Liberal Forum

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

No deal.

The record also shows me answering your negotiations question.  Stop lying.


 

2.  I have no clue why he is talking to the AG.  Let me know when you find out

This is your "answer"?

Beekeeper » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

But watching you RUN 




Chase me
 

This is an idiot.

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

This is your "answer"?

 

Yup.  I have no **** clue.  All I know is at the moment there is no 2nd trial occuring.

Now, WTF is your second question.  Just to make things even.  

Blackvegetable » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

This is an idiot.

Why yes, yes you are!!

IDIOT RUNNY RUNNER calls himself @Blackvegetable  !! Also known as COWARD ******!!

Can't answer questions because HE DOESN'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO GET THE ANSWERS!!

Chase me now.
 
 

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Yup.  I have no **** clue.  All I know is at the moment there is no 2nd trial occuring.

Now, WTF is your second question.  Just to make things even.

Because he is in negotiations with the AG.

Prosecutions are different from trials.

Now, WTF is your second question.  Just to make things even.

Even?

Beekeeper » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Why yes, yes you are!!

IDIOT RUNNY RUNNER 

Chase me now.

167...

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Because he is in negotiations with the AG.

Prosecutions are different from trials.



Even?

 

You are **** reaching.

WTF is this second question?  Stop waffing, Douche.  Either post it or STFU about it.
 

prosecution
/ˌpräsəˈkyo͞oSHən/

Prosecution is the legal process of bringing formal criminal charges against someone and trying to prove their guilt in a court of law

@Blackvegetable  

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You are **** reaching.


 

I'm not the one posting assertions I can't back up.

WTF is this second question? Stop waffing, Douche. Either post it or STFU about it.

There's a long list, Tiny..

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

prosecution
/ˌpräsəˈkyo͞oSHən/

Prosecution is the legal process of bringing formal criminal charges against someone and trying to prove their guilt in a court of law

@Blackvegetable

That is correct.

Note the "and".


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:07 pm

Pointless.

What separates a starting point vs a finish line in a reality where anything else is possible beyond the simplicity of just adapting in space daily here? Circle relative time logic ignoring series parallel flow of life shared by ancestral lineages within a food chain relative to existing in same atmosphere since inception of current ancestral lineages present in every species categorized as plant or animal kingdoms, predatory or prey nature of each reproduction of the species regardless geographical area evolving in each generation gap lived so far adapting one at a time in plain sight now.

So many ways to corrupt a brain to mind shared opinions as family traditions for over 350 generations, but only one way to correct human nature of each ancestor added each generation in each ancestral lineage here now as the current human residents amount to 8.2 billion sole reproductions acting like citizens of chosen people to inherit the earth day after dead, tomorrow.

Sole displacement vs living souls dedicated to pretending life exceeds their own brain navigating time by heartbeats completed so far since conception.

Fools believe life isn't what each body is doing daily here.

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

prosecution
/ˌpräsəˈkyo͞oSHən/

Prosecution is the legal process of bringing formal criminal charges against someone and trying to prove their guilt in a court of law

@Blackvegetable

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampsh ... -0509.html


The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that the Superior Court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior voting history because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value, especially since the prior alleged acts were nearly identical to the charged crime. The court also held that evidence of Botelho’s confession to voting in the defendant’s name in the 2016 election was not evidence of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) and should not have been categorically excluded. The Supreme Court further ruled that, if Botelho asserts his Fifth Amendment rights on remand, the trial court must hold a Richards hearing. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motions regarding territorial jurisdiction, sufficiency, and weight of the evidence, but reversed the conviction due to the evidentiary errors and remanded for further proceedings.
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampsh ... -0509.html


The Supreme Court of New Hampshire found that the Superior Court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior voting history because the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value, especially since the prior alleged acts were nearly identical to the charged crime. The court also held that evidence of Botelho’s confession to voting in the defendant’s name in the 2016 election was not evidence of other bad acts under Rule 404(b) and should not have been categorically excluded. The Supreme Court further ruled that, if Botelho asserts his Fifth Amendment rights on remand, the trial court must hold a Richards hearing. 

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motions regarding territorial jurisdiction, sufficiency, and weight of the evidence, but reversed the conviction due to the evidentiary errors and remanded for further proceedings.
 

 

Yes, we already know the conviction was voided.  Now you are wasting my time.
 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

That is correct.

Note the "and".


 

 

I thought you said you wasted 4 years honing critical thinking and comprehension skills?  Now you are jst being dumb.

What is the second question?  Repost it now or forever hold  your piece.
 

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Yes, we already know the conviction was voided.  Now you are wasting my time.

Read the details...get back to me with what I'm obliged to explain. 

Because I'm such a sport, I'm gonna give you a heads up...

Beyond the obvious - specifically the duplicate votes - there are other facts which make clear why Mr. Rosen is negotiating with the ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I suggest you concede and drag yourself away by your remaining limb.

 
 

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

I thought you said you wasted 4 years honing critical thinking and comprehension skills?  Now you are jst being dumb.

What is the second question?  Repost it now or forever hold  your piece.

When does a prosecution begin?

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:06 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:06 am

And the people taping  up the windows didn't know?

 

maybe yes, maybe no…could be they figured they were inaccessible…
 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Read the details...get back to me with what I'm obliged to explain. 

Because I'm such a sport, I'm gonna give you a heads up...

Beyond the obvious - specifically the duplicate votes - there are other facts which make clear why Mr. Rosen is negotiating with the ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I suggest you concede and drag yourself away by your remaining limb.

 
 

 

I don't give **** because he is not being prosecuted at this time.

Now, what is this second question?

PS.  Stop **** talking about it and do it, Puss. You talk a big game but your follow thru sucks/ 
 

RebelGator » Today, 6:30 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:30 am

Ed Norton.

 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

When does a prosecution begin?

 

When charges are filed in court.  When does the trial start?  The original case is over and the conviction is voided.