[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 12095229 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null Rata Mall - Fashion Store 2 - Mafiascum.net
Post
Post #2 (isolation #0) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:29 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
Well I feel a bit naked without my pipe.
What was down the chute?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #3 (isolation #1) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:29 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
Also you have chain mail. You're fine.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #4 (isolation #2) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:30 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
inspect racks, seeing if any of the others can be dismantled like the one on the lower left
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #5 (isolation #3) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:31 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
oh. that came on while you were gone.
points to security camera
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #10 (isolation #4) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:34 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
Was there a door to get out?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #11 (isolation #5) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:34 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
Oh hey by the way you can give them back.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #12 (isolation #6) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:35 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
inspect the mannequins to see if they look like they can be taken apart, or are flimsy enough to be smashed, or are hollow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #16 (isolation #7) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:09 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
Well I’d appreciate my matches back.
I’m tired of being stolen from.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #18 (isolation #8) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:24 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
inspect safe’s keypad
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #21 (isolation #9) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:47 pm
Postby Green Crayons »
well is a number keypad or symbols or what. Is there a display or anything?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #24 (isolation #10) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:58 am
Postby Green Crayons »
with all the time in the world, start from 0000, and then 0001, and so on
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
BUT I will stop and contemplate further entries if I hear anything weird or anything unusual happens other than the safe opening; if the safe opens in the meanwhile, I'll obviously stop putting in numbers and i'll inspect the safe
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #27 (isolation #12) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:21 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Yup.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #30 (isolation #13) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:22 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Only 9997 more to go.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #32 (isolation #14) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:23 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Now 9997 to go.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #34 (isolation #15) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:24 am
Postby Green Crayons »
This is like the lottery!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #37 (isolation #16) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:27 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Exciting!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #39 (isolation #17) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:28 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I wouldn’t type in the same number!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #40 (isolation #18) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:29 am
Postby Green Crayons »
These fingers aren’t that old. Surely I can up my pace.
Come on old fingers!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #42 (isolation #19) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:30 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I have had 70 years to overcome disabilities.
I have even written an entire book!
Dyslexia is no match for me.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #48 (isolation #20) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:35 am
Postby Green Crayons »
take quick break to check the fancy bag that was with the mannequin
Go back to punching in numbers, starting with where I left off
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #54 (isolation #21) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:43 am
Postby Green Crayons »
i checked INSIDE the bag too
I keep the pitchfork by my side, and I’m turned sideways so I can see anyone approaching me
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #55 (isolation #22) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:44 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I would never want abdominal muscles. Fat and leathery is sexy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #56 (isolation #23) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:44 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Especially in geriatrics.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #57 (isolation #24) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:45 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Oh there I go talking aloud to myself again.
Ah, the joys of early onset dementia
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #61 (isolation #25) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:46 am
Postby Green Crayons »
21 numbers down!
Many more to go
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #65 (isolation #26) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:50 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Let me skip to 1234
And then go back to where I left off
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #66 (isolation #27) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:50 am
Postby Green Crayons »
I love narrating what I’m doing to myself.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #68 (isolation #28) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:50 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Oh I’m narrating that I’m narrating. How meta. The kids these days would love me.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #71 (isolation #29) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:51 am
Postby Green Crayons »
If only someone didn’t steal my matches.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #81 (isolation #30) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:34 am
Postby Green Crayons »
WHOA I GOTTA WAKE UP
make sure i punch in those 0031, 0032, and 0033 codes
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #82 (isolation #31) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:35 am
Postby Green Crayons »
thinks about how long has past since I first saw all these weirdos in the eatery
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #83 (isolation #32) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:35 am
Postby Green Crayons »
imagine if I spray painted my face. hahaha. what a silly thing for me to do. I crack myself up for imagining these wild scenarios.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #89 (isolation #33) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:54 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Exciting.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #90 (isolation #34) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:06 am
Postby Green Crayons »
look around for any way to lock the chute or barricade it from opening
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #92 (isolation #35) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:12 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Wait the safe is removable? Thought it was a wall safe.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #93 (isolation #36) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:13 am
Postby Green Crayons »
What do the sales racks look like?
How does the chute open? Flap goes inwards or out? Opening on top or bottom?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #96 (isolation #37) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:16 am
Postby Green Crayons »
None of that gives me leverage my good sir.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Post
Post #97 (isolation #38) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:17 am
Postby Green Crayons »
Push tables against chute’s door to see if they reach and would block opening.
Look around for heavy things.
See if I can get the safe from the wall.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).