Відео

@@chetmcmasterson Only if they disagree 🤣🤣🤣 that's happened a handful of times out of 200k

@@danekeeper1 it's at Creighton law school. They do that occasionally for the benefit of the students

I think you mean Richard Schiff?

@@PlatonsArm 🤣

@@rockymntnliberty 🤣

@@timwaddell9450 you should see my latest filing from Friday Feb 7th,2025. I said "For example, 'Faithfully' is not just a hit song by the band Journey on their hit 1983 album" 🤣🤣

@@jmurr6583 everyone 😅

@@ArcOfTheCovenant exactly.

@@ArcOfTheCovenant 🤣

Rich people don't fight capitalism, lol. They exploit it.

@@Swampthing401 True information isn't defamation, and my offer was simple and structured in this theme. "You guys screwed me, lied, cost me tons of money, years of time and the Court, not the Truth, saved you from facing punishment. I now own the world's BEST gripe website, and intend on using it to publish EVERYTHING you folks did, which WILL inevitably impact your business, because people will see what you did. If you would like to purchase my website as a business move, you can, and I will agree not to sue you. It's going to be what I think it's worth, or I'll keep it." They chose to offer me less than I wanted, I chose to keep the website. They were the ones who did wrong, not me, and I followed every single rule. Think about it. They didn't have a trademark, and this bank has over a dozen locations in Nebraska. They cheated, lied, and are Exhibit A. on UA-cam in FAFO with a Pro se litigant. You see the beauty here, right?

Defamation

@@kirkwooder 🤣🤣🤣 "Yes"

@@gynat5968 it was an anomaly. Typically the law doesn't matter when you represent yourself.

And you know he’s getting paid at least a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

@jool4867 That guy only looks like a pathetic washed out attorney. He's probably banking half a mil or more. He has some ownership stake in CharterWest or something along those lines, but most of his work is from Allied, and I think he's the President. That being said, money can't always buy the win.

@@Cynthia-g2f9k it was at Creighton university 😅 the Nebraska Supreme Court travels occasionally to law schools

Thanks 😅

thank you

Thanks for the update. I wonder why wasn't that in the video. Or did I miss it?

@veritasaequitas9875 they don't decide on the spot. They put an opinion together.

😂

@@killar56137 🤣🤣

You spelled "Edomite" incorrectly

@@TheRealRennthat’s confusing, weren’t the Edomites enemies of the Israelites?

Hey, that's real funny how about a black joke next?

@@jaimeroman8440?

Haha I’m about to start my own journey

@@lukew7901 be prepared for a long battle. Owner@charterwestbanksucks.com if you have any questions

@@bma109 Gripe websites are legal. Cybersquatting has a definition.

@@donaldhutchinson8079 it's in the description. First thing.

@@ThePro-Se But why isn't it in the video?

Those who call themselves Jews, but are not, but rather are of the synagogue of satan

Disgusting nazis.

Typical small hat activities

🤣🤣🤣

@@toofusnook It's at Creighton Law school. They do that a few times a year

@ They are normalizing a pretty shite example of a courtroom when they do that. It would be a better lesson if they specifically removed it because they were doing court proceeding examples.

Wondering the same thing. Disappointing to say the least...

@@donaldhutchinson8079 I've answered this question a few times including up above, but I get where you're coming from. This is actually at the Creighton law school, they do that for the benefit of the law students a couple times a year. It's not in the courthouse it's at a college with a Christian background. This definitely wouldn't fly in the courthouse

Would you rather them have a pride flag?

@@alexe1707 it's at Creighton law school

@@ThePro-Se OH you mean this is a role-play/mock-trial of some sort in a law school... and not the real deal!?

@@kb100album No. The Nebraska Supreme Court hears cases there a few times a year, for the benefit of the School. It's definitely very real as indicated by the fact that I own that website, and my case has been cited as Precedent.

@@ThePro-Se Thank you - that clarifies. Am from the opposite side of the world.. and Pro Se matters interests me a lot! 😀 Would have loved to see the conclusion/verdict.

It mostly serves the same function with a gallery and a point of focus.

@@jakeballamis6348 Thank you! The bank also didn't understand the barrier one person who says "No More!" can be.

@@ThePro-Se, right? I've never attempted a civil action pro se before, but I have kicked a few DA's asses in court on a couple of illegal arrests pro se. I'm gearing up to file a 1983 suit in the most recent one against a city and its police department and the arresting officers. Not going to try to do that one by myself, though.

@@ThePro-Se, also, I did read the full ruling of the Court as I was watching your argument. Solid. And a solid logic by the Court, even on the couple of conclusions that didn't go your way.

Civil Plaintiff is so much different than criminal defense. I've come to find that the Court goes out of their way to dismiss early and often on pro se civil suits.

@@ThePro-Se, yeah, criminal defense can be much less complicated (mine were only misdemeanor charges) because the defense doesn't actually have to do anything. The burden is 100% on the prosecution. But, like you said, after having my rights violated yet again, I said no more. Prosecution didn't include surveillance or BWC in discovery nor did they call the actual arresting officer as a witness. I had multiple angles of the entire thing with audio that I didn't have to disclose because it was purely rebuttal evidence. They didn't stand a chance.

OH MY GOD THAT'S HILARIOUS. How have I never notices this before?😂😂😂 I watch The Good Doctor all the time. Silver is a dead ringer

@@canadiankrispybacon I mean, I got the house in 2017 from a different lender. I bought the website at the same time. So, effectively, the only remaining dispute was the website.

@@ThePro-Secan Charter West refile an injunction lawsuit, this time proving evidence of a “distinctive mark” since those were the grounds for the reversal of the lower courts decision and the dismissal of the injunction? (They didn’t rule Charter West Bank wasn’t distinctive, only that it didn’t provide evidence of such in the trial record.) I’m curious because this supreme court did not address the remaining merits of the case: the appellant’s argument against Charter West’s claims that the appellant was acting in bad faith and seeking to profit from the domain name due to their offer to sell and is therefore subject to protection ACPA, which as noted by this court, is the “crux” of this case.

​@@Karen.Marie.24, I'm watching this video and have pulled up the ruling by the Court. Based on the facts of the case, it was Charger West Bank who, after the Riddles filed suit, made an offer to the Riddles to buy the domain name and the Riddles rejected it initially. So far, I can't see anything that can legitimately be defined as "bad faith" by the Riddles. That's the real crux. As Mr. Riddle argued in his oral arguments, gripe websites are Constitutionally protected SO LONG as the content he added to the site was verifiably true; if it was not true, then by definition it's bad faith as both slander and libel are considered bad faith statements. According to this record, it wasn't until AFTER Charter West Bank made a proffer to buy the domain name from the Riddles and the Riddles refused that Charter West Bank filed suit under ACPA. In other words, Charter West Bank tried, unprompted, to buy the domain name after the Riddles had bought the domain name and filed their own suit, and when that didn't work, filed its own suit and then tried to argue that because the Riddles' rejected Charter West Bank's proffer, the Riddles were trying to blackmail the bank. That's not what happened. There is absolutely nothing, at face value, that prevents a person from buying a domain name that someone else might want and putting their own content on it, and then selling it for whatever reason for whatever price (this *is* capitalism, after all); however, if Mr. Riddle had purchased www.charterwestbank.com and put defamatory statements on the site, and *HE* contacted Charter West Bank to tell them about it and that he would take it down if they paid him $1M, that would violate several laws, not just the ACPA. But the facts of the case do not support this conclusion based on what I've watched and read so far. All that said, I could be completely wrong. I'm not an attorney, but I am in IT, have been a web administrator for the better part of 25 years, and am responsible for my division's domain names and records, so understanding most of this is in my professional wheelhouse.

@Karen.Marie.24 nope. That would be double jeopardy. Plus, it's precedent now. Already used by others for citations

@ doesn’t double jeopardy only apply to criminal cases and not civil?

@@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb He is like part owner, or on the board or something like that

But he's not trading...it's a gripe web site and he offered to sell it to them when they complained about him having it. To trade mark it would mean he was trading and competing with them. That then would be cyber squatting would it not! It was one of his defences to prove thst it was a gripe site, thst he was mot trading, was not competing and was not causing actual damage through cyber squatting or redirected business to his site!

@@grahamnimmo4656 NO HE COULD HAVE JUST TRADEMARKED IT AND THEN MADE THEM CEASE AND DESIST THEMSELVES -SKIPPING THE SITE ALL TOGETHER AND OWNED THEM FOOLS

@@tapin4info that might have gotten me into trouble

The Nebraska Supreme Court

Nebraska

the state

@@marcusfanaro8555 no, they were good. They just wanted to clarify. That being said, I kept bringing it back to my wheelhouse 😅

@@iSqueam There's ways that argument works, but since I was just using it to gripe, it wasn't covered by those.

@@ThePro-Semy understanding is the Supreme Court did not address the argument that because it’s a gripe site it is not subject to the ACPA. It never got that far because it ruled Charter West failed to prove it was a distinctive mark and therefore does not qualify for protection under the act. However, if it had provided evidence that it was in fact distinctive, we don’t know how the court would have ruled on arguments 3, 4, and 5 in the complaint.

@Karen.Marie.24 They actually rejected that part, finding it distinctive, but decided Charter and West and Bank on their own didn't satisfy it.

@@kneuberger, 😂😂😂 I can totally see that.

@@bradkuz76 they get away with it because everyone remains silent

It was made about a month later. I put the link in the description.

I put a link in the description.

@@robertkitts1761 Thank you!

Nebraska Supreme court

@@Forensource Correct! Thank you for clearing that up for anyone who read it as such 👊👊

Modern money mechanics put out by the federal reserve bank says so itself.

They just get money in return 😅

Bingo

@@Mrosen7542 just the way they decorate. It's at Creighton law school

They make you swear on the Bible don’t you when you go up and testify that’s why in god we trust look up public statute about the Bible being the word of god 👌🏾 this is proof they combine church and government

Technically, it's at a lawschool with a religious background. The State Supreme Court room doesn't have a cross.

Why is there a cross? Historical accoutrement. The Ten Commandments and a cross are age old symbols of Law and Equity. A Bible is often available for taking an oath as formal symbolism but it is not a requirement (i.e., they do not "make you swear on the Bible") and a person is free to simply solemnly affirm their oath.

It's at a Law school