JUSTICE AND LAW

[Kralizec]

SPAM AND SHAMELESS ADVERTISING

If you like to spam or like to advertise your groups, pls join my group THE TWENTY WATT LIGHTBULBS

Why do you hate justice?

[Moros]

Why do you hate justice?

Objection! Argumentative question, Improper and irrelevant!


Also objection to the evidence supplied by TinCow! Improper proof of character trait of defendant: Rule 405(b) TRE; not an essential element of the charge or defense. Also
Ouch TinCow made one ***** of a mistake. If there's something we Belgians all agree upon, which means a lot these days, it's that our roads are the biggest failure since the invention of the toilet snorkel. Hence another objection! Improper and insufficient authentifcation!

[TinCow]

Also objection to the evidence supplied by TinCow! Improper proof of character trait of defendant: Rule 405(b) TRE; not an essential element of the charge or defense. Also
Ouch TinCow made one ***** of a mistake. If there's something we Belgians all agree upon, which means a lot these days, it's that our roads are the biggest failure since the invention of the toilet snorkel. Hence another objection! Improper and insufficient authentifcation!

Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.

In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.

[Moros]

Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.

In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.

My objection of improper and insufficient authentification for one still stands. If it is legitimate I'd love Andres' boss, which is not even an identity, to be a witness and confirm the evidence as real. Drunkenguy von Belgian is clearly not a real person either. He's not registered in Belgium and strangely his name exists out of a mix English and German. A quote also does not fit principle of best evidence if you ask me.

Also you quote and others have quoted law and rules many times. Yet I wonder which rules you are referring to. There are no .org rules which are applicable. So don't tell me what I can and can't do. Unless you're trying to be the judge on your own trial! As far as the rules are concerned everyone is free to participate in discussions in the frontroom as long as they are on topic, in line with PG13, include no personal attacks,... Also I'd like to know under which country's law we're arguing here? Isn't this site hosted in The Netherlands? I doubt you have a license there either. So having a license or not is rather irrelevant unless you all are about to seek a Dutch lawyers and follow Dutch laws. If not than I suggest basic logic and .org rules are followed.

Secondly I'm not defending Andres. That silly, silly man should be able to stand his ground or get a new job. I for one, just like Andres and multiple other .orgers am a true lover of nonsense. And If I see nonsense, I shall be part of it. Furthermore I just wanted to write like I was able to yell objection in a court case! Didn't you have dreams?

[TinCow]

My objection of improper and insufficient authentification for one still stands. If it is legitimate I'd love Andres' boss, which is not even an identity, to be a witness and confirm the evidence as real. Drunkenguy von Belgian is clearly not a real person either. He's not registered in Belgium and strangely his name exists out of a mix English and German. A quote also does not fit principle of best evidence if you ask me.

Hmm... yes, I see that now. It is indeed an interesting email. Regardless, even if it was not from Andres' Boss, whoever wrote it clearly believes that Andres' behavior was shameful or they would not have written it in the first place. Thus, the evidence stands for the reason I have presented it, regardless of whether the sender is honest about his or her identity.

Also you quote and others have quoted law and rules many times. Yet I wonder which rules you are referring to. There are no .org rules which are applicable. So don't tell me what I can and can't do. Unless you're trying to be the judge on your own trial! As far as the rules are concerned everyone is free to participate in discussions in the frontroom as long as they are on topic, in line with PG13, include no personal attacks,... Also I'd like to know under which country's law we're arguing here? Isn't this site hosted in The Netherlands? I doubt you have a license there either. So having a license or not is rather irrelevant unless you all are about to seek a Dutch lawyers and follow Dutch laws. If not than I suggest basic logic and .org rules are followed.

This site his hosted in the United States. Arizona to be precise. Regardless, the applicable rules are the Org Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. This is specifically spelled out in the Forum Rules, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you.

[Moros]

Regardless, the applicable rules are the Org Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. This is specifically spelled out in the Forum Rules, so I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you.

I think the people would have the right to see these rules. As its their duty to know them. Without this, this trial is merely a mockery of the intelligence of the fine men and women who visit these forums. Unless you do not want to protect and help the fine members of this forum as you claimed in this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-and-LAW/page2

Regardless, even if it was not from Andres' Boss, whoever wrote it clearly believes that Andres' behavior was shameful or they would not have written it in the first place. Thus, the evidence stands for the reason I have presented it, regardless of whether the sender is honest about his or her identity.

Let us forget about this evidence already. It should be scrapped everybody knows it. It's against all principles of correct use of evidence. Improper and insufficiant authentification, improper proof of witness' truthfullness, not original writing, impeachement and improper ( bias, reputation), inadmissable as evidence was not for examination or copying at a reasonable time, misleading the jury as you tried to convince everybody that it was Andres' boss. Furthermore the mail contains blatant lies that have been exposed. No sesible judge, no jury and no lawyer with self respect would consider this piece of evidence. It is more revealing of your character, TinCow, than Andres'! If this evidence is considered than Phill is right, all of this would not make sense! It would be a mockery of the legal system and the .org. I, nor the judge, nor the wise people of the jury or any other member can allow that.

[Andres]

So according to your logic you and TinCow are the same as you are both human. TinCow=Human Andres=Human so Tincow=Andres. If that was the case you wouldn't be arguing. Characteristics make differences, but according to your logic characteristics are of no importance in difference.

You are twisting my words to construe a completely wrong statement.

Dark red is red. Red, however, is not dark red. Yes, both me and TinCow are human (I'm not sure about TinCow, though, he sounds like a bot sometimes, anyway, let's assume he's human, for the sake of convenience), but that doesn't mean TinCow and me are the same.

It is incorrect to say dark red is not red. But of course, not all reds are dark red. It is incorrect to say Andres is not human, but of course, not all humans are Andres. Only one human is Andres.

If this isn't clear, then I must assume you're an alt account of TinCow.

But then again, your name does say:
Andres
Liar and Trickster

Liar and Trickster is my user title, not part of my name.

You admit you are a liar and we can't take you serious.

How is putting "Liar" in my user title in any way to be interpreted as me admitting that I'm a liar?

[Andres]

Andres protested that his actions were not shameful. As shame is an inherently subjective state, it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. I presented evidence that others found his behavior shameful as well, thus demonstrating that by the general standards of societal convention, Andres' behavior was shameful.

In any case, you can't even object. You're not Andres' defense counsel, he's clearly pro se. In addition, you're not licensed to practice in this court.

As Moros stated, nemo iudex in causa sua

Also, the fact that you are now using fake evidence in your defense, is very telling...

And Belgium does not provide good roads. Our roads are for ELITE drivers. Only the best of the best are able to survive on our roads. We do not even fix our roads; we just put a sign next to it which says "Route dégradé". Sometimes, we block our roads and pretend like we're fixing them. In reality, we bring them in an even worse shape than they were before the road works started. And our road signs are only put there for entertainment for the elite drivers (and as a distraction for the non elite drivers who try to respect all of them (at a rate of 250 road signs per square meter)). Such is the way of the Belgians.

[Peasant Phill]

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the esteemed staff member Andres, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the accusation at hand, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.