• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Missed YOU SH.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

How do you know proof was presented at the trial if you never read the transcripts?


~SH~
 
Quote:
Sandbag: "Fine, prove he lied under oath."


SH, "Changing your story now huh? I already proved he lied. Mike changed his story and the judge responded by instructing the jurors to disregard his testimony. Aside from that, he has been caught in numerous lies. You got nothing here Sandbag!

My reply; You proved nothing - you only offered your OPINION. Isn't that what you like to call an "ILLUSION" of proof? :lol: :lol:


Quote:
Sandbag: "What is Judge Strom doing allowing a jurjorer to testify in his court?"


SH dummying up, "Where on earth did that come from?"

My reply; I'll draw you a picture - Callicrate testified in Strom's court. You say he is a purjuror. If you are right, that means Strom was allowing a jurjuror to testify in his court.
 
Sandbag: "You proved nothing - you only offered your OPINION. Isn't that what you like to call an "ILLUSION" of proof?"
Click to expand...

I presented the proof. Mike changed his story and the judge instructed the jury to disregard Mike's testimony.


Sandbag: "I'll draw you a picture - Callicrate testified in Strom's court. You say he is a purjuror. If you are right, that means Strom was allowing a jurjuror to testify in his court."
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You asked why Judge Strom was allowing a jurjorer to testify in court.

There is no such thing as a jurjorer. I had no idea what you were talking about. I thought you meant juror but that didn't make sense either.

Obviously Judge Strom didn't know Mike was so proned to lying. He sure found out though didn't he?


~SH~
 
You say that I twist? :roll:

You never brought any PROOF of lying, SH. NO PROOF

If you are right and Callicrate is guilty of purjory, why is Judge Strom allowing somebody guilty of that offense to testify in his court?
 
SH...This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here Conman says that ibp has had "behind closed door meetings" with the Judges in the Pickett case WITHOUT OFFERING ANY PROOF FOR THE ALLEGATION. Did Tommy question him? OF COURSE NOT! Why? BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS TOMMY'S BIAS.

Conman, asks me for proof that he lied? Tommy then jumps onto Conman's bandwagon also demanding proof that he lied.

WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR REQUEST FOR HIS PROOF OF THE BEHIND DOOR MEETINGS TOMMY???

You must have missed the part "Not saying Econ is right or wrong", but it is up to you to prove him wrong.

You are the accusor Scott it is up to you by your own words to prove him wrong. Are you backing from that now? Do a search, type in "burden of proof" see how many times you have stated that, and demanded others to prove you wrong when you make a statement. But when it is demanded of you it is a different story. That is a true hypocrit.
 
Tommy: "You are the accusor Scott it is up to you by your own words to prove him wrong. Are you backing from that now? Do a search, type in "burden of proof" see how many times you have stated that, and demanded others to prove you wrong when you make a statement. But when it is demanded of you it is a different story. That is a true hypocrit."
Click to expand...

BULLCRAP TOMMY!

Conman accused Judge Strom and the 11th circuit of "BACK DOOR MEETINGS" how the hell does it become my burden of proof to prove that the back door meetings never happened?

Your bias screams Tommy! Absolutely screams!

The burden of proof is on Conman to back his allegation, NOT ME!

You're becoming as deceptive as the pathetic organization you support.



~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Tommy: "You are the accusor Scott it is up to you by your own words to prove him wrong. Are you backing from that now? Do a search, type in "burden of proof" see how many times you have stated that, and demanded others to prove you wrong when you make a statement. But when it is demanded of you it is a different story. That is a true hypocrit."
Click to expand...

BULLCRAP TOMMY!

Conman accused Judge Strom and the 11th circuit of "BACK DOOR MEETINGS" how the hell does it become my burden of proof to prove that the back door meetings never happened?

Your bias screams Tommy! Absolutely screams!

The burden of proof is on Conman to back his allegation, NOT ME!

You're becoming as deceptive as the pathetic organization you support.



~SH~
Click to expand...

SH, I am going to send you over the the knives, slander and "proof" thread with Tam.
 

Latest posts

Top