|
From the debate, Rubin failed to select a topic to debate, instead
pressed on with smart assed comments and finally run away Honesty it
seems is not the kinda thing that agrees with Rubin:
Is Rubin his real name or is the pervert and lair just hiding his real
self from view. Come out from under the mushroom you pervert before a
pile of #@($ drops on you.
Tony Holland
|
| |
| |
Tony Holland wrote:
From the debate, Rubin failed to select a topic to debate, instead
pressed on with smart assed comments and finally run away Honesty it
seems is not the kinda thing that agrees with Rubin:
Is Rubin his real name or is the pervert and lair just hiding his real
self from view. Come out from under the mushroom you pervert before a
pile of #@($ drops on you.
Tony Holland
I assume "Rubin" is referring to me, but I have no idea which
thread I'm being accused of posting something inaccurate on.
If there were any chance that your "pervert" crap were to be
believed by anyone with an IQ over 70, I'd sue for libel.
|
| |
| |
Dear Rubin, I assume your IQ is about 60, a long way short of 70, but
lets not be mean minded hear, I challenged you to a debate, you came
back with smart assed comments, indicating your points of view, saying
I'd not shown this or Id not shown that or who would be the trier of
facts, remember those things Rubs ole bean.
Now I am saying you have run away like a drop kick does when hes
beaten:
Your mistake you little turd, was to act like a smart ass: As to your
threat to sue me, well I'll take you on in that as well, but, well we
all know youre going to run a way Rubs ole boy, get a life and just
piss off outa hear.
Tony Holland
|
| |
| |
Tony Holland wrote:
Dear Rubin, I assume your IQ is about 60, a long way short of 70, but
lets not be mean minded hear, I challenged you to a debate, you came
back with smart assed comments, indicating your points of view, saying
I'd not shown this or Id not shown that or who would be the trier of
facts, remember those things Rubs ole bean.
I was trying to establish ground rules. If we were to have
a wager on the outcome of the debate, that would require
someone to agree as to what the outcome was. Even without
investigating your assertions, I can see that we could
not find someone to adjudicate the dispute.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
Tony Holland wrote:
I was trying to establish ground rules. If we were to have
a wager on the outcome of the debate, that would require
someone to agree as to what the outcome was. Even without
investigating your assertions, I can see that we could
not find someone to adjudicate the dispute.
I'll be the impartial judge.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
I'll be the impartial judge.
Have you been using that nym long?
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Have you been using that nym long?
It's OK Arty --- just don't look up.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
It's OK Arty --- just don't look up.
The earliest google groups hit was on August 28.
|
| |
| |
Well, Rubs, if you want to come back Im more than happy to start: Let
me see, now I teach contract law so forgive me if I abreviate:
Let me offer a version of events as follows:
2 police officer arrest a young man, hes retarded, he cant read nor
write, hes arrested on March 19, hes relaesed on March 20 and re
arrested on March 30, hes subsequentley charged with theft and a 26
page confession produced, the confession is dated 1st May, the
confession is unsigned except by the police officer.
The confession implicates a receiver and he too is arrested on the 7
April and a confession produced for him also dated the 1st May and
unsigned and also 26 pages long except by the police officer.
Now the problem is: Both 26 page confession are identical, word for
word, page for page all 26 pages of them: Both Thief and reciever were
convicted and sent to prison, 2 additional facts.
1. Of the 49 items listed as stolen by the thief, non were stolen and
all had reciepts.
2. The worlds foremost analysist on handwriting, Dr A Q Morton has
confrimed both confessions as fakes. I only want one criminal charge
to result from these facts:::you pick which one. All docs available.
Tony Holland
|
| |
| |
Tony Holland wrote:
Well, Rubs, if you want to come back Im more than happy to start: Let
me see, now I teach contract law so forgive me if I abreviate:
Let me offer a version of events as follows:
2 police officer arrest a young man, hes retarded, he cant read nor
write, hes arrested on March 19, hes relaesed on March 20 and re
arrested on March 30, hes subsequentley charged with theft and a 26
page confession produced, the confession is dated 1st May, the
confession is unsigned except by the police officer.
The confession implicates a receiver and he too is arrested on the 7
April and a confession produced for him also dated the 1st May and
unsigned and also 26 pages long except by the police officer.
Now the problem is: Both 26 page confession are identical, word for
word, page for page all 26 pages of them: Both Thief and reciever were
convicted and sent to prison, 2 additional facts.
1. Of the 49 items listed as stolen by the thief, non were stolen and
all had reciepts.
2. The worlds foremost analysist on handwriting, Dr A Q Morton has
confrimed both confessions as fakes. I only want one criminal charge
to result from these facts:::you pick which one. All docs available.
Tony Holland
Taking all those facts as given -- for the purpose of argument,
as receipts, even if certified by the seller, would only prove
that the "thief" (or the "receiver") purchased identical items
to the ones alleged to be stolen, so that even if it was clear
that all the items had matching receipts, the claim that
"none were stolen" is a separate assertion --
There's still not QUITE enough evidence to convict THAT police
officer with forgery and obstruction of justice. It could have
been another officer who asserted that the confessions came
from the respective defendants. If the confessions were in
THAT officer's handwriting, it might be adequate for a conviction.
You'd need to provide a lot more evidence in order for anyone
else to be prosecuted.
|
| |
| |
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
The earliest google groups hit was on August 28.
The price of tea in China is $3 per kilo.
|
| |
| |
|
