TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

sleepyjack2 Archive

View 0 posts and 15 comments by sleepyjack2 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

that's true but there's still probably a self preservation instinct
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/25 03:12 PM
2

if she goes to trial and loses she will get the statutory levels and they can be stacked, if she works out a plea deal she'll get something less. The idea is that you don't want to force these kids to come testify about all this unless you have to. From reading the article and the allegations she was drugging kids and then threatening them I'm guessing she gets 20-30 on a few counts running concurrently on a plea deal, she'd have to be nuts to take this to trial.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/25 03:05 PM
2

yeah I mean what do I know I've only been working these kinds cases for over a decade.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/25 02:10 PM
7

If it were Texas she'd have to serve half before she was parole eligible and probably close to 75% before being released.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/25 07:10 PM
-1

I don't know Indiana law specific to this case but if it were Texas (where I practice) I'd guess something between 10 and 20.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/25 06:50 PM
5

I didn't say that women should be treated differently than men, I said to the extent that they are it's far less significant than it used to be in these cases. Aggressively means she'll probably be looking at somewhere between 10 and 20 years is my guess.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/25 06:49 PM
15

I'm a defense attorney and I can tell you that's not really the case anymore these days. These cases are prosecuted pretty aggressively now, maybe they get a little less time than a man would but typically you're still looking at years in prison.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/25 04:11 PM
-1

Lol that"tabloid" is the Washington Post and Eugene Volkah is a constitutional law professor and a preeminent 1st Amendment scholar. Also innocent until proven guilty is a criminal law principle that has nothing to do with civil tort libel. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 05:00 PM
-2

Lol I live and practice law in the United States. You have no clue what you're talking about. I've already cited actual legal sources. You and your buddies here are just making shit up that you think sounds right.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 01:29 PM
-4

The disclosed fact is that the girl accused him of rape. That is the basis for the opinion. It does not matter if he raped the girl or if their reliance on her accusation was unreasonable. The "facts" are simply what the opinions rely on and it does not matter if the facts are ultimately true or false. Also "Hearsay" is an evidentiary rule that does not affect the analysis. All out of court statements are hearsay.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 05:34 AM
-8

It doesn't have to be a vague or non-specific statement. It's based on the allegations of the accuser, which are disclosed facts. They have the right to imply particular facts are true based on their opinion of whether those facts are true. Did you or anyone else bother to read the article I linked to that explained that concept? It's called an "opinion based on disclosed or assumed facts." This is libel law 101. How much time have all you downvoting me spent studying libel law and it's interact…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 04:59 AM
-27

Look dude, I get that's what you think but you're just making things up that sound right to you. But you're 100% wrong. If based on information provided to me I decide Johnny is a rapist, I have the absolute right to say "Johnny is a rapist." Legally it's called an "opinion based on disclosed or assumed facts." Again, I'm a lawyer and I've litigated these things. Edit: here's an article explaining the principle: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/16/libel-law-and-in…
/r/MensRights18/11/15 04:22 AM
-41

No it is not. You do not know what you are talking about. Just like I can say OJ Simpson is a murderer all I want despite his acquittal. It's a statement of opinion ("I think Johnny is a rapist" or "I think OJ Simpson is a murderer"). Source: I'm a lawyer and I've litigated 1st Amendment cases.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 03:54 AM
-7

But I've had it happen enough and by enough different people, that its definitely a thing. Yeah I don't believe you. You take your daughters out and people mutter that you're a pedophile? Sorry, but that's too incredulous for me.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 07:27 AM
1

Popehat brings the hammer, as usual.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 11:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter