Say Nothing posted:

Poulpe posted:

I don't understand- Actor failed to catch the tin can, of which there are several around- and didn't think to pick it up?

Ultimate Shrek Fan posted:

Mind you I haven't watched watched wrasslin since I was 10 or 11 but stone cold Steve Austin threw whoever that was a beer presumably as a sign of friendship or a "good job pal!" and when buddy didn't catch it, it showed stone cold Steve Austin that buddy was a fuckin pussy

Three-Phase posted:

BEEEEEELLLLYYYAAAD SUKA!

Roro posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAVKp_T8hH8

There's a lesson to be learned here. Use-by dates are not to be ignored.

Poulpe posted:

I don't understand- Actor failed to catch the tin can, of which there are several around- and didn't think to pick it up?

Roro posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAVKp_T8hH8

There's a lesson to be learned here. Use-by dates are not to be ignored.

Data Graham posted:

Only in Kenya

ekuNNN posted:

from gif thread

Say Nothing posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxNVEHVs894

Roro posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAVKp_T8hH8

There's a lesson to be learned here. Use-by dates are not to be ignored.

quote:

Update 11/05/2015: After several months justice has finally been served. The man who attacked my girlfriend and I back in July finally went to court. He signed a plea agreement to plead "no contest" to disorderly conduct and DUI.
His sentence is as follows:
-Serve 10 days in jail
-Pay a fine of $2800
-Be forced to take an alcohol counseling class
-Unsupervised probation for the next 3 years, during that time he is not allowed to consume or possess alcohol.
-Have an ignition interlock device installed on his car.
-If he violates his probation he will do 6 months in jail.
If you ask me, he got off easy...but at least something was done. I do not feel bad about exposing him as I hope this video will help warn new and old riders of how quickly a bit of road rage can get out of hand.

bobjr posted:

simplyhorribul posted:

Idgi

Atticus_1354 posted:

The guy parked like an rear end in a top hat, so they put up a sign implying he had a small penis.

DocCynical posted:

It wasn't because he took two stalls, it was because he parked super close to the video guys Porche 911 even though there was tons of room elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xibtzwdXgfI

Say Nothing posted:

DocCynical posted:

It wasn't because he took two stalls, it was because he parked super close to the video guys Porche 911 even though there was tons of room elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xibtzwdXgfI

Weatherman posted:

A metre and a half counts as "super close"? What the gently caress kind of personal space issues do you guys have? Are you culturally obligated to scatter far and wide through the car park to prove that you're an individual free spirit who no one can tread on or something?

Also the video/idea wasn't even funny, Porsche guy is calling the kettle black with his small penis issues, etc.

Nuebot posted:

Small Penis Parking was funnier when I believed the gif that it was an rear end in a top hat taking up two parking stalls. That video was the lamest thing.

quote:

The bankruptcy application was first called on 19 October 2015. Mr Stewart appeared then. He had filed documents which indicated that he opposed the bank’s application. He headed those documents “Praecipe (motion) to dismiss” and “affidavit in support of motion to dismiss”. I had trouble following those documents. I urged Mr Stewart to obtain legal advice. I gave him time to file further documents. He did so, although those documents tend to summarise what he had endeavoured to state in his earlier documents. I have continued to have trouble fully understanding the written documents that Mr Stewart has put before the court. Much is irrelevant, nonsense or wrong.

quote:

Mr Stewart has, however, adopted a tactic of dissimulation. He pretends that he is not Frederick John McKay Stewart. He says that he is a son of Abraham. He also says he is of the clan Stewart, and insists that I should address him as Lord Frederick Stewart. He tendered to the court at the outset of the hearing documents which purported to be a Royal Warrant of Appointment. In his submissions, he referred to Frederick John McKay Stewart as a body corporate that is no longer in existence.

[20] Those are no more than dissimulation. They are a red herring. I am satisfied that the man who has appeared in court today is Frederick John McKay Stewart who incurred the liability under the judgment obtained by the Bank of New Zealand. He is the debtor in this case.

quote:

[26] As for personal jurisdiction over Mr Stewart, he is a New Zealander. He has New Zealand domicile and residence. He gave the guarantee in New Zealand. He dealt with the Bank of New Zealand in New Zealand. The New Zealand District Court gave judgment against him in New Zealand. There is no overseas connection whatsoever in this case. It is appropriate for a New Zealand court to deal with Mr Stewart’s insolvency.

[27] Some of Mr Stewart’s materials seem to resort to arguments of the sort raised by Māori contesting sovereignty. Those arguments invariably are unavailing. They do not apply in this case as Mr Stewart does not appear to be Māori.

quote:

[34] Next, Mr Stewart alleges that the bank, by not refuting his allegations, is deemed to have admitted them. That submission is simply wrong.

quote:

[36] Finally, there is the document that Mr Stewart tendered on 19 October 2015. The document is in the form of a birth certificate showing Mr Stewart’s birth. Mr Stewart has attached stamps to it. He has also signed on it “Accepted for value 19 October 2015”. On the rear of the document there is typewriting. It is headed “Non-negotiable surety bond NZ$200,000”. It is addressed to the High Court and “Presiding Judge Fiduciary”. It purports to be a bond for payment. Mr Stewart has signed it as “principal/underwriter”. It has been co-signed by three persons named as “sureties”. Surety 1 is “Turner”, Surety 2 is “Stewart” and Surety 3 is “Pereira”. Each of them has given their IRD number by way of identification.

[37] I asked Mr Stewart to explain it. Mr Stewart had a strange account that by reason of a birth certificate a person is somehow credited with a sum of money which passes into the banking system and can be invoked later on to discharge debts. I could not follow his explanation. It was bizarre. I am not satisfied that the bond document can be taken seriously. I cannot see that it will result in Mr Stewart discharging his liability to the bank under the judgment. Nor can I see any way by which it can raise any set-off so as to extinguish the debt to the bank. Frankly, the document is more valuable as a birth certificate than in creating any means of satisfying Mr Stewart’s liability to the bank.

quote:

[44] By reason of those factors, I am satisfied that the appropriate order to make is to adjudicate Mr Stewart bankrupt. The time of the order is 4:58pm. I make an order that the bank is to have costs of the application. Those costs are to be paid out of Mr Stewart’s estate.

Felix_Cat posted:

Will these people ever learn that the courts do not give a poo poo about their fantasy world?

Gorilla Salad posted:

I can kinda wrap my head around some of the sovereign citizen arguments. They mostly range from the simply stupid to the insane. But there is a sort or bizarre cargo cult logic to them.

But the idea that everyone is entitle to $200,00 (or whatever) at birth is a total mystery to me.


I would also have loved to have seen the judge's face when the loon tried to pay his debt by handing over a birth certificate with loving stamps all over it.