You're wrong you should be a ableto have a personal life too. Nothing she did was wrong.

Certainly, she is entitled to her private life. But she put this on her page(s) as a designated competitor who, in some sense, represents the pageant and its rules of decorum and inclusiveness.

However, she undertook certain obligations as a Miss Nevada and as a designated competitor for the national beauty pageant.

And that is the standard by which it must be judged.

If she wants to be in their pageant under contract as an official Miss Nevada and competing for the national title, then she is obligated to fulfill the rules as the pageant dictates. In competing for the state title and for the national title, there are certain requirements to observe. There can't be any lurid scandal associated with the contestant. There has to be a very direct standard for what the eventual winner will do or not do as the title holder. Even if she won the national title, she would have even more obligations to obey the petty dictates of the pageant committee. As she ascended in the beauty pageant contests, her responsibility to obey the committee in all publicity matters only increases until the day she is no longer a state contestant or until the day after she is no longer the national title holder.

She has no recourse to legal action because it's ridiculous to think any state contestant can actually sue their way into winning the national title. And if she can't win the national title, then why even compete since she already has the Miss Nevada title?

She may as well sell out and pose for a girlie mag to pay off college debts and call it a day.

Her only recourse would be if other contestants were using their social media pages as homage to 0bama or Hitlery or one of the current Dem prez candidates. If the pageant took action against only one contestant and not against others doing the same thing, then there might be a (remote) chance of legal action. As long as the rules are applied uniformly, she doesn't have a legal pot to piss in. Even so, the courts are likely to be reluctant to involve themselves in something as subjective as a beauty pageant.

Would you be as willing to demand freedom of speech for a contestant who was carrying water for 0bama or Hitlery or Biden or Warren or some political cause like abortion that you really hate? I think not.

Would you be as willing to demand freedom of speech for a contestant who was carrying water for 0bama or Hitlery or Biden or Warren or some political cause like abortion that you really hate?

I'm not a huge fan of Trump as you may know, nor am I a fan of any of the Dems you mentioned, but this just stinks.

None of those contestants would have been stripped of the title had they won.

The would have been praised and exalted, by the pageant and the medi..

Double standard.

I still contend that she did everything possible to abide by the rules, but the pageant director kept moving the goalposts specifically for her.

"Katie separated pages, combed through to remove posts, and overall made every effort to comply with the requests of the pageant.”

None of those contestants would have been stripped of the title had they won.

They've stripped others of their titles before. Quite a few times actually.

If you are in their pageant and you have signed their contract, you'd better obey their rules. They have all the power and you should know it by the time you have won a state pageant and sign up for the national pageant by signing the contracts.

Their pageant, their rules. Just as the contract says pretty plainly.

Double standard.

You keep saying this or implying it but I have yet to see you provide any proof that other state title holders are doing the same thing on their pages. If it is true, provide some evidence.

If you are in their pageant and you have signed their contract, you'd better obey their rules.

I do believe she followed their rules - it seems clear to me that this was a set-up all along.

You keep saying this or implying it but I have yet to see you provide any proof that other state title holders are doing the same thing on their pages.

It would be naive to think that they didn't.

It would be naive to think that they didn't.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's razor

And the pageant may be taking a more anti-politics stance here, given how sick people are of hearing politics in every sphere of life.

I know I don't watch hardly anything any more because I'm so sick of all the politics in everything. Sports, music, movies, TV, and now beauty pageants.

These hirelings need to keep their fucking opinions to themselves. Not a single person in America craves more politics in their entertainment.

Is there anything else you need from me?

Yeah, quit being to so long winded. Moreover, what did you do to yukon?

If only sports/movies/TV and other venues would embrace the same standard. I'm sick of the politics, especially liberal politics, being injected into everything.

If you want to show your tits and ass in a swimsuit, then just do it. Spare us your political lectures and promotional branding nonsense. After all, we only cared about the tits and ass to begin with.

I do believe she [Katie Williams] followed their rules -

In Post 20 , you will find in a letter from Susan Jeske, CEO Ms. America Pageant, to Katie Jo Williams [dated August 18, 2019] where Susan Jeske enumerated 9 instances in Footnote 2 where Katie Williams violated her signed agreement.

Can you dispute Susan Jeske’s findings or show where Katie Williams did not violate the signed agreement in those instances?

Again I ask, “what is the basis for you to “believe that Katie Williams followed their rules?

it seems clear to me that this was a set-up all along.

You said it “would be naïve” to think that “other state title holders didn’t do the same thing on their pages.” It appears that you are just “thinking” that they are – while you have absolutely no proof that they are. When you're thinking something is happening and there is no proof that it is, then you're imagining it. You need to stop conjuring up these wildly strong justifications to substantiate your weak positions.

injury scam arTisTs

The liberal gold mine

To fund Their queerdom

gods - hell - supersTaTe

love
boris

ps

liberTarians

have Their overloaded kook cave

sasquaTch - deckard

buckeroo - toolconservaTive

to fund theirs Too

ps

liberTarians

2 MuCh ObsErvng

PaulTuRd liberTarians

dickHead – buckerRoot

toolconservaTive - PinhEad

Kan cAus devout KristIAnS

to almost belV as A theory

oriGins of biological Dvsrty.

salute
Gatlin

The key phrase that sticks out is the one which declares MAP as the sole arbiter of acceptable conduct and participation and that there is no venue for appeal or for suing the pageant.

Those clauses are illegitimate and you can sue anyway.

You cannot be forced to give up a constitutional right in a contract.

IF you would like to post about your political positions then create a new FB profile page for pageants only

Oh so you can talk about politics.

Those [covenants not to sue] clauses are illegitimate and you can sue anyway.

You are expressing your personal opinion here. In reality you will find that when you try to sue after you have signed a “covenant not to sue” – you will quickly learn that the “suit in law" you desire to have heard in a court of law ”will never go before a court of law.” This is true since “covenants not to sue are used to settle specific legal issues "outside of the court system”.

“A covenant ‘not to sue’ legally obliges a party that could initiate a lawsuit not to do so."
"The covenant is made explicitly between two parties, and any third party that wants to make a claim is legally allowed to do so. Covenants not to sue are used to settle specific legal issues outside of the court system. Parties may enter into this type of agreement to prevent a protracted, expensive lawsuit. In exchange for the covenant, the party that could seek damages may be provided with compensation or may be given assurances that the other party in the agreement will conduct a specific action."

Katie Williams IF you [Katie Williams] would like to post about your political positions then …

Oh so you [Katie Williams] can talk about politics.

You will see in Post 20, a letter from Susan Jeske, CEO Ms. America Pageant, to Katie Jo Williams [dated August 18, 2019] where Susan Jeske enumerated 9 instances in Footnote 2 where Katie Williams violated her signed agreement.

You can also read where Katie Williams was given ample opportunities to “edit” those posts and she “refused” to do so.

It was never about her not being able to “talk politics” – it was always about her not representing herself as “Ms. Nevada” by wearing the crown and sash while “talking politics” and she violated her sign agreement by doing that on at least 9 occasions.

So, Katie, say “goodbye” to your title …

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/nyregion/courts-say-man-can-sue-despite- signing-waiver.html

You can always sue. You may not win but you can sue. Comprende?

However, she added, the organisers failed to address her requests to clarify what content they found to be in breach of their ‘No Politics’ rules.

Williams has created a separate Facebook page for the pageant, devoid of political statements, but she claimed that the organisers continued to voice their disapproval in personal communications of what she was posting on her personal account.

F you would like to post about your political positions then create a new FB profile page for pageants only

She can sue for breach of contract. You can have a political page if it is separate.

You can also read where Katie Williams was given ample opportunities to “edit” those posts and she “refused” to do so.

That's a bald faced lie!

Story and FOX News report HERE

Noah Jennings, Williams' spokesman, told Newsweek that Jeske was allegedly sending "mixed signals” to his client.

“Ms. America CEO Susan Jeske, who would encourage Katie over the phone, and then follow that up with emails and screenshots of things she took issue with,” Jennings said.

“Katie separated pages, combed through to remove posts, and overall made every effort to comply with the requests of the pageant.”

Canning her is a political statement.

These posts, in her words, included a picture of herself wearing a red ‘Trump 2020’ hat as well as expressions of support for the United States and criticism of the leftist political organisation antifa.

Saying that you hate Antifa and one of their thugs murdered 9 people in Dayton Ohio and you wish they would rot in hell. If she said something like that. That is not political.

Did any of them say they were queer on their pages? If so that is political and since they were inconsistent breach of contract.

My point is there are tons of ways to sue them. Not that she will or necessarily should. But she sure can.

What political statements did she make?

Katie Williams was stripped of her title for representing herself as “Ms. Nevada” by wearing the crown and sash when those political statements were made.

Can you even name them [the political statements]?

Since are apparently are so desirous to see those – then you can look them up yourself. You will find the links in Footnote 2 of the REVOCATION OF TITLE LETTER in Post 20. I trust you will have no difficulty in performing that task.

Canning her is a political statement.

She can also sue them for slander.

Exactly where did they slander her?

She can sue for breach of contract.

You can have a political page if it is separate.

But MAP stated that she could not wear the crown and sash in pictures posted on a political page and she did as shown in nine occasions.

She violated here written agreement and she was stripped of her title.

You can also read where Katie Williams was given ample opportunities to “edit” those posts and she “refused” to do so.

That's a bald faced lie!

Oh wait, - I see now – you used this Story and FOX News report to prove it’s a lie.

Noah Jennings, Williams' spokesman, told ...

Please now show your factual documentation to prove that Noah Jennings [Williams' spokesman] was telling the truth and that Susan Jeske [“Ms. America CEO] was lying.

Hearsay in news stories will not suffice since they cannot adequately substantiated.

These posts, in her words, included a picture of herself wearing a red ‘Trump 2020’ hat as well as expressions of support for the United States and criticism of the leftist political organisation antifa.

She was stripped of here title for wearing the crown and sash in the links in Footnote 2 of the REVOCATION OF TITLE LETTER in Post 20 for political statements

Saying that you hate Antifa and one of their thugs murdered 9 people in Dayton Ohio and you wish they would rot in hell. If she said something like that. That is not political.

Did any of them say they were queer on their pages? If so that is political and since they were inconsistent breach of contract.

My point is there are tons of ways to sue them.

Not that she will or necessarily should. But she sure can.

Uh, what was your point again?

Those clauses are illegitimate and you can sue anyway.

They are legal and binding, just like any contract.

Certain types of contracts cannot be enforced even if someone is stupid enough to sign them. This isn't one of them.

Courts Say Man Can Sue Despite Signing Waiver By Avi Salzman

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/nyregion/courts-say-man-can-sue-despite- signing-waiver.html

Keep reading The Times by creating a free account or logging in.

I “comprehende” from reading more than enough of the Deckard posted articles that newspapers, other media lie by slanting their headlines – especially shit put out by the NY Times.

Since I could not read the story directly, you made me work and it took me a while to get to the bottom of this.

Yes, there was an exception in New York State where “if you've been injured due to negligent actions, you can sue – even if you signed a waiver.”

Was Katie Williams “injured due to negligent actions” by the MAP?

No.

You can always sue. You may not win but you can sue. Comprende?

You showed me one exception – I will accept that, of course.

I ask you to now show factual evidence that can ALWAYS sue after you have signed a covenant not to sue.

Can you show me that …

Williams has created a separate Facebook page for the pageant, devoid of political statements, but she claimed that the organisers continued to voice their disapproval in personal communications of what she was posting on her personal account.

They are legal and binding, just like any contract.

Certain types of contracts cannot be enforced even if someone is stupid enough to sign them. This isn't one of them.

Sure you could. You could scour the other contestants pages especially the runner up. Then say something they said is political. Something everyone said is political. Again i'm not saying she should just she could.

Yes, there was an exception in New York State where “if you've been injured due to negligent actions, you can sue – even if you signed a waiver.”

Was Katie Williams “injured due to negligent actions” by the MAP?

It could be argued that she was injured, emotionally and financially.

They singled her out because she supports Trump.

She didn't tell anyone to vote for Trump that I know of.

Everything is political, or you can make that case. She could say they were being political because she just likes our country and the President. Nothing necessarily political about that.

Definition of political 1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

They are legal and binding, just like any contract.

Certain types of contracts cannot be enforced even if someone is stupid enough to sign them. This isn't one of them.

Sure you could. You could scour the other contestants pages especially the runner up. Then say something they said is political. Something everyone said is political. Again i'm not saying she should just she could.

That will NOT matter. Two or more wrongs will never make the first wrong be right.

All that would do would cause other contestants to be stripped of their titles if it were shown they violated their signed agreement.

Stone, with all due respect – you are grasping at straws on this one.

It could be argued that she was injured, emotionally and financially.

They singled her out because she supports Trump.

She didn't tell anyone to vote for Trump that I know of.

Everything is political, or you can make that case.

She could say they were being political because she just likes our country and the President. Nothing necessarily political about that.

Definition of political 1a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

It could be argued that she was injured, emotionally and financially.

She was, no doubt. And she agreed to be subject to the pageant's rules and directives. She was, in essence, applying to be the employee of the pageant for one year if she won the national title.

And she signed the contract, knowing that other contestants in previous years had been stripped of titles with no legal recourse.

If you sign their contract, you have to abide by their rules.

Do you consider this a political statement?

A photo of two men embracing posted on Instagram, one with an American flag
skin and the other with a rainbow skin. “Don’t assume my beliefs based on my
political party! Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!
I will fight for Fairness for everyone regardless of where you fall on the political
spectrum.”

You know what's likely to come next.     : )

She CANNOT sue them for stripping here of the title since she signed a “covenant not to sue.” [See Post 29]. Uh, what was your point again?

Yes she can. She man lose but she can sue them.

She may lose but she can sue them.

She can file the paperwork certainly. I'd bet the first time a judge hears the case, she'd throw it out of court.

The courts don't have any desire to litigate the role of political partisanship in beauty pageants. I can't imagine any judge wanting that case in their court.

She can TRY to file a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit. However, it will be to no avail and she will probably find that she got overly creative with her claims and attempted a lawsuit over laughable causes.

The worst outcome for Miss Nevada is a judge who decides to make it clear to all the beauty queens out there that they shouldn't try to sue their pageants. In that instance, the judge could admit the case and allow it to proceed for a while instead of dismissing it immediately. Then the judge would toss the case and leave the litigious beauty queen facing the court costs and the defendant's pricey legal team hired by the pageant officials. Then she might face a countersuit as well.

Recall how Stormy Daniels was suing under the representation of Creepy Porn Lawyer and found herself owing $300,000 in legal bills? Like that. She'll be stripping from town to town until she's 75yo to pay that off.

You don't get to drag the courts into anything if they don't want to be involved. And you have no recourse unless Congress passes some black-letter law to enforce.

Furthermore, I substantially believe that the MAP can sue Katie Williams for Breach of Contract.

Just because they could, in theory, counter-sue her doesn't mean they'd be foolish enough to file such a lawsuit. Too much downside, not enough to gain. The pageant wants to stay on defense, for publicity reasons if nothing else.

According to Williams, there was one instance where she thought what she was doing was ok because Jeske told her to take a photo with the president while wearing her sash. Williams then shared screen shots of the text message she received from Jeske.

Williams was asked to surrendered her crown and sash, and to never speak of the pageant again, but by the tone of her tweets, this isn’t happening any time soon.

***

BTW - This isn't the first time this has happened.

Miss World America's State/National/Chief Director accused me of being racist, Islamaphobic, and insensitive.

They stripped me of my Miss Michigan title due to my refusal to try on a hijab in 2018, my tweet about black on black gun violence, and "insensitive" statistical tweets.pic.twitter.com/K1Btho0Pgq

You sound liker an ACLU liberal.

I find that offensive opinionated people are all about being right and never being wrong, By name-calling and trying to talk down to you they are attempting to intimidate you to the point that you become agreeable – or they will try to infuriate you that they hijack your ability to think clearly and respond rationally.

I have no time or patience for dealing with that nonsense.

Good day to you, Sir, and I wish you well …

ou sound liker an ACLU liberal.

If you said something similar like "you're one of those libertarians" to Deckard. Would that mean you lost the argument?

BTW - This isn't the first time this has happened.

There are other times it has happened – in addition to the one you pointed out now.

And it will happen again - again and again – I can readily assure you.

It will happen to all those who act so “stupidly libertarian” as to think they do not have to follow the rules set forth by the organization they desire to associate with or to abide by the agreement they signed.

American culture values independence, but sometimes independence can be taken too far.

These ladies did – and you have always TRIED to …