Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Huey » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

So, Bitch, after you latest fictional tale, you wish to go back to the topic?  Run, Bitch, Run.

No questions, bitch.  I have made my point.  They do not have a slam dunk case.  Or maybe, bitch, if you are as good as you say you are, you should offer your services, pro bono, to the state and prosecute the guy.

you latest fictional tale

How the **** would you know?

you wish to go back to the topic?  Run, Bitch, Run.

The topic from which you're running.

I made reference to this weeks ago..

No questions, bitch.  I have made my point.

no, you haven't..

I've seen no case...

And you've been wrong about everything. 

 

Running? LMAO!  I have brought facts, citations and sources.  You have rhetoric.  Narrative.  And questions.  

My point stands that if the state had a slam dunk case there would be no negotiations.  They would have refiled, gone to court, and convicted him.

They haven't, Bitch.
 

ROG62 » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:31 am

If they had him nailed the would have already been in court, retard.

I don't answer to your fictions.

And WTF?  You seem to spend a lot of time whining to the law.  WTF is wrong with you?

Getting pepper sprayed is a serious crime…  

 

He claims to have had success representing himself in backwoods courts against local judges.  Probably elected and not that good.  One case a witness did not show up, and another was a civil matter of little consequence where lawyers were probably not needed.  HOA ****.  Can't remember the third.  And he won't say what this case he is ranting about  is about.

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:54 am

To what was he sentenced in his initial conviction?

Is this the same argument about Jan 6 insurrectionists never convicted with insurrection.

ROG62 » Today, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:53 am

he’s weaseling…the ****’s been beaten to a pulp and is now making up **** for his exit …  

Yep!!

@Blackvegetable  is doing his usual PANTY DANCING to make himself believe he isn't getting his bloody STUMP of a leg shoved up his ***!!

EVERYONE can see otherwise and NO ONE is coming to his rescue save his *** either!!       
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:54 am

To what was he sentenced in his initial conviction?

MOOT POINT!! ANY "sentence" he was given is NO LONGER IN EFFECT!!

THAT'S how overturning one works, ****!!

Keep PANTY DANCING!! It makes you look like the COMPLETE IDIOT that you are!!

https://gifdb.com/images/branded/high/d ... l4r09g.gif
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:49 am

He has no incentive to.

Rosen has played all his cards...he knows that the gardener will plead the 5th, because the alternative is confessing, under oath, to a multiple fraud count..

The state doesn't need to incur the expense of another prosecution. Rosen wants to avoid being classed a felon.

Now, PROVE IT, ****!!

Because 1000% of this **** is nothiing more than YOUR OPINION and not based in ANY FACTS PRESENTED BEFORE ANYONE!!

See, you are one MORONIC AND STUPID PIECE OF PIG **** that has NOTHING but a bloody stump I just SHOVED UP YOUR *** to lean on!!

                 

Beekeeper » 51 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

51 minutes ago

Now, PROVE IT, ****!!

Because 1000% of this **** is 

 

Did you think anyone would believe 167?

Beekeeper » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

MOOT POINT!! ANY "

Answer first, THEN explain. 

Huey » Today, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:02 am

Running? LMAO!  I have brought facts, citations and sources.  You have rhetoric.  Narrative.  And questions.  

My point stands that if the state had a slam dunk case there would be no negotiations.  They would have refiled, gone to court, and convicted him.

They haven't, Bitch.

You haven't brought ****, lying little twat.

Make the case, coward.

Use any or all of your alleged citations...

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Did you think anyone would believe 167?

IQ is strictly about obedience to power of suggestion by and from all existing social consensuses in practice every rotation of the planet within this species evolving as genetically positioned now..

Blackvegetable » 34 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

34 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:02 am

Running? LMAO!  I have brought facts, citations and sources.  You have rhetoric.  Narrative.  And questions.  

My point stands that if the state had a slam dunk case there would be no negotiations.  They would have refiled, gone to court, and convicted him.

They haven't, Bitch.

You haven't brought ****, lying little twat.

Make the case, coward.

Use any or all of your alleged citations...

 

Hi Mary!  Been there done that.  When you have a slam dunk you don't negotiate.  That's "case" enough right there.

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Hi Mary!  Been there done that.  When you have a slam dunk you don't negotiate.  That's "case" enough right there.

No, it isn't...it's repeating the same assertion.

Post the sentence passed down in the original trial.

You've got all that stuff at your fingertips, right?
 

Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Huey » 30 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

30 minutes ago

Hi Mary!  Been there done that.  When you have a slam dunk you don't negotiate.  That's "case" enough right there.

No, it isn't...it's repeating the same assertion.

Post the sentence passed down in the original trial.

You've got all that stuff at your fingertips, right?
 

 

The original conviction was overturned.  All I want to hear from you regarding this topic is when the new trial start.  End of Story, Bitch.
 

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

The original conviction was overturned.  All I want to hear 

Answer a question about the facts.

I have brought facts, citations and sources. You have rhetoric. Narrative. And questions.  

Huey » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

Blackvegetable » 43 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

43 minutes ago

Huey » 55 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

55 minutes ago

Hi Mary!  Been there done that.  When you have a slam dunk you don't negotiate.  That's "case" enough right there.

No, it isn't...it's repeating the same assertion.

Post the sentence passed down in the original trial.

You've got all that stuff at your fingertips, right?
 


 

The original conviction was overturned.  All I want to hear from you regarding this topic is when the new trial start.  End of Story, Bitch.
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

Huey » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

The original conviction was overturned.  All I want to hear 

Answer a question about the facts.

I have brought facts, citations and sources. You have rhetoric. Narrative. And questions.  

All I want to hear from you regarding this topic is when the new trial start.

Sorry Bitch, that is not the correct response

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Sorry Bitch, that is not the correct response

But it isn't about what you want to hear....it is about the **** you assert.


 

Blackvegetable » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Sorry Bitch, that is not the correct response

But it isn't about what you want to hear....it is about the **** you assert.


 

 

That is not it either.  This game not this hard.  And it is not about me. Or you.  It is now about when the second trial starts.  Let me now when it does, Puss.
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:06 pm

Answer first, THEN explain.

NO answer needed ****!! He's NO LONGER under any SENTENCE of the Court!! Which means, ANYTHING you want to try to use isn't VALID NOW!!

And your TRUNICATED **** doesn't fly either, **** PANTY DANCER!!!.....

MOOT POINT!! ANY "sentence" he was given is NO LONGER IN EFFECT!!

THAT'S how overturning one works, ****!!

Keep PANTY DANCING!! It makes you look like the COMPLETE IDIOT that you are!!

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:05 pm

Did you think anyone would believe 167?

OBSESSED as **** aren't you that there are PEOPLE WAY SMARTER than you will EVER be!!

Chase me!!

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

That is not it either.  This game not this hard.  And it is not about me. Or you.  It is now about when the second trial starts.  Let me now when it does, Puss.

No...it's about the ongoing prosecution and why the State hasn't taken it to trial. 

And, as always, your lying and cowardice.