View Single Post
Old July 31st, 2008 #928
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

The jewish claim to holocaust/genocide and the Nurnberg trials set aside regular rules of evidence and, the accused were convicted before trial, ex-parte so to speak. Were the Nurnberg Trials held today, the cases would fall apart, based both on the "evidence" provided as well as the eyewitness "accounts"
Under what standard of evidence and what judicial proceeding do you assume this to be true? Are you basing this on US law as it stands today? I want specifics because I plan to drag you over the coals for this statement.

Quote:
No, you are wrong, again. You were discussing intentional vs unintentional crimes - which falls under English Common Law as well - however, beyond that it remains an area that deals primarily with the cases specified. Which are and can be tried on both/either the civil or criminal level; depending on the degree of the crime. It deals in the main with consumer type fraud ect.
Bullshit, consumer type fraud is a very small portion - most civil matters concern claims in tort or contract.

Quote:
Of course, and I stated as much, silly. It's the one area of law that the juden tend to shy away from. Though, frankly jewish coyness about this arena of law is beyond me. That's the reason I stated that jews obviously have little to no ability to understand Gentile law. And, if they cannot make it [the law] theirs, then, thankfully they leave it alone.
There are two Jews sitting on the US Supreme Court, they are not shying away from this arean of the law by any measure. But again, its origins are not Jewish.

Quote:
You have done the reading of a few of the links I provided; yet still fail to understand or comprehend.
Why? So you could move the goal posts again?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot