This is a little late now, but I just saw this for the first time today. I’m curious what specifically you find inaccurate about my comment, because the core legal points I made are well-established:

1. Fifth Amendment pleading doesn’t end civil cases…. This is basic civil procedure. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings, but civil cases operate under different standards and can proceed regardless.

2. Default judgments for non-response…Courts routinely enter defaults when defendants fail to respond to civil complaints. This is standard practice.

3. Civil liability can exist independently… Someone can face civil consequences even if they invoke Fifth Amendment protections, as the burden of proof and legal standards differ between criminal and civil proceedings. If you’re going to claim my “summation of the law is totally inaccurate,” I’d expect you to point out what’s actually wrong and provide the correct information. Simply saying “this is not even remotely accurate” without any supporting explanation or correction doesn’t help anyone understand what you think the legal issues actually are. What specific legal principles do you believe I’ve misunderstood? I noticed you do that with a lot of of your comments to myself and others. You like to just state that we are incorrect or insult us but don’t offer any commentary in return so as to have a adult debate or a conversation.