RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law

RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/13/2010 2:11:17 PM)
look up venue for milieu and existence for extant

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/13/2010 2:18:03 PM)
there is no such legal forum that I am aware of.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/13/2010 2:19:01 PM)
we are on original fake legal forum has nothing to do with it.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/13/2010 3:10:21 PM)
it most certainly does. the other dood made a legal determination. could leave it up to these guys. “Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine outcome of judicial proceedings.” Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Asheman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986). “Prosecutors may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred.” Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980) I just got these and did not review them yet but nothing would surprise me LOL

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/14/2010 4:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne original fake? How can the original be a fake? Because it's a forgery which doesn't have the provenance that is claimed for it. Forgeries tend to be fakes, but it's still the original because it was the first appearance of the forged document.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/17/2010 2:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne original fake? How can the original be a fake? Because it's a forgery which doesn't have the provenance that is claimed for it. Forgeries tend to be fakes, but it's still the original because it was the first appearance of the forged document. huh? a forgery and an original are 2 distinct documents not the same document. you need an original unless you are discussing negotiable instruments or the like where the original can be called forgery but that is usually fraud. this is not the same as forging a check

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/18/2010 4:58:14 AM)
Any document produced under fraudulent circumstances is a forgery.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/18/2010 8:50:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Any document produced under fraudulent circumstances is a forgery. sure but unfortunately for you it does not apply here. Now if you wish to qualify it you might gain some traction because what you said does not invalidate or refute what I said.

DomKen -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/18/2010 9:41:27 PM)
The Protocols are fake. Anyone can get a copy of Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu by Joly and Biarritz by Goedsche and compare the text therein to the text of the Protocols. It then becomes quite obvious that large sections of text were taken from both books. Therefore it is not what it purports to be.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 12:07:19 AM)
well I am quoting from memory here, and that is a memory who really does not give much of a rats ass about this topic because I have better things to rresearch now days, BUT IF I remember correctly the ORIGINAL protocols were stolen and it seems to me they were in hebrew and predate the versions you are talking about. That is why the ones you are talking about which I think were french and something else I forget and I have no intention of digging into it, hence those versions are forgeries. so if that said we probably agree that the versions you listed are forged and again if memory serves it was proven in a swiss court that the versions you stated are forged.

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 4:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well I am quoting from memory here, and that is a memory who really does not give much of a rats ass about this topic because I have better things to rresearch now days, BUT IF I remember correctly the ORIGINAL protocols were stolen and it seems to me they were in hebrew and predate the versions you are talking about. That is why the ones you are talking about which I think were french and something else I forget and I have no intention of digging into it, hence those versions are forgeries. Russian, not French. And (as I said) their provenance is not what has been claimed for them. They're not a translation of an original Hebrew document detailing a sinister plan to take over the world, as no such document ever existed.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:00:09 AM)
you are drawing incorrect presumptions from what I said. I believe it was stolen from a russian yes I also believe the original was written in hebrew. that does not mean it was a russian or hebrew document. An original document is an original document regardless of the content therefore not a forgery. Now if you wish to argue about the content being true or false that is another story and has no bearing on the origin or if it is forgery

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:05:59 AM)
In fact it does. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that forgery is purely legal term, which isn't the case. Any spurious or falsified document is a forgery, if the OED is to be believed.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:22:25 AM)
as soon as you use the terms true and false it is of legal nature. again what you said in no way invalidates what I said. think about what the situation is here, there is a distinction between accurate content meaning the truth contained therein and copying an original writing, the latter being a forgery the previous being a misrepresentation or even a lie with regard to the subject matter of the content therein

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:34:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne as soon as you use the terms true and false it is of legal nature. That is itself a false statement, rather than a true one. Not the best point you could make to substantiate your argument, all things considered. quote: ORIGINAL: The Oxford English Dictionary 1. the action or craft of forging metals… 2. invention, excogitation; fictitious invention, fiction… 3. the making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something. There are legal measures that can be taken against three, but it is not a legal definition in itself. This is the sense in which The Protocols Of The Informed Elders Of Zion is a forgery: a document was invented (partly through plagiarism from another mendacious text, as Ken has pointed out) and passed off as proof of a sinister conspiracy. It is by definition a forgery, as that is one of those verbs that can also be used to describe the thing being made in that context. The point you seem to be missing is that something doesn't actually have to exist for a fraudulent copy to be made of it: a lot of special effects CGI programmers and prosthetic make up experts would be out of work if it did, wouldn't they?

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:49:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne as soon as you use the terms true and false it is of legal nature. again what you said in no way invalidates what I said. think about what the situation is here, there is a distinction between accurate content meaning the truth contained therein and copying an original writing, the latter being a forgery the previous being a misrepresentation or even a lie with regard to the subject matter of the content therein False.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:55:20 AM)
again the hebrew predated kens versions they took it to court in switzerland and that version was claimed ot be a forgery. that is where they claim of forgery was hung on it. forgery is both a legal term and a term in law. How can you have a forgery of something that does not exist? [image]local://upfiles/59055/9C4B363D36314306842ED5404CF2C312.jpg[/image] by definition it is a false making with regard to legal efficacy and the protocols have no legal efficacy or attachment.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 6:56:40 AM)
again, piltsdown man is how you can have a forgery of something that does not exist. try to learn english, for fucks sake, you live where it is spoken.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 7:04:03 AM)
by all means translate then

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/19/2010 7:16:32 AM)
google.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875