Breaking Moore accuser admits forging yearbook

[BPKY]

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.

She forged the date. Then when the forgery was exposed, she then conveniently remembered that she "added" it later.

A judge is not the only person who interprets law. We all interpret the law. A jury interprets both law and fact when they are seated on a case. A judge's interpretation of the law only matters in a case over which he is presiding.

You're right that the signature may not be a forgery, but maybe it is. Since Allred won't release it for analysis, I figure it's a forgery. Why else would she refuse? So, since they lied about the date, why would anyone doubt that they are lying about the signature? See how logic works?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, my name must be HailtoPitt or JGregor.

Just foolin' with ya guys.....

 

[paulbl99]

She forged the date. Then when the forgery was exposed, she then conveniently remembered that she "added" it later.

A judge is not the only person who interprets law. We all interpret the law. A jury interprets both law and fact when they are seated on a case. A judge's interpretation of the law only matters in a case over which he is presiding.

You're right that the signature may not be a forgery, but maybe it is. Since Allred won't release it for analysis, I figure it's a forgery. Why else would she refuse? So, since they lied about the date, why would anyone doubt that they are lying about the signature? See how logic works?

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, my name must be HailtoPitt or JGregor.

Just foolin' with ya guys.....

Great analysis by you and tommy
J gets an E for Effort.

But relative to hurting Judge Moore, as in Allred using the yearbook in a legal proceeding, I will sum this up in the vernacular:

OVAH

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

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.

Now that is some timely references!

 

[paulbl99]

Now that is some timely references!

Well Drunk Ted led the way on ObamaWhoCare and the Left slobbered all over Bubba and Crooked Hillary all last year.

You might try getting half a clue

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Well Drunk Ted led the way on ObamaWhoCare and the Left slobbered all over Bubba and Crooked Hillary all last year.

You might try getting half a clue

Ted died 8 years ago.

Bubba hasn’t been president in 17 years.
And isn’t a liberal

And- using your logic- voters decided.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Well Drunk Ted led the way on ObamaWhoCare and the Left slobbered all over Bubba and Crooked Hillary all last year.

You might try getting half a clue

Wrong again.

 

[Jtommyj]

Well Drunk Ted led the way on ObamaWhoCare and the Left slobbered all over Bubba and Crooked Hillary all last year.

You might try getting half a clue

Exactly right

If it were Roy Clinton they'd be hanging off the end of his junk and these women would be laying in gutters scattered through Alabama with.double shot suicide holes in the back of their mhea

Great analysis by you and tommy
J gets an E for Effort.

But relative to hurting Judge Moore, as in Allred using the yearbook in a legal proceeding, I will sum this up in the vernacular:

OVAH

J thinks because he's a CPA he is somehow a more authoritive legal mind than Blacks Legal Dictionary.
He's delusional.

Again for probably the 30th time, I don't expect it to set in this time either, but forgery is not limited to a signature and fraud is ENTIRELY different from forgery.
I've posted the definitions 10 times

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."

Now because.he testified in a case in 1976 of course he understands the law and terminology better than Blacks Legal Dictionary.

Which BPKY just blew to smithereens.

I will post it in response to every one of his uninformed posts that i see through the ignore button. It depends on how hi my idiocy quotient is any given day.
You can only post legal definitions so much before you realize you need a bigger 2X4 for some jackasses

 

[paulbl99]

Wrong again.

Spot on.
If you’re meaning Commies like you and Stanky. Well that’s not keeping it real.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Spot on.
If you’re meaning Commies like you and Stanky. Well that’s not keeping it real.

Senator Stanky and myself represent the Left. The Clintons do not.

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

Senator Stanky and myself represent the Left. The Clintons do not.

"Left" to them means anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater.

 

[paulbl99]

Senator Stanky and myself represent the Left. The Clintons do not.

Commies.

Stankie is a Capitalism hating, Soviet /Castro LOVING Commie bet that


I don’t know of one aspect of American life business or industry you haven’t promoted being run controlled or owned by Gubimint.

 

[Jtommyj]

Is Stankys wife in prison yet?

 

[HailtoPitt]

Commies.

Stankie is a Capitalism hating, Soviet /Castro LOVING Commie bet that


I don’t know of one aspect of American life business or industry you haven’t promoted being run controlled or run by Gubimint.

I guess it's all or nothing for many of you.

 

[HailtoPitt]

 

[Jtommyj]

But unfortunately Blacks Law Dictionary nor my definitions have changed.

Cute only counts the first dozen or so meme if theyre spelled right,funny or true.
Sorry angry boy,you're 0-3.

 

[Jtommyj]

 

[NCPitt]

...except for words in the Constitution like "regulate" and "general welfare", right? Those words meant the same thing in 1776 as they do now, right?

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

...except for words in the Constitution like "regulate" and "general welfare", right? Those words meant the same thing in 1776 as they do now, right?

Except when "regulate" is used in the same sentence as "militia". . .

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

This effing fantastic.

"My husband is not a bigot, one of our attorneys is a Jew."

 

[NCPitt]

Except when "regulate" is used in the same sentence as "militia". . .

Exactly. The meaning of regulate was not the same as it is currently used.

 

[NCPitt]

This effing fantastic.

"My husband is not a bigot, one of our attorneys is a Jew."

What's your point?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

What's your point?

They're friggin clown ass morons. They are. Absolute dullards. Dimwits. Embarrassments.

The Republicans need to move in, make the big move and stop this nonsense.

 

[NCPitt]

They're friggin clown ass morons. They are. Absolute dullards. Dimwits. Embarrassments.

The Republicans need to move in, make the big move and stop this nonsense.

You deduced all of that from a single sentence? You are a truly amazing person.

What move? Concede the seat to Dems?

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You deduced all of that from a single sentence? You are a truly amazing person.

What move? Concede the seat to Dems?

I think it’s great.
He’s the perfect candidate for conservatives

 

[JGregor]

s

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 ….

This is not computers, and my point which you ignored is not MUSIC to your ears.

A judge is not the only person who interprets law. We all interpret the law. A jury interprets both law and fact when they are seated on a case. A judge's interpretation of the law only matters in a case over which he is presiding.

Persons/individuals follow the law, Lawyers advise on the law, Judges are the interpreter of the law. When you want to know what the law means, you go to case law and find out how Judges ruled on the statute and that is the accepted interpretation, not someone with Blacks Dictionary.

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.

Your interpretation are without experience and knowledge .

Forgery is a form of Fraud. Forgery will void a negotiable instrument but not a yearbook !!!.

.

 

[JGregor]

T, you are at BEST an amateur in law. BP, you missed the point. The only interpretation of statutes and law that matters is what Judges have written and ruled. Lawyers read and follow those rulings. So when you want to find out what it means your research case law.

Tommy's reading of Blacks dictionary, which I have a copy, and I used it when Tommy was playing with his little trucks, is a good start, but only a beginning.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

You deduced all of that from a single sentence? You are a truly amazing person.

What move? Concede the seat to Dems?

You think Roy and his wife Ellie Mae are fine, smart god fearing folks? **** them. They are trash.

 

[NCPitt]

You think Roy and his wife Ellie Mae are fine, smart god fearing folks? **** them. They are trash.

I don't think anything about them. I know nothing about them. I can't learn anything about them from press clippings like you seem able to do. You are an amazing individual.

 

[billyberoux]

I don't think anything about them. I know nothing about them. I can't learn anything about them from press clippings like you seem able to do. You are an amazing individual.

How is it you were able to learn about Trump from press clippings?

 

[NCPitt]

How is it you were able to learn about Trump from press clippings?

What do you think I learned about Trump? I did not vote for him - partially based on his political positions and partially due to his direct quotes. Those were substantive reasons for my decision that didn't rely on press clippings.

Besides, POTUS is quite a bit more meaningful to me than a Senator from Alabama. I tend to pay a little more attention.

Maybe you don't recognize the difference.

 

[BPKY]

T, you are at BEST an amateur in law. BP, you missed the point. The only interpretation of statutes and law that matters is what Judges have written and ruled. Lawyers read and follow those rulings. So when you want to find out what it means your research case law.

Tommy's reading of Blacks dictionary, which I have a copy, and I used it when Tommy was playing with his little trucks, is a good start, but only a beginning.

Horse hockey. Judges render opinions. Nothing more. They have no enforcement powers. Their opinions cannot force the executive to execute an opinion.

For example, a judge may rule that someone's home should be taken in foreclosure. The Sheriff (the chief executive of the County) can always say "Nope, not today, your honor. I don't think that ruling is lawful".

In other words, the sheriff is not the judge's lackey. The legislative branch is not over the other branches. The Supremes can opine that a law is unconstitutional, yet the POTUS can execute the law regardless. If Congress refuses to impeach, the Supremes can go pound salt.

It's called separation of powers. The judicial branch being the weakest of the three.

The Supreme court just patted the heads of a number of circuit court judges and told them to go back to their sandbox and try harder next time. So, did what those judges write matter? In the long run, their interpretations were meaningless.

I do agree with you when you say that there's more to it.

 

[Jtommyj]

T, you are at BEST an amateur in law. BP, you missed the point. The only interpretation of statutes and law that matters is what Judges have written and ruled. Lawyers read and follow those rulings. So when you want to find out what it means your research case law.

Tommy's reading of Blacks dictionary, which I have a copy, and I used it when Tommy was playing with his little trucks, is a good start, but only a beginning.

We may both have the book j but it's clear I'm the only one who reads it.
That much is obvious. Your blabbering about fraud and forgery was SNL like.

Now would you care to give us the Blacks Law definition in the difference between fraud and forgery?

Because you laid a major egg on that one yesterday.

Must feel kind of sad getting schooled by a boy who played with trucks while you had the Blacks Dictionary.

Problem is j, you actually have to open the.book and read it.
Which you obviously don't do or you wouldn't have screwed up the difference between forgery and fraud worse than a 5th grade civics student .

Go ahead and dust them off and school us lol

I see another Biden bailout coming....

Let me guess. You can't find it lol

 

[JGregor]

Horse hockey. Judges render opinions. Nothing more. They have no enforcement powers. Their opinions cannot force the executive to execute an opinion.

For example, a judge may rule that someone's home should be taken in foreclosure. The Sheriff (the chief executive of the County) can always say "Nope, not today, your honor. I don't think that ruling is lawful".

In other words, the sheriff is not the judge's lackey. The legislative branch is not over the other branches. The Supremes can opine that a law is unconstitutional, yet the POTUS can execute the law regardless. If Congress refuses to impeach, the Supremes can go pound salt.

It's called separation of powers. The judicial branch being the weakest of the three.

The Supreme court just patted the heads of a number of circuit court judges and told them to go back to their sandbox and try harder next time. So, did what those judges write matter? In the long run, their interpretations were meaningless.

I do agree with you when you say that there's more to it.

Your not on my point. You bring up something else.

When talking about what the law means, what it says, how do you interpret the law? It is how the Judges have ruled. Case law. When dealing with an issue, referring then to the Law, the statute, you go to Court rulings. What the Judges have written. That is how you find out what it means.

A possible case in point, does the victim who forged the date and place next to a signature in a yearbook mean that the signature is also forged? Even if the signature can be authentic? Has there been a ruling on this in a case. My opinion for a negotiable instrument is that it could be void or voidable, but what about a souvenir/memorabilia? You would look at case law.

 

[Jtommyj]

Your not on my point. You bring up something else.

When talking about what the law means, what it says, how do you interpret the law? It is how the Judges have ruled. Case law. When dealing with an issue, referring then to the Law, the statute, you go to Court rulings. What the Judges have written. That is how you find out what it means.

A possible case in point, does the victim who forged the date and place next to a signature in a yearbook mean that the signature is also forged? Even if the signature can be authentic? Has there been a ruling on this in a case. My opinion for a negotiable instrument is that it could be void or voidable, but what about a souvenir/memorabilia? You would look at case law.

You can answer your own question by learning the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.
That's all I'm.telling you.
You need to research the rest yourself.

The answer is readily available to that exact question.

It's called legal precedent,not this catch all case law you keep throwing around.

That has a very defined legal meaning and it's not what you keep purporting it to be in every legal sentence trying to sound intelligent. Cause it ain't helping.

Here I'm giving you more than I should

'It is only the ratio which is binding on later judges in later similar cases. Obiter is merely persuasive – but not binding. Precedent is the principle which makes judges follow the principles of law established in earlier similar cases."

 

[JGregor]

We may both have the book j but it's clear I'm the only one who reads it.
That much is obvious. Your blabbering about fraud and forgery was SNL like.

Now would you care to give us the Blacks Law definition in the difference between fraud and forgery?

Because you laid a major egg on that one yesterday.

Must feel kind of sad getting schooled by a boy who played with trucks while you had the Blacks Dictionary.

Problem is j, you actually have to open the.book and read it.
Which you obviously don't do or you wouldn't have screwed up the difference between forgery and fraud worse than a 5th grade civics student .

Go ahead and dust them off and school us lol

I see another Biden bailout coming....

Let me guess. You can't find it lol

You didn't read my post # 105.

There isn't anything more dangerous as believing in something that isn't so!

 

[JGregor]

You can answer your own question by learning the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.
That's all I'm.telling you.
You need to research the rest yourself.

The answer is readily available to that exact question.

I'll look into the poison tree doctrine, but somehow I think it's not appropriate. Maybe a stretch?

 

[JGregor]

I have a Mickey Mantle autograph baseball and I forged the date and place on the ball. Is the autograph invalid? Not authentic?

Goodnight!

 

[Jtommyj]

I have a Mickey Mantle autograph baseball and I forged the date and place on the ball. Is the autograph invalid? Not authentic?

Goodnight!

Only if you try to sell it

THE Ball Is a forgery, not the signature. You haven't learned a damn thing.

Of course the signature would be his but since you are trying to deceive by placing the date and place on the ball it's a forgery.

If you were trying to sell it for financial gain it would be fraud.

Forgery-no MONETARY gain

Fraud - monetary gain.

 

[Jtommyj]

I'll look into the poison tree doctrine, but somehow I think it's not appropriate. Maybe a stretch?

Lol,j, you'll look into it, have no idea what it even is, maybe a stretch?

You don't know what it even is and you're jumping to it being a "stretch"

That right there in a nutshell.is why you have zero cred here.

At least know WTF.it is before.you start throwing around words like stretch.

Jesus.

 

[Jtommyj]

You didn't read my post # 105.

There isn't anything more dangerous as believing in something that isn't so!

I've already shot down your other two posts about the baseball and the fruit of the poison tree. I'll look at this one later.

It's too time consuming because I've got to spend 1000 words just to straighten out the false pretenses you start out with, before I can even get to the actual facts that you aren't educated on.

If there were ever a truer meaning of if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit your portrait sits right under it.