I keep hearing the average age of the few protestors who were arrested during the Capitol attack was about 40 years old.

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.

Ok so I have figured it out. This is the team that retrieved the laptops (and whatever else). Notice the two women who are unlocking the door. Three men on the right suiting up. And the man in black with zip tie cuffs that are ready to use, in case they need to keep someone down.

Tarlochan Singh, an elderly farmer, summed up the mood, saying: 

“It is not merely about a few legal infirmities in the laws. It is the philosophy of governance that will trigger a national crisis, a situation that will widen the conflict between the rich and the poor...

If this direction is not changed, we may be heading for civil war in this country. We have to understand the nature of the threat first; it is not about legalese, it is about life.”

“Everybody is going to be affected — the small businessmen, the agriculture workers, the consumers. We don’t need governments, courts and committees to tell us what our pain is.

Why is the government doing such a favour that will endanger our lives?

None will move from here until the laws are repealed.

The government can fire on us, unleash tanks or do bombarding from fighter planes. We die or defeat this government.”

Asked what would happen if the leaders strike a deal with the government and decide to give up, he said:

“It is not possible now. You must have a very low-grade moral fabric to strike a deal with the government on this issue. Our leaders aren’t like that.”