Mean Girl 101: How to write a motion

A new motion was filed today, which could very well have been written by 9th graders, now I'm not sure if that is exactly what happened, but let's break it down and take a look at it shall we?

Here is the motion to get you started. 

First up, right off the bat here .. CATCHY TITLE!! Doesn't that one just make your eyes pop out of your head .. Gambling you say? Oooh scandalous! Wow .. let's read on ..

First part is as boring as hell, a quick skim and it's just covering the same old blah, yes we get it .. LLC blah blah blah, Company blah blah blah .. let's get to the good stuff!

This bit has a bit of meat in it though .. ooh there's mention of the gambling .. let's see!

OK, so when people take money out of a bank account they SPEND IT, good to know. 

Right, I think we're getting somewhere now, oh so her attorney instructed Tricia not to answer that gambling question, that must mean she didn't want her to answer the question, HENCE THIS FILING! Gosh, golly, almighty, even if we can't get this shit in court, we can just file a motion and everyone will read it, and then they'll all know that maybe Tricia gambles and OMG then everyone will hate her and that would be AWESOME .. Hang on, I'm getting ahead of myself here, let's read on. 

Next bit is case law .. Nah, not interested, skipping again. 

OK so Tricia was allowed to withdraw $3000 per month, which had been conveniently left out previously in all other mean girl communications, so let's see what they'll do here .. OOOOOH they say Tricia took more than $3000 .. NICE SWITCH!! Keep this one in your back pocket at all times girls, if someone wins a point you can always shift a goal post!

Now it gets juicy: 

Join the club there!

So somehow HOW Tricia spends her money is key here, kind of like the Bluebird card huh, but let's not go there .. 

Wow folks read on, this is the bit where the mean girls tell Tricia and everyone else that all Tricia's friends said things about her too and they can PROVE IT .. This is a great mean girl move, cosy up to the targets friends and get them to tell you something private about her, act like you have a heart, and are concerned for her welfare, then find out whatever you can. 

Now they argue that it's relevant .. Oh of course it's relevant .. any dirt you can dig up on your target is always relevant .. keep the mud coming budding mean girls, do not let it ease up even for one day!

Now for the conclusion part where all mean girls know a little speech is required, make this good, bring God into it if you possibly can, and show that you are only trying to do the right thing and help other people, let's see how they handle this one ..

Oh this is GOOD mean girls .. this is GOOD!!! Oh nice .. OK what they have done here is taken right from the mean girl playbook, I couldn't have asked for more ... basically the argument is this: 

She admitted it!!! She admitted it, then she said she didn't have to talk about it anyway .. and now we're going to MAKE HER!

Well there you have it ladies, now the fact that none of this will be admissible in court is really not relevant, even if the judge just throws this nonsense right outa there, which he likely will, what matters is they got the story out .. they got to spread it, and that's the main thing! 

Mean girl 101. 

Recording of Raine and Sue

https://soundcloud.com/user373075181/raine-call-log

All you have to do is listen really. Like monkeys in a zoo. Pathetic.

True colors

Many conversations have happened, and a few people have exited stage left from this situation in the last week or two. RadioNewz has provided a venue for people to get their feelings on the matter out and discuss what happened, and how so many were misled in what appears to have been nothing more than a fishing expedition.

Highly recommended: Notes from the Bunny Trail: The Hound Dog’s Tale

There are other articles too, and don't skip the comments.

Having sounded the alarm for over a year, it is good to see the truth coming out. Maybe next time a number of people are telling you over and over to be wary of certain folks, to be careful on certain forums, to take another look at the evidence, to take a look at the character and motives of the people involved, have a listen! Don't just assume those people are simply on the opposing side and dismiss it. Maybe, just maybe, they're trying to tell you something for your own good, maybe they actually want you to be safe and smart. At the very least have an independent mind, don't blindly follow those who you feel have authority, use your own instincts and demand to see the facts for yourself, then judge them on their merits, if the facts can't be produced, well that's a sign to WAIT until they can be before taking a stand. 

Just saying. 

Sometimes things are so good they need to be saved for the ages.

Originally posted on the RadioNewz blog: http://radionewz.net/2014/10/back-to-basics-websleuths-is-about-victims-and-their-families/

Sorry, not sorry.

OOPS something went wrong!
Page not found 404

The definition of confusion

Why so many people just have no idea what they can and cannot discuss at Websleuths. This is from Sue's deposition;

Q. Did you post anything in The Jury Room?

A. I posted that I had filed suit.

Q. Did you do that before it became public knowledge?

A. No. It was after.

Q. Do you remove any posts about this lawsuit after it was filed?

A. Did I what?

Q. Remove posts from the website, from Websleuths.

A. What type of posts?

Q. The posts about the lawsuit. Did you take any of them down off the website?

A. I'm not sure that I did. We didn't want our members discussing it. It would be -- I don't recall.

Q. Why didn't you want your members discussing it?

A. The damage it might do to the reputation; and that's why I kept it in the private area, too.

Q. Was The Jury Room a private area?

A. Yes, for members only.

Q. Maybe I'm -- we're back to the members problems, and that's not your fault.

A. Okay.

Q. We've done this to yourselves. So, let's clarify it as it applies here.

A. Okay.

Q. You said you didn't want members discussing it, but you posted in an area that was members only. So, I'd like to understand a little more about how that works. Maybe there's a distinction of members that you're using that I'm not familiar with. It's a problematic word in this context. I get that.

A. Right.

Q. You told me you didn't want members discussing it; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. And when you say members in that context, who do you mean?

A. 70,000 members we have. I mean, it could get a little out of control; and all we've done is post the documents and -- so, they can read. And I just felt they should be aware. You know, they were going to find it anyway.

Q. And how many members had access to The Jury Room?

A. It would be all of our -- all of our members. But you have to be a member.

Q. Is that the 70,000?

A. Yeah.

Q. But you didn't want them discussing it?

A. No, not really.

Q. Why did you post in The Jury Room if you didn't -- about this lawsuit if you didn't want them discussing it?

A. Because as members, I thought they had a right to know it had already hit other websites.

Q. Did you -- did they begin discussing it on Websleuths?

A. I can't remember if they did or not. There was a thread, but I can't remember specifically if it was about the lawsuit.

Q. Okay.

At the beginning of this line of questioning we have the reason for letting members know about the suit ..

Q. Why did you intend for them to become aware of the lawsuit? Why did you want them to know about it?

A. In order to field any questions from members.

That must be why no discussion was allowed, so no questions could be asked / fielded / etc.

The only reason to post the lawsuit was to make everyone aware that Sue was taking Tricia to court, and to look for more of these so called 'victims of Tricia' which if they existed would have helped her legal case, none of which we have ever heard of, unless of course you count Raine1212 who started this whole mess, which nobody does really for the obvious reason. 

PMs between Ursa & Raine | Vetting