David Gingras
@davidgingras.bsky.social
For better results = try harder. 💙
This is the red bike. I got it from the original owner @ 6 months. It's old now (like me) but still does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. 185 mph top speed (personally verified). It is a beast.
October 11, 2025 at 3:12 AM
This is the red bike. I got it from the original owner @ 6 months. It's old now (like me) but still does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. 185 mph top speed (personally verified). It is a beast.
I ride every day. Have for almost 40 years (!)
I don't have many vices. Well, one or two. But going fast on a bike is one.
I don't have many vices. Well, one or two. But going fast on a bike is one.
October 11, 2025 at 2:48 AM
I ride every day. Have for almost 40 years (!)
I don't have many vices. Well, one or two. But going fast on a bike is one.
I don't have many vices. Well, one or two. But going fast on a bike is one.
Got an Insta360 camera today. Wanted to try creating some interesting stuff.
Attempt 1 was a fail. Surprised by how shaky this was. No clue what that music is? Added automatically?
Steep learning curve for a boomer. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
Attempt 1 was a fail. Surprised by how shaky this was. No clue what that music is? Added automatically?
Steep learning curve for a boomer. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
October 11, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Got an Insta360 camera today. Wanted to try creating some interesting stuff.
Attempt 1 was a fail. Surprised by how shaky this was. No clue what that music is? Added automatically?
Steep learning curve for a boomer. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
Attempt 1 was a fail. Surprised by how shaky this was. No clue what that music is? Added automatically?
Steep learning curve for a boomer. Maybe tomorrow will be better.
Ya'll - I thought we agreed - truce. It's Friday. Nice words only, plz.
October 10, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Ya'll - I thought we agreed - truce. It's Friday. Nice words only, plz.
True fact - many years ago, I picked up a VERY aggressive stalker. Guy used to send me photos of my house (way before Google Street View). He also sent pics like this. Seriously. NOT kidding. But what does that have to do with your question? Well....
October 10, 2025 at 6:55 PM
True fact - many years ago, I picked up a VERY aggressive stalker. Guy used to send me photos of my house (way before Google Street View). He also sent pics like this. Seriously. NOT kidding. But what does that have to do with your question? Well....
Correction: "semi-retired attorney"
Don't worry - the time I spend is minimal. They troll me. I troll them. Then I go back to what I'm doing and forget they exist.
Mentioned this before, but I have lawyer friends who sold everything and retired to a boat.
This is the aft deck of their boat.
Don't worry - the time I spend is minimal. They troll me. I troll them. Then I go back to what I'm doing and forget they exist.
Mentioned this before, but I have lawyer friends who sold everything and retired to a boat.
This is the aft deck of their boat.
October 10, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Correction: "semi-retired attorney"
Don't worry - the time I spend is minimal. They troll me. I troll them. Then I go back to what I'm doing and forget they exist.
Mentioned this before, but I have lawyer friends who sold everything and retired to a boat.
This is the aft deck of their boat.
Don't worry - the time I spend is minimal. They troll me. I troll them. Then I go back to what I'm doing and forget they exist.
Mentioned this before, but I have lawyer friends who sold everything and retired to a boat.
This is the aft deck of their boat.
All I am saying is people need to stop acting like I'm afraid of the AZ bar. 100% false. The bar sometimes takes frivolous positions. It has done so against me in the past, and they lost. I'm sure they will lose this issue as well.
October 10, 2025 at 3:40 PM
All I am saying is people need to stop acting like I'm afraid of the AZ bar. 100% false. The bar sometimes takes frivolous positions. It has done so against me in the past, and they lost. I'm sure they will lose this issue as well.
This is just a Google AI snapshot, but it explains the idea fairly well.
October 10, 2025 at 5:26 AM
This is just a Google AI snapshot, but it explains the idea fairly well.
Not nearly enough room to type, so you get a different response. I assume the time limit was <2 minutes (like Twitter was) so I kept this short. Talking fast to beat the clock. No drugs involved.
October 10, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Not nearly enough room to type, so you get a different response. I assume the time limit was <2 minutes (like Twitter was) so I kept this short. Talking fast to beat the clock. No drugs involved.
Disagreeing with me NEVER means you're in a cult. Disagree all you want. I will always try to respond respectfully (and yes, I sometimes fail. Sorry).
When I say "cult", I mean sick people who do this shit for laughs and money.
They think karma will never bring consequences. They're wrong.
When I say "cult", I mean sick people who do this shit for laughs and money.
They think karma will never bring consequences. They're wrong.
October 9, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Disagreeing with me NEVER means you're in a cult. Disagree all you want. I will always try to respond respectfully (and yes, I sometimes fail. Sorry).
When I say "cult", I mean sick people who do this shit for laughs and money.
They think karma will never bring consequences. They're wrong.
When I say "cult", I mean sick people who do this shit for laughs and money.
They think karma will never bring consequences. They're wrong.
Having said that, I have NEVER "lied" (meaning I said something I KNEW was false).
Omar LIED. Here it is in black and white. He said I only gave written confirmation I was out AFTER he filed his DQ motion.
100% LIE. I sent written confirmation I was out on 8/22. He filed the DQ on 8/25. 100% lie.
Omar LIED. Here it is in black and white. He said I only gave written confirmation I was out AFTER he filed his DQ motion.
100% LIE. I sent written confirmation I was out on 8/22. He filed the DQ on 8/25. 100% lie.
October 9, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Having said that, I have NEVER "lied" (meaning I said something I KNEW was false).
Omar LIED. Here it is in black and white. He said I only gave written confirmation I was out AFTER he filed his DQ motion.
100% LIE. I sent written confirmation I was out on 8/22. He filed the DQ on 8/25. 100% lie.
Omar LIED. Here it is in black and white. He said I only gave written confirmation I was out AFTER he filed his DQ motion.
100% LIE. I sent written confirmation I was out on 8/22. He filed the DQ on 8/25. 100% lie.
TBH = Omar's writing is so bad, I can barely understand what he's asking for. He filed a Motion to Dismiss: gingraslaw.com/Omar473.pdf
This seems like he's asking the court to toss everything (so, no hearing).
But this writing....it's....um...
This seems like he's asking the court to toss everything (so, no hearing).
But this writing....it's....um...
October 9, 2025 at 9:44 PM
TBH = Omar's writing is so bad, I can barely understand what he's asking for. He filed a Motion to Dismiss: gingraslaw.com/Omar473.pdf
This seems like he's asking the court to toss everything (so, no hearing).
But this writing....it's....um...
This seems like he's asking the court to toss everything (so, no hearing).
But this writing....it's....um...
Ah, it was years ago. Looks like he wasn't charged w/ extortion. Just hacking/CFAA:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
October 9, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Ah, it was years ago. Looks like he wasn't charged w/ extortion. Just hacking/CFAA:
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Fun story - a few years ago, a hacker got into my client's website and demanded $90K not to release private info.
The hacker also created accounts in my name and used them to threaten my client.
I was able to help catch the kid. He was arrested and sent to prison.
www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/c...
The hacker also created accounts in my name and used them to threaten my client.
I was able to help catch the kid. He was arrested and sent to prison.
www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/c...
October 9, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Fun story - a few years ago, a hacker got into my client's website and demanded $90K not to release private info.
The hacker also created accounts in my name and used them to threaten my client.
I was able to help catch the kid. He was arrested and sent to prison.
www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/c...
The hacker also created accounts in my name and used them to threaten my client.
I was able to help catch the kid. He was arrested and sent to prison.
www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/c...
Wow - you have the empty broken soul of a psychopath AND you're dumb? Quite the combo. Your parents must have been proud before they abandoned you. No wonder you hide your face.
TL;DR There isn't going to be a hearing tomorrow (unless someone objects).
sf.courts.ca.gov/divisions/un...
TL;DR There isn't going to be a hearing tomorrow (unless someone objects).
sf.courts.ca.gov/divisions/un...
October 9, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Wow - you have the empty broken soul of a psychopath AND you're dumb? Quite the combo. Your parents must have been proud before they abandoned you. No wonder you hide your face.
TL;DR There isn't going to be a hearing tomorrow (unless someone objects).
sf.courts.ca.gov/divisions/un...
TL;DR There isn't going to be a hearing tomorrow (unless someone objects).
sf.courts.ca.gov/divisions/un...
There was a time when responsible journalism required neutrality. Technically, that's still true.
Can you report on a legal case? SURE. But if you take sides or engage in excessive misleading spin, that could cause you to lose the privilege. That would open you up to liability.
Can you report on a legal case? SURE. But if you take sides or engage in excessive misleading spin, that could cause you to lose the privilege. That would open you up to liability.
October 9, 2025 at 7:19 PM
There was a time when responsible journalism required neutrality. Technically, that's still true.
Can you report on a legal case? SURE. But if you take sides or engage in excessive misleading spin, that could cause you to lose the privilege. That would open you up to liability.
Can you report on a legal case? SURE. But if you take sides or engage in excessive misleading spin, that could cause you to lose the privilege. That would open you up to liability.
OK, got a ruling from SF.
Everyone lost.
Omar's DQ motion: DENIED.
My sanctions motion: DENIED (as moot), only because the judge wouldn't let me intervene.
I can object to this, but probably won't. This is what I was going to offer Omar anyway.
But FYI - my position: ZERO TOLERANCE for lies.
Everyone lost.
Omar's DQ motion: DENIED.
My sanctions motion: DENIED (as moot), only because the judge wouldn't let me intervene.
I can object to this, but probably won't. This is what I was going to offer Omar anyway.
But FYI - my position: ZERO TOLERANCE for lies.
October 9, 2025 at 7:03 PM
OK, got a ruling from SF.
Everyone lost.
Omar's DQ motion: DENIED.
My sanctions motion: DENIED (as moot), only because the judge wouldn't let me intervene.
I can object to this, but probably won't. This is what I was going to offer Omar anyway.
But FYI - my position: ZERO TOLERANCE for lies.
Everyone lost.
Omar's DQ motion: DENIED.
My sanctions motion: DENIED (as moot), only because the judge wouldn't let me intervene.
I can object to this, but probably won't. This is what I was going to offer Omar anyway.
But FYI - my position: ZERO TOLERANCE for lies.
This is what I'm referring to: youtube.com/watch?v=ju_M...
Again, if the other side would shut up, I'll do the same.
If they want to keep talking trash, I may respond, as needed.
Honestly, I could care less about Omar. But if one side keeps pushing their narrative, people will also hear mine.
Again, if the other side would shut up, I'll do the same.
If they want to keep talking trash, I may respond, as needed.
Honestly, I could care less about Omar. But if one side keeps pushing their narrative, people will also hear mine.
October 9, 2025 at 5:23 PM
This is what I'm referring to: youtube.com/watch?v=ju_M...
Again, if the other side would shut up, I'll do the same.
If they want to keep talking trash, I may respond, as needed.
Honestly, I could care less about Omar. But if one side keeps pushing their narrative, people will also hear mine.
Again, if the other side would shut up, I'll do the same.
If they want to keep talking trash, I may respond, as needed.
Honestly, I could care less about Omar. But if one side keeps pushing their narrative, people will also hear mine.
After reading Omar's 473 motion (gingraslaw.com/Omar473.pdf), it's one of the most amateurish pieces of legal writing I've seen.
Bad grammar.
Bad logic.
Bad law.
Bad argument.
Bad citation format.
But anyone can talk trash.
Here is what GOOD work product looks like:
gingraslaw.com/Demurrer.pdf
Bad grammar.
Bad logic.
Bad law.
Bad argument.
Bad citation format.
But anyone can talk trash.
Here is what GOOD work product looks like:
gingraslaw.com/Demurrer.pdf
October 9, 2025 at 4:15 PM
After reading Omar's 473 motion (gingraslaw.com/Omar473.pdf), it's one of the most amateurish pieces of legal writing I've seen.
Bad grammar.
Bad logic.
Bad law.
Bad argument.
Bad citation format.
But anyone can talk trash.
Here is what GOOD work product looks like:
gingraslaw.com/Demurrer.pdf
Bad grammar.
Bad logic.
Bad law.
Bad argument.
Bad citation format.
But anyone can talk trash.
Here is what GOOD work product looks like:
gingraslaw.com/Demurrer.pdf
PURELY for my own intellectual curiosity, I just read Omar's 473 motion. Wanted to know how he planned to get around the 6 month time limit of the rule.
He twice (?) cited a 2019 case - Weiss v. Othman - that doesn't appear to exist. I'm concerned this cite was hallucinated by ChatGPT. There is...
He twice (?) cited a 2019 case - Weiss v. Othman - that doesn't appear to exist. I'm concerned this cite was hallucinated by ChatGPT. There is...
October 8, 2025 at 11:35 PM
PURELY for my own intellectual curiosity, I just read Omar's 473 motion. Wanted to know how he planned to get around the 6 month time limit of the rule.
He twice (?) cited a 2019 case - Weiss v. Othman - that doesn't appear to exist. I'm concerned this cite was hallucinated by ChatGPT. There is...
He twice (?) cited a 2019 case - Weiss v. Othman - that doesn't appear to exist. I'm concerned this cite was hallucinated by ChatGPT. There is...
I couldn't care less about being DQ'd. I already DQ'd myself.
So why fight? Here's why - Omar submitted a proposed order that contained: A.) false statements, and B.) included findings of ethical breaches.
If that order was signed, it would guarantee BIG trouble w/ the CA bar. So I pushed back.
So why fight? Here's why - Omar submitted a proposed order that contained: A.) false statements, and B.) included findings of ethical breaches.
If that order was signed, it would guarantee BIG trouble w/ the CA bar. So I pushed back.
October 8, 2025 at 11:12 PM
I couldn't care less about being DQ'd. I already DQ'd myself.
So why fight? Here's why - Omar submitted a proposed order that contained: A.) false statements, and B.) included findings of ethical breaches.
If that order was signed, it would guarantee BIG trouble w/ the CA bar. So I pushed back.
So why fight? Here's why - Omar submitted a proposed order that contained: A.) false statements, and B.) included findings of ethical breaches.
If that order was signed, it would guarantee BIG trouble w/ the CA bar. So I pushed back.
Couple things:
1.) My sanctions/intervention motion has been moved out of clerky jail, so it should be on the docket now (or soon).
2.) The clerk rejected my supporting declaration because of a technical prob. The clerk asked me to fix the prob & refile the declaration, which I'll do in a sec.
1.) My sanctions/intervention motion has been moved out of clerky jail, so it should be on the docket now (or soon).
2.) The clerk rejected my supporting declaration because of a technical prob. The clerk asked me to fix the prob & refile the declaration, which I'll do in a sec.
October 8, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Couple things:
1.) My sanctions/intervention motion has been moved out of clerky jail, so it should be on the docket now (or soon).
2.) The clerk rejected my supporting declaration because of a technical prob. The clerk asked me to fix the prob & refile the declaration, which I'll do in a sec.
1.) My sanctions/intervention motion has been moved out of clerky jail, so it should be on the docket now (or soon).
2.) The clerk rejected my supporting declaration because of a technical prob. The clerk asked me to fix the prob & refile the declaration, which I'll do in a sec.
Minor correction - I mentioned a lawyer who was convicted of a federal crime in a case I worked on.
My bad; the guy wasn't a lawyer. He just acted like one (he owned an SEO company that removed stuff from websites).
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...
My bad; the guy wasn't a lawyer. He just acted like one (he owned an SEO company that removed stuff from websites).
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...
October 8, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Minor correction - I mentioned a lawyer who was convicted of a federal crime in a case I worked on.
My bad; the guy wasn't a lawyer. He just acted like one (he owned an SEO company that removed stuff from websites).
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...
My bad; the guy wasn't a lawyer. He just acted like one (he owned an SEO company that removed stuff from websites).
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...
The DQ opposition w/ supporting declaration is done. I will probably file it....uh....there's no rush. It's not due until tomorrow.
Haven't finished my sanctions reply brief, and I'd prefer to file them together....so yeah, tomorrow for sure.
Oh, and the boss voted "NO" on a video. Here's proof.
Haven't finished my sanctions reply brief, and I'd prefer to file them together....so yeah, tomorrow for sure.
Oh, and the boss voted "NO" on a video. Here's proof.
October 7, 2025 at 12:49 AM
The DQ opposition w/ supporting declaration is done. I will probably file it....uh....there's no rush. It's not due until tomorrow.
Haven't finished my sanctions reply brief, and I'd prefer to file them together....so yeah, tomorrow for sure.
Oh, and the boss voted "NO" on a video. Here's proof.
Haven't finished my sanctions reply brief, and I'd prefer to file them together....so yeah, tomorrow for sure.
Oh, and the boss voted "NO" on a video. Here's proof.
For you cult members lurking - barring unforseen delays, I'll be filing two pleadings in SF today.
Since I'm correcting false info pushed by the other side, I will share links here as soon as they are filed.
And maybe a video explainer? 🤔
Or maybe not. Aurora will decide.
Since I'm correcting false info pushed by the other side, I will share links here as soon as they are filed.
And maybe a video explainer? 🤔
Or maybe not. Aurora will decide.
October 6, 2025 at 3:17 PM
For you cult members lurking - barring unforseen delays, I'll be filing two pleadings in SF today.
Since I'm correcting false info pushed by the other side, I will share links here as soon as they are filed.
And maybe a video explainer? 🤔
Or maybe not. Aurora will decide.
Since I'm correcting false info pushed by the other side, I will share links here as soon as they are filed.
And maybe a video explainer? 🤔
Or maybe not. Aurora will decide.