View Single Post
Old July 31st, 2008 #922
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post

Good, but you obviously did not read the several cases wherein convictions, based solely upon eyewitness testimony, later; upon appeal, had to be overturned due to the many incidences of convicting innocent people to long term prison time as well as to death. This happened so often that generally, if you read all the articles and links - which you obviously did not bother to do before making your pronouncement - that eyewitness testimony is so easily challenged that Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Defence no longer deem it viable enough for conviction alone.
This is irrelevant to your claim, in fact it shows you to be a liar. Recall you claim is an absolute prohibition of criminal convictions based soley on eyewitness testimony. There is no such prohibition, your statement is a lie.

Quote:
Ask your local [or State] District Attorney if he is willing to go forward with prosecuting a case that is lacking in sufficient evidence and relies totally upon one or more eyewitnesses - in your query, include that the cases would have to be sufficient to earn either capital punishment or long-term to life imprisonment. For instance [and the article was writ by a kike, no less]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...utput=viewport
Again, this is irrelevant, your statment remains a lie.

Quote:

I did back it up - Common law usually deals with "white collar fraud"; consumer fraud, ect - as does "Intentional" evidence - same thing really, consumer fraud, financial fraud - usually, jews are the largest group of criminals falling within this range. Same thing with "unintentional" evidence.
This is also a lie, Common Law is the basis of the English language jurisprudence and deals equaly with white collar fraud as with any other classification of wrong doing, civil or criminal.

Quote:
I gave several links - you and Mule do not bother to read nor follow up - at least if you are going to dispute my posts; provide back up

Google and research, do your own work and then come back with more than one link, and be willing to discuss them - likely another thread, since this is a subject that does not actually pertain to this thread. Though, I'm sure your pal, Mule would love further derailment so as to avoid answering fully Herr Gerdes questions. But, I am not going to be the one to give him that out - so, if you wish to discuss matters of law - start a thread on it. OV would be the right place.

Quote:

Research what, your lies? Nah

Well, they are not based on jewish notions of jurisprudence - which pretty much is the whole of American justice system - but come from questioning the American Justice system; making comparison between non-jewish law - a rare thing these days - and jewish based, judeo-Christian notions of what is legal or illegal. How do you come by your theories.
No, this is also a lie, Jewish influence in early English Common Law would be minimal at best.


Quote:
True, it's still under legal debate - it seems to be an area that jews cannot get ahold of - again, Intentional evidence deals mainly with petit fraud and crimes, as well as larger financial schemes in which there are several victims; again, crimes that are usually committed by large corporate entities; and mostly jew criminals. Perhaps the prevalence of jewish criminals in this area is one reason why the juden do not bother with trying to take control of English Common Law - idk, either that, or it's simply too foreign a notion for the jewish mind to fully comprehend.
Its so much under debate its not even defined, idiot!

Quote:
Prove that you are not "trying to apply it" - elaborate.
I've never used the term before this discussion.


Quote:
I realise that, as a jew, you are not familiar with basing laws on ethics, but rather try to control ethics using law. Here's a google page dealing with ethics - start there, then go to the law, or the court decision and distinction you seek.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...ce&btnG=Search
I'm not a Jew, neither is Roberto.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot

Last edited by Slamin2; July 31st, 2008 at 05:01 PM.