Breaking Moore accuser admits forging yearbook
- Thread starter Jtommyj
- Start date
So, Fox News got something wrong... again... and of course the usual suspects took the bait hook, line and sinker. Now you have no choice but to double down on stupid.
Well that two sentence legal opinion of yours left many open holes so let me school you Justice Thomas.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “forgery” as follows (original emphasis):
forgery, n. 1. The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine … 2. A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive … 3. Under the Model Penal Code, the act of fraudulently altering, authenticating, issuing, or transferring a writing without appropriate authorization.
The definition of forgery includes altering a document made to look genuine to deceive. If her intent wasn't to deceive she wouldn't have waited 6 weeks to come clean.
She DID forge the yearbook.
I'll patiently await while one of the usual suspects doubles down on uninformed.
People think forgery is limited to signatures. It's not .
Please do to tell us your legal opinion that differs from Blacks Legal dictionary .
Nobody's claiming she forged his SIGNATURE. Thats been corrected and actually was never claimed. An inscription and signature arent necessarily the same.
BUT she forged the document based on the legal definition above
That's where message board lawyers like yourself get into trouble. You don't know the legal definition of a term so you make a fool of yourself.
She altered a real document to make it look as genuine. Therefore she forged it.
FOX had claimed she forged his SIGNATURE/Inscription which WAS incorrect,and they corrected it.
However the original premise that she forged the yearbook is 100% correct and you will find no sources on the web or legal opinion disputing that.
Here,give any of them a call and ask them to explain "forgery" to you.
http://law.pitt.edu/faculty/directory
Note the wording from Snopes fact check
"Fox News, at least, corrected their account to note that Nelson had acknowledged adding notes to the yearbook rather than “forging” Moore’s inscription, as Fox had originally reported:"
And remember,this is what she's admitting to. Two weeks ago she hadn't added any notes either according to her. It was all Moore. Until Moore called bullshit and said let's let an independent document examiner look at it. Then all of a sudden she admits to making "notes". Nobody here can possibly be that stupid.
Since Allred won't release the yearbook there's as good a chance that she did forge his inscription as isn't.
Otherwise what's the hold up to vindicate your own client?
But because she didn't forge his inscription doesn't mean she didn't forge the document,that's why they admit to and acknowledge adding "notes". Because if Allred ever does release it it's all over if she tried to deny writing in that yearbook.
Adding notes then passing it off as genuine is the very definition of forgery and is why Gloria Allred is desperate to settle a libel claim with Moore and keeps calling him because she knows she and her client are in deep shit if he proceeds after she passed this yearbook off as genuine for two months and now has this epiphany that now she remembers adding notes.
There,laid out in the best layman's legalese I can manage.
Any questions feel free to ask.
You're just like the other jackwagon. One or two uninformed quips and not a shred of evidence to support your point.
If you even had one. Lol.
Why do you even bother with us Mr Hawking?
Is your point she didn't forge the yearbook? Or do you not have a point again and the Steeler game liquor was flowing?
Last edited:
Powerful closing argument there Dershowitz.
If Moore wins, the left will certainly drop all of this and hope it goes away.....unless they think they can get the Senate to take up their crusade to convict him of inappropriate dating. I hope Moore follows through regardless and nails Allred.
Pun intended
Ñ
Oh it's gonna depending on how many of the seated senators have skeletons of their own that were paid out of the slush fund.
And so on.
That's my take. If they think they're pure enough but whoever is in charge of investigation of this ,the Congressional IG needs to get moving if they're not.
Maybe they are but I'm suspicious.
They did bust that one guy Alcee something yesterday for paying 220k out of the fund.
We shall see.
Oh it's gonna depending on how many of the seated senators have skeletons of their own that were paid out of the slush fund.
And so on.
That's my take. If they think they're pure enough but whoever is in charge of investigation of this ,the Congressional IG needs to get moving if they're not.
Maybe they are but I'm suspicious.
They did bust that one guy Alcee something yesterday for paying 220k out of the fund.
We shall see.
Just for shits and giggles I just googled some polls.
Latest one published an hour ago and one yesterday and a few others.
I have no idea the affiliation of these polls but none has Moore leading by less than 5 points.
Now we learned our lesson on polls last year when the queen was dethroned so we'll see.
That's an overreaction if I ever saw one.
She wrote in the date. Fox (and others) attempted to make it sound like they had evidence that she made up the entire thing. Wrong. They got called out for it, but only after all the dolts took the story and ran with it.
Imagine that I went to a scifi contention in high school and get Luke Skywalkers signature with a note he wrote. Then I wrote in the date and location below it. Would it mean that Mark Hamill never signed it?
We don't know the truth.
I do know that if the reverse happened with this story, and CNN or MSNBC has reported something erroneous the cons here wold be all over them with "fake news". But in this case it is ok because it is Fox.
But right now it is his word against her's.
We don't know the truth.
I do know that if the reverse happened with this story, and CNN or MSNBC has reported something erroneous the cons here wold be all over them with "fake news". But in this case it is ok because it is Fox.
But right now it is his word against her's.
We absolutely know alot of the truth.
Allred and her client have admitted to making notes in the yearbook. Would you consider their own words in admitting to doctoring the yearbook truthful?
So far. Who knows what else she'll admit to. It took her six weeks to admit to just doing what she did.
That constitutes forgery. End of story.
Not that complicated for most.
CNN MSNBC , HUH? What have they reported on the story? I'll give you a clue. They have and it might be best to stay away because it doesn't fit your narrative either.
You're confused. It isn't his word against hers. She and Allred have confessed to doctoring the yearbook.
PLEASE educate yourself before commenting.
Last edited:
Allred and her client have admitted to making notes in the yearbook.
That constitutes forgery. End of story.
Making changes to an original document (yearbook) and trying to pass it off as real for the past six weeks constitutes forgery.
It's that simple.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “forgery” as follows (original emphasis):
forgery, n. 1. The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine … 2. A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive …
Forget the ludicrous Starwars and other deflection attempts that have nothing to do with anything . Just read the Blacks Law definition.
This is typical leftie diversion to get away from the actual facts and bring up Star Wars.lol.
Next response will be about Howdy Doody or Happy Days defense or something equally inane.
I'm laying down facts of law and he's talking with his "feelings". I seriously doubt Star Wars was ever introduced in to a forgery case so credit for creativity.
But the law is very clear. Whether he thinks it's a stretch or not is immaterial. When he's sitting on the bench he can rule.
As it sits now, read my definition, there is ZERO room for interpretation.
Doctor the document in anyway,it's forgery.
That's it. All the smokescreens about fox, Lukeskywalker, don't change shit.
She damn well forged the yearbook, Allred knows it and has been contacting Moore to settle a libel suit.
All you need to know is not one of them,despite their finger pointing at Fox and Lukeskywalker,
Have disputed or challenged one word of the Blacks Law definition of forgery.
And that's all that really needs to be said.
Last edited:
You don't know what she wrote in it. You know what she SAYS she wrote it it. Admitted to altering the yearbook on Friday. And even if it is only the date. Read the definition. It's forgery.
There isn't a stipulation in the law saying "if it's only the date it's ok".
The Lukeskywalker, wtf is that. That's gotta be one of the stupidest legal analogies ever attempted.
The LAW as I've pointed out for days is that doctoring a document as to make it try to look original is FORGERY.
You can think what you want, Blacks Legal Dictionary,again, as I've repeatedly posted and highlighted , is what matters not some idiotic Star Wars attempted analogy that means nothing.
Although maybe you should call Allred and tell her to try the "Skywalker" defense lol.
Let's see how that turns out for her in the libel case that Moore has promised and Allred is scrambling to head off.
Lunacy.
Last edited:
You can chirp all you want about FOX but this is forgery !We don't know the truth.
I do know that if the reverse happened with this story, and CNN or MSNBC has reported something erroneous the cons here wold be all over them with "fake news". But in this case it is ok because it is Fox.
But right now it is his word against her's.
And Gloria’s little escapade is......
OVAH!!
The Judge will win , fight on and be seated.
Frankenstein not pleased. Bet dat.
We don't know the truth.
I do know that if the reverse happened with this story, and CNN or MSNBC has reported something erroneous the cons here wold be all over them with "fake news". But in this case it is ok because it is Fox.
But right now it is his word against her's.
We absolutely know some of the truth. It's not he said,she said. She ADMITTED doctoring the year book.
Allred and her client have admitted to making notes in the yearbook.
That constitutes forgery. End of story..Pretty simple. There is no gray. Doctor a document to try to make it seem as if authentic is forgery.
The Fox, Lukeskywalker, smoke and mirrors are just that.
They don't have a leg to stand on legally so now let's make it about Fox lol.
Last edited:
Moore's Attorney, "Miss, did you alter the yearbook?"
Witness Response, "Yes."
Moore's Attorney, "That is all."
Judge, "Miss, you may step down."
Moore's Attorney, "I have nothing further your honor."
What the hell does it matter, she changed, altered, forged, or whatever. Used it to deceive public perception, pulled in Allred, who has now back tracked. What the hell else needs to be said. This is no different than someone trying to hide evidence, or a cop planting evidence. It's all about changing perception, and she attempted to do that.
Witness Response, "Yes."
Moore's Attorney, "That is all."
Judge, "Miss, you may step down."
Moore's Attorney, "I have nothing further your honor."
What the hell does it matter, she changed, altered, forged, or whatever. Used it to deceive public perception, pulled in Allred, who has now back tracked. What the hell else needs to be said. This is no different than someone trying to hide evidence, or a cop planting evidence. It's all about changing perception, and she attempted to do that.
The thing I'm harping on is no matter if she wrote "we need toilet paper at home" in the margin and for six months tried to pass it off as authentic Moore writing, it's forgery.
There aren't different levels of forgery . It either has been changed to make it seem more authentic or not and that is EXACTLY what she did, tried to pass it off as Moore to attempt to add credence to her story.
If she weren't trying to deceive she would have announced as soon as it came out, " yes this is from Roy Moore but I made notations in the margin".
But she didn't so one must assume she had nefarious reasons to omit such an important fact.
And we can all rest assured that the reason is that it wouldnt show Moore in a good light.
Doesn’t sound like me.
I’m brief and to the point.
I asked a basic question about who’s words he typed., which went unanswered .
I don’t care about the yearbook.
That’s a peripheral issue.
You all are cool with Moore.
Good for you
She added his last name and D.A. as well. There would be no reason to do that except to deceive.
This is what's incredible. I have posted the Blacks Legal Definition at least 5-10 times and their is still more dancing than Michael Flatley on Meth.
J
JGregor
Guest
Is this an open and shut case “that Roy Moore did not sign the year book because it is not his signature.” Has that been established?
Now the accuser has stated that she added writing to the signature such as a date and place next to or near the signature, is that a fact?
Now what the accusers has added to the document would be forgery, but that may not invalidate his signature if it is in fact his signature. Case law would need to be reviewed to see how this situation is interpreted. A partisan interpretation of the statute is not final. Logic, reason and case law interpretation and the facts are the final arbitrator and a Judge’s ruling.
Again if it is proven that that is Moore’s signature the writing put forth by the accusers may NOT have altered it sufficiently to obscure Moore’s genuine signature. Only an interpretation by the court, not a layman’s, is the final decision.
Now the accuser has stated that she added writing to the signature such as a date and place next to or near the signature, is that a fact?
Now what the accusers has added to the document would be forgery, but that may not invalidate his signature if it is in fact his signature. Case law would need to be reviewed to see how this situation is interpreted. A partisan interpretation of the statute is not final. Logic, reason and case law interpretation and the facts are the final arbitrator and a Judge’s ruling.
Again if it is proven that that is Moore’s signature the writing put forth by the accusers may NOT have altered it sufficiently to obscure Moore’s genuine signature. Only an interpretation by the court, not a layman’s, is the final decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
J Jesus Christ catch up.
FORGERY is NOT limited to signatures.
She's not accused of forging Moore's SIGNATURE. She's accused with altering a document which is forgery also.
This has ZERO to do with ANYONES SIGNATURE. Please go back 5 or 10 posts and come back with a better idea of what you are talking about.
Start with Blacks Legal dictionary and the parts I highlighted.
You just spent four paragraphs talking about signatures when with a little reading you'd know this has NOTHING to do with any signatures period.
I've posted the legal definition of Forgery no fewer than 5-10 times.
She can write in the margin of that yearbook "bring milk home after work".
As long as she attempts to pass that notation off as Moore's, like they have the past 6 weeks to make it look authentic, that is legally forgery.
I'm not trying to be a dick but this is what's maddening about trying to engage you.
You jumped in,CLEARLY not reading anything.
Please at least read it first. I have answered these questions repeatedly for the liberal sightless
Please for the love of God read a bit and educate yourself.
Until you do please stick to how the Cuban GNP relates to the fact that they have run out of toilet paper. On that subject I will defer to your opinion.
Last edited:
J
JGregor
Guest
T, patience and tolerance.
I understand your points above but your interputation of fraud would NOT be how this is decided. Only a judge who through the facts AND case law by interpreting cases and the FACTS like I pointed out, would decide whether he signed the yearbook.
The issue all along was whether he signed the yearbook. Her forgery does not as you claim invalidate his signature by her forgery, this is not a negotiable instrument, where your point would carry, but whether if in fact it is his signature.
Further, if it is his signature and he were to sue, Moore would lose if the Judge ruled that her forgery, not your interpretation, does not invalidate the validity of the signature.
So it’s not as simple as you think, and remember the main issue was whether he signed the yearbook. That is what the Court would look to determine.
This is talking in Figure 8s bigly.
A judge would use case law to determine whether or not Moore signed the yearbook????
wtf
This is OVAH.
Judge Moore wins election easily , will get seated and Gloria will look for a new pussy-hat elsewhere.
And as we used to say down South, Moore can tell Gloria:
“That’s tough shit y’all “.
J you're lost. You're very second line talks about my definition of fraud. Except I've never used the term fraud.
Oh but it is that simple. I lay down the definitions below between fraud and forgery.
Again it has NOTHING to do with his signature. It's the fruit of the poison tree. Once it's found that she has admitted to forging any part of that yearbook the rest is considered contaminated.
Evidence garnered such as his signature from a source to which she has already admitted doctoring isn't going to happen.
Allred is already scrambling for a settlement and here is why "
The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. ... "
So by her tainting the evidence (yearbook) by forging her notes, anything else gained from it (his alleged signature) is tainted as well and would be inadmissable in a court of law.
But we can test it. We'll see if Allred pushes forward with her accusations or if she keeps trying to hit Moore up for a libel suit settlement as she has been.
So at that point I just refuse to go on.
This is just going to be another factually incorrect crap shoot on your part and I just honestly don't feel like wading through the bullshit.
Work on presenting facts and correct quotes and we'll talk.
Lol it just goes to show people just simply don't read. However many pages this thread is and I haven't see one reference to Moore's signature even mentioned until now. And rightfully so. No one has accused her of forging HIS SIGNATURE!!
AGAIN Moore could have signed every page of that yearbook 10 times.
It matters not. That's not the point.
The point is, she took what he DID write, added her own commentary to it, and passed it off as genuine until Friday when she fessed up. THAT is forgery.
Signatures,case law, wow someone's been watching Perry Mason and Matlock reruns but it has nothing to do with this case.
J, again it's not FRAUD FOR GODS SAKE.
It's forgery.
You're throwing out terms in an attempt to sound intelligent and it's back firing bigly.
"Both fraud and forgery are considered crimes and are used in criminology as a criminal offence. However, fraud and forgery are not the same. Fraud refers to the willful deception of someone for the purpose of monetary gain. ...Forgery, on the other hand, is also a deception of another through imitating an object."
And again
"Fraud refers to any form of deception of an individual or organization for monetary gain. This is considered a crime by law. Forgery,on the other hand, is the act of imitating any form of an object to deceive someone. This clearly states that these are not the same."
Unless she was extorting him, there is no fraud involved.
There's your case law.
Last edited:
J
JGregor
Guest
Using your speaking in figures figure 8’s you are making interpretation in several instances where you’re not qualified, and you’re all over the place .
Sorry but Forgery is a type of Fraud.
When a forger writes on a document creating forgery that render the document a complete forged document and inadmissible. Where did you get that principle? I can see that on a negotiable instrument but not on a year book where the signature is in question. You are not qualified to make that judgement. That principle or determination would be made by a Judge. That causes me to question your statement.
As a CPA, not a lawyer, I have some experience in this. The law is interpreted by Judges.
Like you said if Moore would sue and the supposed signature was in question, I do not believe her forgery on the yearbook would render the signature a forgery. That is my point.
It is forgery idiot.
Anything she changed in that book while claiming it wasn't changed is forged.
She fuc***g admitted she changed the yearbook Friday after denying it for six weeks. You tell me why she denied writing a "date" in her own year book for 6 weeks.
Yeah right. No one can be that stupid,well,except you apparently.
Learn what you're talking about for a change.
I explained it so a monkey could understand. Maybe that's the problem
Last edited:
Your head is so far up Moore's ass, you could see what he ate for dinner.
Last edited:
Ooohh. Does my mom wear army boots too?
My head isn't up Moore's ass,it's in Blacks Legal Dictionary which says I'm right and you're wrong.
forgery, n. 1. The act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine … 2. A false or altered document made to look genuine by someone with the intent to deceive …
Adding a date later to try to pass it off as original IF that's what happened is forgery.
She claimed for six weeks the yearbook was genuine. Now she remembers she just added a date? You can't possibly be that dumb to think it took her 6 weeks to finally remember she added a date. Why hide that?
And if that's it why won't Allred release it to see what actually was added?
- We all know there's a reason she won't even tho it would support her client if that's all that was changed. She knows there's more also and doesn't want her own client proven more of a liar than she already has been.
Lol.
HailToPitt is an angry boy. Awe.
Last edited:
J
JGregor
Guest
You have said 10,000 words on this and have shown poor logic and knowledge. You can research but you misunderstand what you have found.
Then when you’re called out and questioned you revert to name calling. You do not like when someone disagrees with you. Keep it up and you’ll learn. Those on the right who went along with you have done you a disservice. You’re not searching for the truth.
Your interpretation are without experience and knowledge .
Losing will help you to learn.
You love music, but your choirboys won’t sing your song.
Forgery is a form of Fraud. Forgery will void a negotiable instrument but not a yearbook !!!
.
@JGregor
Please explain again how fraud and forgery are the same. Oh man who has yet to get a fact right since I've been here
Speaking of being wrong,the next time you're right will be the first time your right.
Ok so explain how you're right again....
I'm surely not going to admit that I'm wrong to you. Between this and the Biden thread you've barely exhibited the ability to read. Me,BP,an Fk all posted the pics and vids of Biden and you couldn't understand them
Then in this thread I've posted definitions for forgery and fraud numerous times and you immediately mistake the definitions right in front of your face with some cockamamie claim that fraud and forgery are one and the same. It's incredible your ignorance of facts when I post them right out of a legal dictionary and you still question them. Then say I can't admit when I'm wrong. Why don't you research some facts proving I'm wrong instead of feeling your particulars telling the little voice in your head.
Both fraud and forgery are considered crimes and are used in criminology as a criminal offence. However, fraud and forgery are not the same. Fraud refers to the willful deception of someone for the purpose of monetary gain. ...Forgery, on the other hand, is also a deception of another through imitating an object."
And again
"Fraud refers to any form of deception of an individual or organization for monetary gain. This is considered a crime by law. Forgery,on the other hand, is the act of imitating any form of an object to deceive someone. This clearly states that these are not the same."
Yes Gregor,being wrong more than you usually are should be good for you. You can spend some retirement time to actually get a clue what you're talking about.
Fraud and Forgery are very distinct crimes.
Please buy yourself a vowel and get a clue.
I dont mind being wrong, i admit it plenty.
But I'm not admitting I'm wrong when I'm posting the definitions right out of Blacks Legal Dictionary and youre using Dick and Jane's 2nd grade primer.
When was the last time you have admitted you were wrong? You'd do well to take your own advice. Have you ever been wrong? The budget threads ,Moore threads, I can honestly say I've NEVER see you admit you made an error.
Hmm just as I thought. Big fat never.
Please correct me if I happened to miss the one time you admitted you were wrong, assuming it ever happened.
Please explain again how fraud and forgery are the same. Oh man who has yet to get a fact right since I've been here
Speaking of being wrong,the next time you're right will be the first time your right.
Ok so explain how you're right again....
I'm surely not going to admit that I'm wrong to you. Between this and the Biden thread you've barely exhibited the ability to read. Me,BP,an Fk all posted the pics and vids of Biden and you couldn't understand them
Then in this thread I've posted definitions for forgery and fraud numerous times and you immediately mistake the definitions right in front of your face with some cockamamie claim that fraud and forgery are one and the same. It's incredible your ignorance of facts when I post them right out of a legal dictionary and you still question them. Then say I can't admit when I'm wrong. Why don't you research some facts proving I'm wrong instead of feeling your particulars telling the little voice in your head.
Both fraud and forgery are considered crimes and are used in criminology as a criminal offence. However, fraud and forgery are not the same. Fraud refers to the willful deception of someone for the purpose of monetary gain. ...Forgery, on the other hand, is also a deception of another through imitating an object."
And again
"Fraud refers to any form of deception of an individual or organization for monetary gain. This is considered a crime by law. Forgery,on the other hand, is the act of imitating any form of an object to deceive someone. This clearly states that these are not the same."
Yes Gregor,being wrong more than you usually are should be good for you. You can spend some retirement time to actually get a clue what you're talking about.
Fraud and Forgery are very distinct crimes.
Please buy yourself a vowel and get a clue.
I dont mind being wrong, i admit it plenty.
But I'm not admitting I'm wrong when I'm posting the definitions right out of Blacks Legal Dictionary and youre using Dick and Jane's 2nd grade primer.
When was the last time you have admitted you were wrong? You'd do well to take your own advice. Have you ever been wrong? The budget threads ,Moore threads, I can honestly say I've NEVER see you admit you made an error.
Hmm just as I thought. Big fat never.
Please correct me if I happened to miss the one time you admitted you were wrong, assuming it ever happened.
Last edited:
Look I honestly get a few of you guys frustrations.
While you're rambling nonsense about heads up asses and choirboys I'm continually schooling you with definitions out of Blacks Legal Dictionary.
So instead of debating the points of the issue, it's your friends are doing you a disservice,and all kind of nonsense, I'm Moore's son, my heads up Moore's ass,and God only knows what other lame deflections you've attempted.
In the meantime I'm running rings around you with factual definitions out of a law dictionary.
Let's see.A couple of goofs on a free message board or the legal standard Blacks Legal Dictionary.
Hmm, I guess it's a toss up for credibility lol
You're nuts.
L
Now I don't expect anyone here to debate any of the definitions out of Blacks. I'll expect more Moores my father, some God only knows lack of facts diatribe by Gregor advising me to admit I'm wrong while I've got the legal definitions right at my fingertips and he's playing Deputy Dog.
If you're up to it and want to actually debate what forgery,fraud,and the like are and debate Blacks Legal Dictionary I'm all for it.
But I know I'm gonna hear crickets. Even you guys other than Gregor are not going to be arrogant enough to think you know more than Blacks.
So good night. Gregor, maybe the first time you ever admit youre wrong you may find it cathartic. I know I did.
J maybe you should just semi retire. Maybe Blacks Legal Dictionary can use another legal expert since you seem to keep telling me you know the law better than the definitions I'm posting from them.
You need to do a little.more work getting your facts straight and learning to research facts and a little less fancying yourself some home brew psychiatrist. Your inability to acknowledge what's right in front of your page is pathological. I think professional help may be required to find out why so many of us posted pics and vids of Biden and you still couldn't face it and admit it That's really concerning man. It's Biden because it's a recent example but youre really having an issue with admitting any errors in the tax thread also. Definitely professional help is indicated. No one is ever or has ever been as right as you.
Everyone else saw it and commented on it too. At least 11 people. Youre in no position to be giving anyone advice. You need to start making sense by researching your pie in the sky particulars and be verifying your nonsensical drivel.
Of course you don't like me. I'm exposing you one subject one day at a time. That's why your little passive aggressive nonsense will fall flat. Nobody buys it. I know I'm not.
You wanna win a debate,.learn about what your debating about. Consider that gratis.
While you're rambling nonsense about heads up asses and choirboys I'm continually schooling you with definitions out of Blacks Legal Dictionary.
So instead of debating the points of the issue, it's your friends are doing you a disservice,and all kind of nonsense, I'm Moore's son, my heads up Moore's ass,and God only knows what other lame deflections you've attempted.
In the meantime I'm running rings around you with factual definitions out of a law dictionary.
Let's see.A couple of goofs on a free message board or the legal standard Blacks Legal Dictionary.
Hmm, I guess it's a toss up for credibility lol
You're nuts.
L
Now I don't expect anyone here to debate any of the definitions out of Blacks. I'll expect more Moores my father, some God only knows lack of facts diatribe by Gregor advising me to admit I'm wrong while I've got the legal definitions right at my fingertips and he's playing Deputy Dog.
If you're up to it and want to actually debate what forgery,fraud,and the like are and debate Blacks Legal Dictionary I'm all for it.
But I know I'm gonna hear crickets. Even you guys other than Gregor are not going to be arrogant enough to think you know more than Blacks.
So good night. Gregor, maybe the first time you ever admit youre wrong you may find it cathartic. I know I did.
J maybe you should just semi retire. Maybe Blacks Legal Dictionary can use another legal expert since you seem to keep telling me you know the law better than the definitions I'm posting from them.
You need to do a little.more work getting your facts straight and learning to research facts and a little less fancying yourself some home brew psychiatrist. Your inability to acknowledge what's right in front of your page is pathological. I think professional help may be required to find out why so many of us posted pics and vids of Biden and you still couldn't face it and admit it That's really concerning man. It's Biden because it's a recent example but youre really having an issue with admitting any errors in the tax thread also. Definitely professional help is indicated. No one is ever or has ever been as right as you.
Everyone else saw it and commented on it too. At least 11 people. Youre in no position to be giving anyone advice. You need to start making sense by researching your pie in the sky particulars and be verifying your nonsensical drivel.
Of course you don't like me. I'm exposing you one subject one day at a time. That's why your little passive aggressive nonsense will fall flat. Nobody buys it. I know I'm not.
You wanna win a debate,.learn about what your debating about. Consider that gratis.
Last edited:
Angry? Nah. I'm as cool as a cucumber. Moore and the result of this claim and the election won't change my life one iota. You on the other hand, seem to be quite angry and somewhat unhinged.
Nah your an angry boy. No one talks about peoples heads up asses and is "cool as a cucumber'
Moore has you triggered. Bad.
And it won't change my life one iota either I don't figure you've been able to see past yourself but my point all along is for the people of Alabama to decide.
But it's got you triggered bad.
Why would I be unhinged? I'm the only one in the thread posting definitions from Blacks legal dictionary and not flinging bullshit off the top of my head trying to pass it off as Supreme Court opinion like a few of you tools.
Last edited:
I point out you used forgery in your post, in your haste to regurgitate Fox News.
Fox News retracted that word.
You said it wasn’t your word. And wasn’t in your post.
I pointed out it’s in the subject heading, and asked who typed those words?
You go on a multiple page copy and paste frenzy to defend the word, Roy Moore, and ranting....while evading that simple question.
Oh, and repeat some illogical rhetoric about figure 8 speaking.
I’m perfectly fine with Donald trump and Roy Moore representing conservative values.
We’re fine w letting Alabamans decide and the process unfold not like the uninformed closed minds as you.
Also fine w Bubba Clinton and Drunk Kennedy representing your Liberal values.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
What happened to Pennsylvania High School football talent?
- Latest: Double D 86
-
Pitt lands commitment from New Jersey DT Logan Nagle- Latest: Zeldas Open Roof
-
