Vambo

DROWNING IN SORROWS Beer industry 'in shock' over sustained Bud Light backlash, expert warns of shortages

COSTLY CONTROVERSY Target is starting to pay the price for woke merchandise that has sparked outrage

https://thedawgspodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/deshaun-watson-original-answer.pdf CAUSE NO. 2021-15324 ASHLEY SOLIS, a/ka/ Jane Doe § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Plaintiff, § § VS. § HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S § DESHAUN WATSON, § § Defendant. § 113 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT DESHAUN WATSON’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Since March 16, 2021, when the first of twenty-two lawsuits was filed against Deshaun Watson (“Mr. Watson”), he has been adamant that he did not engage in any of the improper conduct that has been alleged. At the same time, he and his defense team have insisted that they adamantly oppose, condemn, and disapprove of any type of sexual misconduct against women. Legitimate claims should be reported to authorities, taken seriously, and their proponents treated respectfully. However, in the few days since Mr. Watson has learned the identity of his accusers, his legal team has already uncovered evidence that numerous allegations in this onslaught of cases are simply not true or accurate. For example:  After the massage therapy sessions with Mr. Watson, 8 plaintiffs bragged about, praised, and were excited about massaging Mr. Watson;  7 plaintiffs willingly worked or offered to work with Mr. Watson after their alleged incidents;  3 plaintiffs lied about the number of sessions they actually had with Mr. Watson;  3 plaintiffs lied about their alleged trauma and resulting harm;  5 plaintiffs told others they wanted to get money out of Mr. Watson; and  5 plaintiffs have scrubbed or entirely deleted their social media accounts. 4/19/2021 8:56 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 52573145 By: Wanda Chambers Filed: 4/19/2021 8:56 AM 2 It was not until the plaintiffs saw an opportunity for a money grab that they changed their stories to convert therapy sessions they bragged about to friends and family to something much more nefarious. Innocent questions about whether the therapists were comfortable with the therapy Mr. Watson sought evolved into sexual inuendo that the plaintiffs used to bolster their claims for money. For example, in the first lawsuit filed, Plaintiff Ashley Solis implies that Mr. Watson’s question—asking if she “was comfortable with certain areas [his] organization is making him get worked on”—was somehow sexually suggestive. That same question, however, posed to a therapist not seeking to exploit Mr. Watson, was perceived as it was intended: a legitimate therapeutic inquiry.1 Ms. Solis’s skewed perception of Mr. Watson’s legitimate and innocent query became a prototype for the assembly line of similar allegations in subsequent lawsuits. These lawsuits are replete with mischaracterizations of Mr. Watson’s conduct. These range from being misleading, to fraudulent, to slanderous. Importantly, only two of the twenty-two lawsuits allege that Mr. Watson forced any type of sexual activity—an allegation Mr. Watson again vehemently denies. And even at this early stage of the litigation, the evidence obtained by the defense clearly supports Mr. Watson’s denial of these allegations of force. As Plaintiff Sheneé Lawson’s business manager put it, this is “not extortion. It’s blackmail.” Unfortunately, twenty- one other women have decided to join her. 1 See Exhibit 1. 3 PROBLEMS WITH THE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS Mr. Watson received the plaintiffs’ names less than a week ago. Based on what we have been able to determine so far, these plaintiffs are not victims of any type of misconduct, much less sexual misconduct: A. After the massage therapy sessions with Mr. Watson, Plaintiffs bragged about, praised, and were excited to massage Mr. Watson.  Plaintiff Sheneé Lawson claims in the lawsuit that she is “disgusted” by Mr. Watson. Yet, after her therapy session with him, she bragged to friends and family members about massaging Mr. Watson and told them that she thinks he is a kind person.  A security guard at the spa where Mr. Watson received a massage stated that Plaintiff Tangee Johnson was happy and laughing after her interactions with Mr. Watson. She was excited about having worked on him and did not want any other therapist to work on him.  According to a security guard present at the spa, after one of Plaintiff Marchelle Davis’s sessions with Mr. Watson, Ms. Davis was laughing and appeared in good spirits. Another witness characterized Ms. Davis as “jolly” after working with Mr. Watson. And Ms. Davis told multiple family members that she would massage Mr. Watson again. She even told people that while she was not “into men,” “his body is beautiful and soft” and that if she were not a lesbian, she would have “jumped on” Mr. Watson.  Plaintiff Chelcie Bell fails to explain that after the first two therapy sessions— which she alleges were increasingly “uncomfortable”—she willingly invited Mr. Watson to come to her house for the last two therapy sessions.  Plaintiffs Kyla Hayes, Robin Caicedo, and Kimberly Brice omitted that after their sessions with Mr. Watson, they told him that they would gladly work with him again. In fact, Kimberly Brice reported to a close relative that she was thrilled to have had the opportunity to massage Deshaun.  Plaintiff Erica Chapman claims that after the initial therapy session, Mr. Watson hounded her about setting up another session. She fails to explain that she eagerly showed up to Mr. Watson’s house to give him another massage before he even had a chance to book an appointment. B. Plaintiffs willingly worked, or offered to work, with Mr. Watson after the alleged incidents.  At least five of the plaintiffs chose to work with Mr. Watson even after they claim he acted offensively and aggressively in prior sessions: Erica Chapman, Kaylan Hurrington, Rebecca Nagy, Toi Garner, and Chelcie Bell. This, of course, raises the question of why they would agree to follow-up therapy sessions when they claim their experiences made them feel like they “wanted to vomit” and caused them to “no longer accept massage clients, for fear of a repeat of this type of harassment.”  Plaintiff Tangee Johnson claims she was “fearful” and felt “violated, terrified and disgusted” after her therapy sessions with Mr. Watson. She does not explain why then, on more than one occasion, she messaged him after his football games to check in on him and asked to massage him again.  Contrary to Plaintiff Krystle Da Rosa’s claim that she was so “disturbed” by what allegedly occurred that she chose not to contact Mr. Watson about receiving the rest of the payment for the session, the evidence shows that after the alleged incident she did attempt to contact Mr. Watson and even asked to work with him again.  In stark contrast to Plaintiff Kaylan Hurrington’s statement that after the alleged incident she told Mr. Watson that she “would not work for him” and “has not been able to move on from these experiences,” she contacted Mr. Watson multiple times telling him that she was attracted to him and wanted to go out on dates with him. C. Plaintiffs lied about the number of sessions they actually had with Mr. Watson.  The following plaintiffs failed to mention they had more therapy sessions with Mr. Watson than what they pleaded: Kyla Hayes; Robinitta Miller; and Robin Caicedo. Presumably, these plaintiffs minimized their interactions with Mr. Watson because these facts undermine their allegations. D. Plaintiffs lied about their alleged trauma and resulting harm.  Plaintiff Ashley Solis claimed during a news conference that she “can no longer practice the profession that [she] love[s] the most without shaking during a session.” Yet, publicly available information shows that she has provided multiple massages after the alleged incident with Mr. Watson. Indeed, not only is she still accepting clients, but according to those who have worked with her, she did not show any signs of trauma during these sessions.  While Plaintiff Toi Garner claims that “[b]y the end of the massage, she was sweating” and “there was nowhere for her to go,” she neglects to mention she had multiple family members in the home and nearby during both therapy sessions.  Plaintiff Marchelle Davis alleges that “she was alone at the spa and feared for her life” during her therapy sessions with Mr. Watson. However, a security guard hired by the spa was present at the spa at all times and capable of intervening if an incident had, in fact, occurred. E. Plaintiffs told others they wanted to get money out of Mr. Watson.  Plaintiff Marchelle Davis told close family members that if Mr. Watson’s attorney had paid her, she would have supported him instead of suing him. She also told her family that she had contemplated blackmailing Mr. Watson.  Plaintiff Krystle Da Rosa told a witness that the only reason she was getting involved in the lawsuit was for money. She even laughed about it and stated that she wanted to “get in on the action.”  Plaintiff Sheneé Lawson admittedly sought to “blackmail” Mr. Watson before she filed suit. She asked him to pay her $30,000 for “indefinite silence” because her encounter would be “embarrassing” if revealed. More importantly, when Mr. Watson’s marketing manager, Bryan Burney, asked her whether she was claiming that something happened against her will, she confirmed that everything that occurred was consensual. Finally, she told Mr. Burney that she wanted a copy of the NDA that she and Mr. Watson signed because she did not want people in her industry to know she had provided oral sex to her massage client. Evidence of her concerns is contained in Mr. Burney’s affidavit and a contemporaneous tape recording of a phone conversation.  Witnesses state that Plaintiff Kimberly Brice has a history of “forcing herself on celebrities,” “chasing celebrities,” and “running behind high profile athletes.” They also describe her as being “out for money,” and “a money grabber.”  During one of the press conferences Mr. Buzbee held regarding the case, Plaintiff Ashley Solis claimed that she was not filing suit for monetary reasons but rather because “[t]his is about having [her] voice heard. It is about having other survivor’s voices heard.” Belying her assertion though, Ms. Solis would have abandoned her voice and being the voice of other alleged “survivors” if Mr. Watson would agree to pay her $100,000. F. Plaintiffs have scrubbed, or entirely deleted, their social media accounts and the relevant evidence they contained. Each of the plaintiffs’ petitions contain a paragraph warning Mr. Watson to preserve relevant evidence, including digital information. Without question, Mr. Watson has and will continue to do so. However, the plaintiffs have failed to heed their own warning. At least four plaintiffs, Krystle Da Rosa, LaToya Johnson Hanks, Tavi Turner, and Marchelle Davis, have 6 altered the accounts where they advertised the services that Mr. Watson acquired. Before their names became public, their accounts contained pictures that are inconsistent with the image they portray through their petitions. These items are no longer posted to their accounts. Plaintiff Kimberly Brice took the destruction of evidence even further by completely deleting her Instagram account, which again is the account she claims to use to market her services and the one that Mr. Watson used to contact her and hire her for a massage. GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 92, Watson generally denies the allegations and claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence, as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas. JURY DEMAND Mr. Watson requests a jury trial and submits the applicable fee contemporaneous with this filing. PRAYER Because the Plaintiff’s claims lack a basis in law or fact, Mr. Watson prays that she take nothing by reason of this suit, that all relief requested by Plaintiff be denied, that Mr. Watson recovers his costs of court and expenses, and for all other relief to which he is entitled. 7 Respectfully submitted, RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP /s/ Rusty Hardin Rusty Hardin State Bar No. 08972800 Letitia D. Quinones (Of Counsel) State Bar No. 24008433 Lara Hollingsworth State Bar No.00796790 Leah Graham State Bar No. 24073454 Rachel Lewis State Bar No. 24120762 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800 rhardin@rustyhardin.com lquinones@rustyhardin.com lhollingsworth@rustyhardin.com lgraham@rustyhardin.com rlewis@rustyhardin.com Attorneys for Defendant Deshaun Watson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served upon the Plaintiff by eservice on April 19, 2021, pursuant to Rule 21a. /s/ Rusty Hardin Rusty Hardin

DEAL WITH THE 'DEVIL' Target in more hot water as shoppers learn controversial partner makes Pride products Target confirms 'adjustments' after 'threats' to employees FLASHBACK: CEO calls 'woke' capitalism 'great' for Target

😡 RED FLAGS Details emerge about warnings Biden allegedly 'didn't heed' before Afghanistan disaster

'GONNA CHOP YOU UP' Professor holds machete to New York Post reporter's neck after destroying pro-life display

Chicago suburb cancels Armed Forces Carnival after ‘flash mob’ of 400 teens devolves into fights, chaos

'INAPPROPRIATE' High school yearbook raises outrage among parents with pages on casual sex, drinking

'HELL' OF AN ERROR WATCH: Biden national security adviser pressed on $3 billion mistake

'IT'S A CONCERN' Hillary Clinton weighs in on questions about President Biden's age being a legitimate issue

https://nypost.com/2022/08/30/lying-joe-biden-is-unfit-to-save-the-soul-of-the-nation/ Lying Joe Biden is unfit to save the ‘soul of the nation’ By Michael Goodwin August 30, 2022 10:3 President Biden is going to deliver a prime-time speech Thursday on what the White House calls the “battle for the soul of the nation.” It’s a timely topic with rich possibilities, but none richer than the notion that the Big Guy is qualified to address America’s soul. Unless he’s going to confess how his family made millions by selling access to foreign governments and Communist oligarchs, Biden will be stuck spinning a web of fiction. No problem there because fiction is what he’s good at. He has a gift for playing make-believe. All politicians lie, but Biden doesn’t stop there. He’s a proven plagiarist, a fabulist, always the hero of his own stories, the Walter Mitty of American politics! Never mind that on his watch and under his policies, America has gotten more violent, more expensive and more pessimistic. The world smells weakness and when our enemies say the United States is in decline, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/02/01/president-joe-bidens-endless-stream-of-lies/ President Joe Biden’s endless stream of lies President Joe Biden speaks about gas prices and oil companies profits, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Monday, Oct. 31, 2022, in Washington, as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, left, and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm listen. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) By The Editorial Board | opinion@scng.com | PUBLISHED: February 1, 2023 at 8:48 a.m. | UPDATED: February 1, 2023 at 8:48 a.m. Joseph Biden has been a notorious fabulist, which is to say, a well-documented liar even by the standard of fellow politicians, since long before Congressman George Santos was ever born. Santos was born in 1988, the same year as the presidential election Biden dropped out of due to a plagiarism scandal. Unfortunately for the American people, this is a reputation that Biden has reinforced as president. Last week, President Biden gave a speech on the state of the American economy. He evidently kept the fact-checkers at CNN busy. Among the examples singled out by CNN’s Daniel Dale was President Biden’s claim that, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects — 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.” Calling this claim “wildly inaccurate,” Dale notes the president added two extra zeros to the correct number. Biden also touted a $2,000 annual cap on prescription drugs for Medicare recipients, “now in effect,” recipients that won’t come into effect for another two years. Biden also took a shot at President Donald Trump by falsely asserting that only 3.5 million Americans “even had their first [COVID] vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.” In fact, by the time Trump left office in January 2021, 19 million Americans had in fact received their first vaccine. As a sidebar, it’s particularly ironic that President Biden would take shots at President Trump over the COVID vaccine given that both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris contributed to vaccine skepticism. In September 2020, the Washington Post reported that then-candidate Biden, “expressed reservations about whether a coronavirus vaccine approved by the Trump administration would be safe, raising doubts about the president’s ability to put the health of Americans before politics.” Back to the speech last Thursday, Biden also falsely asserted that America’s billionaires “pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay” in taxes. Afterward, the White House revised the figure to 8%, though that, too, is misleadingly citing a figure counting unrealized capital gains. Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, is quoted by CNN as saying the figures are “way too low,” citing a 2019 paper by UC Berkeley economists indicating that the top 400 households in the country paid an effective tax rate of 23%. Alas, President Biden’s devotion to class warfare rhetoric trumps his clearly limited commitment to honestly communicating with the American people.

Hmm...curtain and or blinds and some common sense?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/gun-clubs-school-charles-c-w-cooke/ Gun Clubs at School January 21, 2013 9:00 AM The notion of schools as “gun-free zones” flies in the face of history. Once upon a time, it was common for an American child to be packed off to school with a rifle on his back and for him to come home smiling and safe in the evening. Shooting clubs, now quietly withering away, were once such a mainstay of American high-school life that in the first half of the 20th century they were regularly installed in the basements of new educational buildings. Now, they are in their death throes, victims of political correctness, a willful misunderstanding of what constitutes “gun safety,” and our deplorable tendency toward litigiousness. In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. In 1984, that had dropped to 65. By 1999 there were just 26. The state’s annual riflery championship was shut down in 1986 for lack of demand. This, sadly, is a familiar story across the country. The clubs are fading from memory, too. A Chicago Tribune report from 2007 notes the astonishment of a Wisconsin mother who discovered that her children’s school had a range on site. “I was surprised, because I never would have suspected to have something like that in my child’s school,” she told the Tribune. The district’s superintendent admitted that it was now a rarity, confessing that he “often gets raised eyebrows” if he mentions the range to other educators. The astonished mother raised her eyebrows — and then led a fight to have the range closed. “Guns and school don’t mix,” she averred. “If you have guns in school, that does away with the whole zero-tolerance policy.” But how wise is that “zero-tolerance policy”? Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” As George Mason University economist Walter E. Williams has observed, for most of American history “private transfers of guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a youngster’s 12th or 14th birthday present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father.” This was a right of passage, conventional and uncontroversial across the country. “Gee, Dad . . . A Winchester!” read one particularly famous ad. “In Virginia,” Williams writes, “rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students going hunting in the morning before school, and sometimes storing their guns in the trunk of their cars during the school day, parked on the school grounds.” Many of these guns they could buy at almost any hardware store or gas station — or even by mail order. The 1968 Gun Control Act, supported happily by major gun manufacturers who wished to push out their competition, put a stop to this. Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s are packed full of gun advertisements aimed at children or parents. “What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun,” one proclaims, next to a picture of a young boy and his sister excitedly presenting a “Rifle Catalog.” “Get This Cowboy Carbine with Your Christmas Money,” suggests another. It was placed widely in boys’ magazines by the Daisy Manufacturing Company of Plymouth, Mich. All a teenager needed do to be sent a rifle was send a money order for $2.50 and tick a box confirming they were old enough. In one cartoon from the 1950s, two boys discuss a rifle in front of their father. “It’s safe for him to use, isn’t it, Dad?” the first boy asks. “Sure,” Dad responds. “Pete knows the code of the junior rifleman.” Back then, Pete almost certainly did. As John Lott Jr. has noted, once upon a time, it was common for schools to have shooting clubs. Even in New York City, virtually every public high school had a shooting club up until 1969. It was common for high school students to take their guns with them to school on the subways in the morning and turn them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach so the heavy guns would simply be out of the way. After school, students would pick up their guns when it was time for practice. That is, if they handed them in at all. Up until the ’70s, especially in rural areas, it was commonplace to see kids entering and leaving their school campuses with rifle bags slung lazily over their backs. Guns were left in school lockers, and rifles and shotguns were routinely seen in high-school parking lots, hanging in the rear windows of pickup trucks. A good friend of mine is from North Dakota. His father was telling me recently that in the late 1960s he would hunt before school and then take his rifle — and his bloodstained kills — to school to show his teachers. He and his friends would compare their shooting techniques in the school grounds. Nobody batted an eyelid. In North Dakota, school shootings were non-existent; in the country at large, they were extremely rare. Despite my having been to school in England, this is not too strange a scene to me. Had you come through my school’s gates on a Thursday afternoon, you might have been horrified to see me, along with a motley collection of boys and girls, 16 to 18 years old, dressed in the camouflage of the Combined Cadet Force and carrying SA-80s around. An SA-80 is the standard-issue rifle used by the British army. It would be accurately described as an “assault rifle,” and it is a sufficiently serious piece of equipment to have been given to British soldiers fighting in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland. We had to learn strict gun safety. We had to disassemble and reassemble our guns under timed conditions. We had to shoot them at targets that were shaped like men. Once, at the school’s firing range, we even fired a machine gun. The clay-pigeon shooting group was one of my school’s strongest sports teams, and its members would walk nonchalantly around with their shotguns in bags. Sometimes, they would even take their locked guns to lessons and prop them up against the wall. All of our teachers survived the ordeal. The notion that guns should form a part of education has a rich pedigree in our republic. In 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his 15-year-old nephew Peter Carr with some scholarly advice. Having instructed him to read “antient history in detail” and expounded a little on which works of “Roman history” and “Greek and Latin poetry” were the most profitable, Jefferson counseled that a strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Such attitudes would no doubt be regarded as alarming today, as unthinkable as the old — and true — slogan that “America grew up with a rifle in its hand.” So widespread has been the shift in educators’ attitudes that in 1990 Congress legislated to render all schools “gun-free zones.” The law made reasonable exceptions for weapons that were taken to school “for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone” and, regardless, it was struck down on grounds of federal overreach in 1997. Still, that such an exception needed carving out at all would have astonished many a few years earlier, not to mention inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of harmless students who, in the process of going about their business, innocently and safely kept rifles in their cars.

OH, BOY Med school professor says parents must enforce gender ideology 'at birth,' or earlier

U.S. Illegal immigrant charged with raping teen girl, then raping woman at knifepoint days later U.S. Cheerleading, gymnastics coach sentenced to 20 years for child porn offenses

EDUCATION VIOLATION 'Teacher of the year' arrested for allegedly having sex with underage student TOTAL CHAOS Democrat absolutely loses it during debate over sex changes for minors

20+ Top Brands Changing Their Name to Avoid Racial Bias https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/alleged-racist-brands/ Product Name — examples: Aunt Jemima and Eskimo Pies are both brand names that will be changed Mascots — example: Proctor and Gamble remove the “Senior Sleepy” mascot from Spic and Span cleaning products (the word “spic” and the brown-skinned mascot is racial stereotyping towards Latinx people) Logos/Branding — example: Mrs. Butterworth’s is revamping its branding (the curvy bottle shape is a racial caricature stereotype for Black women) Product Descriptions — Johnson & Johnson and L’Oreal are re-visiting wording and production of “Whitening” products (words like “fair”, “light” and “whitening” contain race bias) Chants & Cheers — The Atlanta Braves are discussing the ethnic stereotyping of their popular tomahawk chop (the gesture is considered offensive to Native Americans)

Is that guy on the cover one of your two dads?