Breaking News

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
:fpalm: :fpalm: :fpalm: 

Say you get charged with failure to do something required by law.

But there's another law that says you're a criminal if you do what the first law says you must.

You're between a rock and a hard place. Because you can't invoke Law B in Court A.

The rest is pretty self-evident.

:face:
 
your tenacity in conjuring up credibility for the evidence, that was never given and your ability to somehow read into the mind of the judges thoughts are quite incredible
 
It's not about me.

If you don't find my legal exegesis satisfying (or competent), ask somebody like Dave in Philly.

:face:
 
This ruling came down last february (look at the headline date in the story). Not breaking news. That there is no mention of the motion (BBC complicit in terrorism claim) being pressed in a different court following this ruling speaks volumes. Seems to me that the guy (or a sympathetic group) would be eager to pursue this if anything the judge said proved there was any kind of merit to the evidence.

Strange ruling, but the judges wording doesn't look like a support for the evidence claim. More like a matter of simply letting the guy off of a petty charge to get him the hell out of his court. Often it's just easier and cheaper for a judge to just tell someone "Fine, dismissed".
 
Who the hell trusts judges, anyway? :lol: Most of 'em are politicians in black robes.
 
I started on one side of this discussion but am seriously considering a shift following Yak's use of the phrase 'legal exegesis'. :shock: 

I haven't heard language like that for possibly 5 or 6 lustrums. :cheers: 

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."
Marcus Aurelius

Fraternally

Jers
 
Jers":z6tbx9ii said:
I started on one side of this discussion but am seriously considering a shift following Yak's use of the phrase 'legal exegesis'. :shock: 

I haven't heard language like that for possibly 5 or 6 lustrums. :cheers: 

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."
Marcus Aurelius

Fraternally

Jers
Click to expand...
Jers nailed it :twisted: :twisted: 
 
Jers":5lhx2ype said:
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."
Marcus Aurelius
Click to expand...
“Most jokes state a bitter truth." - Jack Benny

8)
 
Yak":wk2k0yf5 said:
:fpalm: 

His defence was based on the Terrorism Act.

[The judge] said . . . he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.
Click to expand...
:face:
Click to expand...
The Judge has the power to refer the case to a court which DOES have jurisdiction.

He can do this if he feels the matter is valid in law.

He didn't, he threw it out. Simple.

 
The Judge has the power to refer the case to a court which DOES have jurisdiction.

He can do this if he feels the matter is valid in law.

He didn't, he threw it out. Simple.
Click to expand...
Prosecutors evaluate cases, deciding whether to bring them before a court, or not. Not judges.

Assuming your initial statement is correct, that he did NOT refer it to the appropriate venue tells me quite a lot. Starting with the powers that be not wanting it aired in public.

:face: 
 
scotties22":aeykdo3y said:
What's important here isn't the "right or wrong" of breaking news.  It is the fact that his argument was persuasive enough to convince a judge :twisted: 

That's why Yak started this with "NOT "politics," "conspiracy theory" or disturbing the peace. NEWS."
Click to expand...
Judges are as human as reporters - both make mistakes.

On that day at 5pm we were waiting for that building to collapse any moment, as it had been evacuated by rescue crews inside who stated it was coming down.  The reporters error in statement is hardly clairvoyance or proof of conspiracy.

If my memory was correct several floors had actually collapsed already by that time... (Inside the building)

Coming from a family full of architectural professionals who built more than a few tall buildings - the way the buildings collapsed was not "free fall caused by explosives" but just hue type of collapse one would expect after examine the structure and the damage caused to it.
 
Yak":s5x9b9ei said:
The Judge has the power to refer the case to a court which DOES have jurisdiction.

He can do this if he feels the matter is valid in law.

He didn't, he threw it out. Simple.
Click to expand...
Prosecutors evaluate cases, deciding whether to bring them before a court, or not. Not judges.

Assuming your initial statement is correct, that he did NOT refer it to the appropriate venue tells me quite a lot. Starting with the powers that be not wanting it aired in public.

:face: 
Click to expand...
:fpalm: 
 
:fpalm: yourself, gum. Use your head.

The one thing he accomplished by that was to bring the matter to public attention.

If the judge had referred it to the appropriate venue for prosecution, it would have resulted in even more attention being called to it.

Which those who pull the strings obviously didn't want. As their denying him a hearing on it -- by implication -- demonstrates.

:face:

 
Don't forget that he could have pursued it further in civil court if he had a case. Why didn't he? All you have now basically is charges dropped and matter forgotten. This was months ago, why nothing else? Could it be because no attorney or activist group saw enough merit to the claim that would encourage them to throw millions in resources at it?
 
And certainly those that would operate inside such a conspiracy would simply push the man in front of a bus to keep things quiet and not have to worry about the public courts at all.
 
They've had some real problems with that approach the last several years.

:face: 
 
I've heard Hillary has been seen following him around with a sheet of paper, a pair of scissors and a revolver. No wonder he's been in hiding.
 
Top