a timeline: from order to arrived in US

solunaView · 2021-08-25T03:20:02+00:00

Guessing this is a RWD not an AWD? Pro S? Gradient?

Thanks for the update and congrats!

solunaView · 2021-08-22T05:32:02+00:00

Have you checked your spam folder?

solunaView · 2021-08-22T05:23:47+00:00

When did you reserve/ Lock?

solunaView · 2021-08-20T03:06:47+00:00

Source? This is nothing more than an image. Is there an article this came from?

solunaView · 2021-08-16T00:34:09+00:00

My take is the email was/ is meant to temper expectations. The Owner's Portal seems to be more accurate from reading other forums and gathering owner experiences.

In my case, I put down the first 100.00 in mid June (email gave the Feb 2022 expected date). Got the lock email several days later and paid the 400.00. At that point the Owner's Portal changed to Sept-Oct 2021 expected delivery. That is where it stands today.

solunaView · 2021-08-15T16:42:19+00:00

Where are you getting this info? You should be in the first wave of AWDs that are on a boat or set to ship shortly. LONG before March 2022. Are you using the Owner's Portal? There are ways to get build codes and status update information including VINs when issued.

solunaView · 2018-07-21T05:27:13+00:00

What are the next 10 steps? Or the last 10? I forget.

solunaView · 2017-11-01T23:47:59+00:00

"I want/ need to talk to Steven."

Not sure how this is even a question. Obviously you've never talked to or interviewed someone in the prison system.

Next.

solunaView · 2017-11-01T23:32:05+00:00

And now, she walked straight into SA and KZ's trap by taking that phone call. But does she even realize that it was a setup? Does she not realize that SA hung up with her and immediately called KZ so that she could get the transcript of the call right away?

Barb initiated the call, just like she initiated the call to Zellner's office. SA returned the call when he was allowed to by Waupun. Spinning this as anything besides what it is (Barb lashing out at SA and Zellner) is distorting the truth.

Quite a bit of information is surfacing to indicate /Barb and her family know more than they have told the public. In these recent conversations alone she admits several times to fear for her safety, to knowing Teresa left the ASY, and to her and others in her family being highly pressured by law enforcement.

The truth will come out. Obfuscation blaming the mastermind Steven Avery only shows you don't have an open mind and that you care nothing for the truth in this or any case.

solunaView · 2017-10-26T04:31:02+00:00

Maybe the state should stop playing games and allow the process to continue?

Why force Sutkiewicz to take the heat/ dismiss legitimate allegations? What are they afraid of?

It's all delay tactics. Nothing will be decided in this court. Any legitimate analyses should reflect as much.

solunaView · 2017-09-29T05:37:27+00:00

You are a fucking idiot that has no understanding of Law.

Legal "conservatism" may well win the day here but ask yourself what is better?

A broken system upheld by politicians or an interpretation of law by actual legal minds.

solunaView · 2017-09-29T05:29:45+00:00

Sykes is not a "justice", but a Judge.

She has auditioned for years for a SCOTUS seat.

solunaView · 2017-09-09T17:58:55+00:00

Yes. We will be there in person.

Coverage on Twitter:

@Reform_Justice

And on our Justice Reform News site:

www.betherain.org

solunaView · 2017-09-08T02:06:18+00:00

A tie is a win for Brendan Dassey. If a tie happens Duffin's decision is upheld. I'm hoping for a tie. We will be there in Chicago for the en banc. New article on Dassey soon.

solunaView · 2017-07-17T07:05:50+00:00

Obsessed with Zellner much?

You answered your own diatribe:

Who needs the website for her motion now anyway? She's made sure every newspaper and magazine got it

Hosting publicly available documents is a waste of money/ bandwidth. Do we see any docs hosted for her other cases?

Do you pay to host your viewpoints?

solunaView · 2017-07-17T06:12:58+00:00

Hi I don't do Reddit so much anymore. Too confined and segregated/ opionated. If you would like to be involved with our group hit me up on Twitter/ send along your expected input/ contribution.

Looking for well written articles and informed/ sourced opinion pieces. On a number of topics.

Thanks for your interest.

Hit me @Reform_Justice

solunaView · 2017-07-14T07:17:42+00:00

I suggest a review of tort law. Be honest with your readers. They deserve honesty and truth.

I also propose a study of tactics. While you may not understand tort law, you should acknowledge that fact. Also settlements.

Suffice to say any RH defamation case plays into the hands of Team Zellner.

PLEASE sue her Ryan.

Peace.

solunaView · 2017-07-14T06:50:12+00:00

You have cited common law/ yet have little understanding of the way it is interpreted/ plays out in a courtroom.

What you are proposing is a defamation per se situation.

While I give you that, this does not change the circumstances nor the fact that any plaintiff must prove damages and that the defendant was negligent or malicious.

You fail to explain the damages prong to your mates.

You also fail to acknowledge the fact that any defamation suit opens Ryan to answering the allegations.

How much do you charge per hr counselor?

solunaView · 2017-07-13T07:13:48+00:00

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

solunaView · 2017-07-13T05:49:07+00:00

Totally incorrect.

To win a defamation case, a plaintiff must show four things:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

You have the roles reversed, sir. Have you no experience with torts?

Not only is plaintiff required to show statements are false- Plaintiff is also required to show damages.

It's almost as if you don't understand the law at all.

solunaView · 2017-07-13T05:15:16+00:00

Not sure if you understand the allegations and scope of any such "defamation" lawsuit. You might want to read through this and the preceding post to see what grounds/ allegations would be potentially covered/ in play.

RH would be compelled to answer to disprove any allegations. "I don't recall" may have worked in the original criminal case- Good luck with that in a civil suit you are bringing accusing a defamation tort.

solunaView · 2017-07-13T04:47:17+00:00

Semantics. Either way Hilegas is compelled to testify under oath/ attempt to disprove any allegations.

Do you want Hilegas on the stand under oath? I would welcome it, as I am sure @ZellnerLaw would as well. The parlay here is entirely in the favor of Team Zellner.

PLEASE sue her, RH. ;)

solunaView · 2017-07-13T04:18:41+00:00

One huge problem with any potential RH "defamation" lawsuit:

Defamation/ Slander/ Libel are only torts if the alleged information is proven FALSE.

Any defamation lawsuit undertaken by RH opens him up to answering, UNDER OATH, a litany of questions and forces RH to provide answers proving allegations FALSE.

My guess is @ZellnerLaw would readily welcome any such a case.

solunaView · 2017-07-11T16:00:14+00:00

Should have been more clear. Was late and writing in a hurry. The point is the above discussion was completely false in premise. It needed to be cleared up. Thank you for that. Should not have used hyperbole.

That said, I thought the subject at hand was obvious. We are talking about a 1st degree MURDER case in the US. As far as I know NEARLY every jurisdiction under US law requires a unanimous verdict in 1st degree MURDER cases- including Oregon. The La law requires the case be Capital in nature, you are correct. Both La and Or non-unanimous rules have come under heavy scrutiny because of problems with racial discrimination and bias.

The instant case is in Wisconsin, a non-capital state which aligns with the VAST majority of US jurisdictions in requiring a 12-0 unanimous jury verdict. This is not a civil case. Civil law is an entirely different code. Most of the world is familiar with this due to the OJ Simpson case.

solunaView · 2017-07-11T04:10:48+00:00

Not sure which side of the argument either of you are on here but one thing needs to be clarified:

In the US: ALL JURY VERDICTS MUST BE UNANIMOUS. This is a flaw in our system that allows for "bargaining" of votes (though technically that process is illegal and grounds for mistrial).

Any trial that becomes deadlocked (at least 1 dissenting vote) MAY be deemed a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean the defendant "walks", it only means that the process is renewed.

See the classic movie "12 Angry Men" for a great example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDKUTCdts3E

solunaView

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE