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 …

to think they do not have to follow the rules set forth by the organization

She FOLLOWED THE RULES.

The pageant director kept arbitrarily changing the rules specifically for her.

It was a set-up to get her disqualified, and it's really sad that you can't see that.

What you saw was Gatlin reposting Katie Williams’ gay Instagram porn.

Oh -so now Gatlin the almighty has declared an innocuous image to be "porn"?

Will the insanity never end?

Of course, you never objected to yukon's posting a link to a disgusting gay porn site. In fact - you DEFENDED him.

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

Is that not what you did, since all you had to offer - to no avail - was your personal opinion?

Oh -so now Gatlin the almighty has declared an innocuous image to be "porn"?

Oh -so now Gatlin the almighty has declared an innocuous image to be "porn"?

But you are indeed dead wrong in your stating of my assessment.

"Gatlin the Almighty" - Damn, I sure do like that.

Attaboy, Deckard ...

"Gatlin the Almighty" - Damn, I sure do like that.

It was sarcasm, you arrogant, obnoxious ass.

In fact - you DEFENDED {yukon}.

And I will forever continue to defend any and all who are wrongly, viscously and maliciously charged.

"Gatlin the Almighty" - Damn, I sure do like that.

It was sarcasm, you arrogant, obnoxious ass.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism and it definitely is not a very good one because of the inherent negative nature of sarcasm.

While you search for a better defense mechanism – you desperately need to try friendly laughter.

In fact - you DEFENDED {yukon}.

That I did, and so ever courageously.

That you appear to be proud of that fact only further displays your lack of character.

And I will forever continue to defend any and all who are wrongly, viscously and maliciously charged.

Yeah sure Parsons - he was "hacked", or so you claimed.

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism and it definitely is not a very good one because of the inherent negative nature of sarcasm.

Yada,yada,yada.

She FOLLOWED THE RULES.

The CEO of MAP linked to 9 different instances she did not.

The pageant director kept arbitrarily changing the rules specifically for her.

So she alleged and provided no supporting factual documentation to that effect.

The agreement she signed NEVER changed. It specifically stated “NO POLITICS.” [See Post 20]

It was a set-up to get her disqualified …

This an unsubstantiated claim by you.

She signed the rules and she violated the rule stating ”no politics” on at least 9 specific occasions. [See links in Post 20].

Sarcasm is a defense mechanism and it definitely is not a very good one because of the inherent negative nature of sarcasm.

Yada,yada,yada.

That you appear to be proud of that fact only further displays your lack of character.

displays a quality that defines me as a considerate human being...

...towards perverts like your man-crush yukon.

It's sounding like TC and Gatlin like a PC world where your thoughts are forbidden to be thought or shared.

Not at all. I am very much a free speech guy.

However, if you are competing for a chance at scholarships, paid travel, maybe a chance at modeling or in video journalism and you are entering some beauty pageant to try to open those doors, that is essentially a job application to become their employee and reap those benefits. If they restrict something like politics (or appearing in porn) by contract, that is their right as the owners of the pageant and as a brand that is used to attract worthwhile candidates to their pageant. In that case, the rules are what they say they are and can be arbitrary (by design).

It's their pageant. And she read and signed their contract. She further has knowledge that both state pageant winners and even a few national pageant winners have had their titles taken away for somewhat arbitrary reasons not involving illegal behavior by a contestant. And once she had won the state title, the state pageant director is increasingly unimportant (even if she urged her to get pictures with the Trumps) and the CEO and national director and pageant board are in control. When they told her "no politics", she should have cleared every bit of political content off her pages, both personal pages and pageant pages. Because if she didn't do that, they would have legal cause to strip her title and she would have no legal recourse.

People do sign away their free speech rights every single day in non-disclosure agreements. They sign away their right to apply to work for the competitors of their current employer via non-compete clauses in their contracts. They sign away their intellectual property rights for their inventions in employment contracts that say that anything they produce while employed by a company belongs to that company even if their invention is not directly related to their work product at that company.

Pageants have always been a shady operation, run by scumbags. You'd better understand up front before you ever apply for one exactly what you're getting into.

It doesn't help this former Miss Nevada that beauty pageants are, by definition, stupid. And clearly arbitrary in choosing winners. The ex-Miss Nevada is very unlikely to find a sympathetic court to hear her claims.

It doesn't help this former Miss Nevada that beauty pageants are, by definition, stupid. And clearly arbitrary in choosing winners.

At least you admit that the application of the rules in this case was arbitrary.

And stupid.

If you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, then it’s time to abandon the cliché introductory writing crutches you’ve been relying on for years.

But I love those crutches. They're LP and LF memes that are very popular.

Establish a room full of people and they may never agree on who they like. But they will always find someone to hate. Online forums reflect that basic truth.

That was not “Gatlin posting HIS gay Twitter porn” – smart ass.

LOL. Gotcha!

And it is gay porn. Clearly a rainbowed black man hugging a stars-n-stripes white man, both with shaved heads (eliminates racial attributes of hair texture/color). The photo is strongly suggestive that both are entirely nude and that their genitals are touching each other's hips. Notice that White Uncle Sam is cradling his head on Black Rainbow's shoulder in a submissive and emotively receptive attitude toward Black Rainbow. This is a message, clearly. And my description of it is way too honest for Twitter to allow to be peddled on their little propaganda venue. The photo is, in fact, a cheesy ripoff of Mapplethorpe's photography but without the charm of a bullwhip rammed up his butt and snapshotted for posterity.

Anyway, it's totally gay. And you posted it.

Tooconservative, you are so damned PREDICTABLE – All the way to the core depth of your libertarian being.

Thank you. Apparently my consistency has finally helped you learn at least a few things over the years. It's very rewarding.

At least you admit that the application of the rules in this case was arbitrary.

And stupid.

When did I deny it?

I didn't say I agreed with the policy.

Only a libertarian would ever see defending a malicious injustice as being a “man-crush.”

You presented such a shameful display of anosognosia – a malady most commonly found in all libertarians.

Nowhere has Williams – or anyone on this thread – ever shown that Williams did not violate the agreement when she posed with her crown and sash on at least 9 instances doing political discussions. Please ping me when you can do that …

Thank you …