealt with in her Defence & will be dealt with at Trial… which is what the Judge means when he said to hear her Defence and her counter claim for declaratory judgment would be to hear the same issue twice.

A necessary clarification needs to be made with regards to securities laws because I’ve been seeing a theory lately not based on law but based on false presumptions. Before I do so, I want to note that I DO NOT think that XRP is a security (before I get “FUD” responses). 1/

Here it goes: There has been a theory that the SEC should only be pursuing the sales of XRP by Ripple, and once it exchanges hands it is no longer a security. Basically the theory is that the XRP the common investor holds (who bought off an exchange) is not a security because 2/

there is no privity with Ripple. Stated differently, the assumption is the SEC should categorize XRP into two pots: 1) XRP sold by Ripple and 2) all other XRP . The theory continues that a difference should be made and the SEC should clarify that it is only alleging the 3/

transactions made by Ripple to be transactions of securities. This theory is a fallacy. I’ve seen this theory argued by comparing XRP to a stock and noting the differences. It is important to note that this type of comparison cannot apply. 4/

The SEC is not alleging that XRP is a stock, but rather an “investment contract”. An Investment Contract is (1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with the expectation of profit (4) derived solely from the efforts of others. 5/