Notice an actual cover up exposed 8/8/08

reply to post by Mabus


you did not pose a question - how can i answer an unasked question ?

Originally posted by BornPatriot
I wondered this question back about 20 years ago, and it was simple ... the court will dismiss distractions.. and celebs are distractions.... you will also be excused if you know of official wrong doing... was a tow truck driver, ambulance, police sitting official. etc... so there is no big mystery here... just the way it is... plus, celebs can get off by saying they are scheduled for a production or something.

Distractions have to be evident. Not assumed before they can be given a chance to show.

Originally posted by Mabus
And this aint about being right or wrong, it's about being correct.

I think schools should require the students watch that movie "Standing Tall" with the Rock in it. So they see how they SHOULD act against all odds.

Umm isn't being right, being correct....


Speaking of being correct,

The Rock was in the movie Walking Tall .

[edit on 9-8-2008 by elevatedone]

[edit on 9-8-2008 by elevatedone]

Define correct?

Is it what's said correct? Is it what's spelled correct? Is the point correct?

I was correct in the point. The point itself made it clear of what I was implying which led you to getting the proper name of the movie.

Correct can be in points made no matter how mispelled or misworded.

And this is the point of wisdom being stronger than foolishness.

The correct point is the universal understanding and telling by the wise. To all: If you are wise to see a point and yet and still choose to be foolish with it, then that shows you as a conflicting individual. The anti-Christ bible talks about the conflicting having their lives removed before the second life. Instead they are subject to the second death.

And like something Eminem said, "If you keep coming back it only means that you know you lost the fight". Do any of you feel you lost against what I said in this thread with any unworthy sources to where you feel you must fight to get over your first round lose? It shows in your actions if not your words I will say.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

....

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Optix]

I almost feel sorry for you. You come to a site like this to debate an issue and then you put people on ignore because you cant take what people have to say. Many people have shown you reasons that are very valid and you just flat out refuse to listen. In my opinion you are making yourself look very foolish.

I hope you can learn from threads like this and try not to shut out everyone that has an apposing view. If you continue this way you will have the entire members list on ignore. Then you will be talking to yourself.

And it doesnt take alot of effort to get out of jury duty. And as many have shown, Famous people are not exempt. You dont want to except the source than i dont know what else to tell you. I dont agree with your constant references from the anti bible or whatever you want to call it.

And how is this related to 8-8-08 ? Your thread is misleading and once here reading it, it is flat out a joke in my opinion. I had to endure 3 pages of you ranting to others about how you dont like what they are saying and how you are gonna ignore anyone who debates with you. So i felt obliged to post and debate with you the fact that you need to present your case without acting like a little kid about it. Dont ever be afraid to be wrong. Nobody is perfect and we all learn something new everyday.

Let me say that when maddona went to serve jury duty, It wasnt just the tmz or the paparazzi that reported it. Here is a report by C.B.S.www.cbsnews.com...

So if you dont believe this then you wont except anything. The fact is many people get picked for jury duty and many are not picked for many different reasons. She was not picked due to the fact that she would have been a distraction more than help in court. If you cant see the reasoning behind this i would suggest you Look into something called a fair jury and also how the legal system works in the united states. I personally would not want a famous person serving on a jury if i where the defendant. I know how one sided it would turn out to be.

So if you choice to put me on ignore because you dont like what i have to say, Than by all means go right ahead. I wont lose any sleep over it. It might save me an hour of having to subject myself to threads like this.

Thank you for your time and good luck to you.
Russ1969

reply to post by russ1969


If you noticed any one I put on ignore were off topic and ignored what I said though they got the point clear. Plus I give all a second chance. I didnt ignore anyone the first time in something not having to do with what this thread is talking about, did I?

I wont ignore you unless you fail to see the point I just made in a second post back. So it be better not to come back and act like you cant see why I used the ignore after I personally cleared what you are mistaken about up.

By the way the reason she wasnt selected wasnt reported. You sure like to fabricate, dont you, by assuming what the reason was?


To all:

Ppl with two toned or two faced or back handed responses arent fooling me. Give me a reason why I shouldnt ignore those types to whoever it conerns? Especially when I didnt say anything backhanded to them first???

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

I wont ignore you unless you fail to see the point I just made in a second post. So it be better not to come back and act like you cant see why I used the ignore after I personally cleared what you are mistaken about up

Apart from not being able to understand half of what your saying, none of your points are valid im afraid. They have been refuted very well by numerous posters with very credible sources.

Everyone likes a good conspiracy, even the far fetched ones.

But simply ignoring an overwhelming list of celebrities that in fact have served jury duty, is simply bizzarre.

Its seems quite obvious to me no amount of information will stop your anti christ rant, your making yourself look rather foolish.

reply to post by Mabus

See-through you are. Dont even stay in this thread if you cant handle your personal problem you have with other ppl.

Whoa! You sir, are ridiculous.

Do I smell more cowardliness?

That's the pungent smell of your unfounded paranoia.

Ppl with two toned or two faced or back handed responses arent fooling me. Give me a reason why I shouldnt ignore those types to whoever it conerns? Especially when I didnt say anything backhanded to them first???

Now you are painting yourself as a victim when actually: you were prvoen wrong, you freaked out, and you started 'backhanded' (to borrow a poorly chosen word) posts like this.

reply to post by T.Smith


Ok this the raid on the roaches...

Anyone else taking shots at me I put on ignore. Take a crack at the thread, not me. Answer the questions. Show evidence worthy if you want me to say I can buy that. If it aint worthy I sure as hell wont buy it. If you are a reasonable person you should see why anyone wouldnt buy celeb gossid sources and see why there is coruption still since there has yet been a super star to serve on a case in the jury duty. If you arent a reasonable person, then dont waste your time in this thread that's against all odds as the claimer states. Other than that no one can win against the topful pit. No one can prove the anti-Christ bible is of lies either.

reply to post by Mabus


Here is the quote from the link i posted for you, maybe you didnt read it?"They say a defense lawyer complained that she was a distraction, leading to her dismissal."

And your not helping your case by trying to be a know it all and refusing to see the facts. This is my last post to you!!! You are in my opinion not worthy of a good discussion. And by the way, What does your anti christ bible have to do with your discussion? Sounds like your pushing a belief more than an issue about jury duty and how it is a conspiracy. No conspiracy here my friend. Just a view thought up by you and presented in a bad way. I will not waist anymore time on this issue. Thank you.

Originally posted by russ1969
reply to post by Mabus

 

Here is the quote from the link i posted for you, maybe you didnt read it?"They say a defense lawyer complained that she was a distraction, leading to her dismissal."

And your not helping your case by trying to be a know it all and refusing to see the facts. This is my last post to you!!! You are in my opinion not worthy of a good discussion. And by the way, What does your anti christ bible have to do with your discussion? Sounds like your pushing a belief more than an issue about jury duty and how it is a conspiracy. No conspiracy here my friend. Just a view thought up by you and presented in a bad way. I will not waist anymore time on this issue. Thank you.

And that reveals the corruption that the anti-Christ bible is getting at.

Thanks for providing something worthy that is proving the corruption I pointed out. Aint it something an court officer said she was distraction so says close witnesses (the unnamed sources) except the court itself?

"However, court officials say there weren't any problems, and it was just business as usual. "

^^If we take the un-named sources close to Madanna, then the court lied by not telling why she was dissmissed. Which side do you buy? The close sources or what the court stated?

And yes, folks, it still remains that no super star served on a case in a jury.

You know, Jesus talked about measure what you hear and how you hear it. Is that not what I did unlike certain?

Here is the quote:

"Mark 4:24
And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given."

I hear so more was given for be to defeat since I am awake to KNOW how I'm supposed to hear. The Jesus quote I been living by.

As for those who discriminate or are for it:

"Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

^Think of all the ppl who get rejected the second life in the return based on how they reaped in this first life... And no those quotes arent from the anti-Christ bible, they are from the bible.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

Originally posted by Myendica
First off this is a ridiculous thread. Second, who cares what celebs and super stars do. Third, didn't like. Oprah or someone serve like 4 years ago? And fourth, if you didn't want to serve duty all you have to say is that you are familiar with the case and you'll be excused. Celebs and stars are only that because you care so much about what they do. They are nothing without everyone. Who cares. Though you are wrong.
That and you aren't supposed to know the jurors anyways. Its kinda like anonymous, you are refered to as juror number 1, 2 3....

Oprah serves jury duty

Oprah's pretty much as famous as they come. Guess your theory has been debunked. next.....

[edit on 9-8-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by Myendica
First off this is a ridiculous thread. Second, who cares what celebs and super stars do. Third, didn't like. Oprah or someone serve like 4 years ago? And fourth, if you didn't want to serve duty all you have to say is that you are familiar with the case and you'll be excused. Celebs and stars are only that because you care so much about what they do. They are nothing without everyone. Who cares. Though you are wrong.
That and you aren't supposed to know the jurors anyways. Its kinda like anonymous, you are refered to as juror number 1, 2 3....

Oprah serves jury duty

Oprah's pretty much as famous as they come. Guess your theory has been debunked. next.....

[edit on 9-8-2008 by justamomma]

That source you believe? Not much detail on court it took place or judge involved. Is there a better source? And clip of the famous Oprah talking about it? It would seem there should be one if this is true seeing how it seems she's open about it (if it is true). Plus, going against all odds even if (after confriming with a better source which is still pending) it was only one famous person to serve on a case, that is still odd here in the U.S. And it still reveals the corruption when dealing with all the super stars there are.

Since she is so famous I'm sure it would be on a better source. You're find, so get to looking.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

Originally posted by Mabus
reply to post by eaganthorn

 

And just who is the deemer? Where did you get that from? Jurors themselves?

Plus, I never seen jurors given reasons why they were dismissed before put on a case. Aint no one gonna say to you or state on a form for you: "You're too special because you're famous."

I havent heard a single star say that was said to them.

I've heard of reasons why jurors are on a particular case being based on certain things like because of the location.

The deemer? I am unfamiliar with that legal term.
Oh you mean to ask who makes that or those decisions. It is a function of the selection process and responsibility of the court, that legal council of both sides, prosecution and defense, are active in assessing who is on the jury and who isn’t.

You should be learning about the legal system in school as these are fundamental components to our society. I am shocked that you have no comprehensive or working knowledge of the system and do not know these things yet!!! Perhaps I am assuming too much in considering your age, I apologize for that, I did not realize you were so young. In the years to come, as you get out more often, you will see more and more clearly.

And no, you probably wouldn’t have heard anyone say they were dismissed from a jury pool for being too “special” as that might be considered rude, none the less true, however.

reply to post by Mabus


Source after source you ask if people believe the source as if you offer a more reliable source, you dont Mabus.

Your offering nothing to your own thread apart from ignornace.

Putting me on ignore doesnt make me wrong anymore than you ignoring the proof makes you right.

This is my last post in this thread as this argument will go nowhere, you clearly dont care about proof, you simply want a place to rant about the anti-christ bible.

reply to post by eaganthorn


I know more than you since you put me out there as if I dont.

Plus, I knew you wouldnt back up what you previously said when it aint even going on with that "you're too special" etc stuff you put on here as if it were so so. You like to inject misleading statements for readers you think are not wise? Then if I question you you want to deem me as young and not in the know? Haha. I just knew you'd put me in the not know mix based on how only your post could be answered with questions.

Sometimes questions bring certain types to the surface.

These fabricating types unjustified exist for now. Dont let the anti-Christ bible say what's in store for them.

I dont get why ppl still taking shots at me as if they slick in how they word it.

Not once did I mention my age as anyone else wise can see.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

Originally posted by Mabus
reply to post by eaganthorn

 

I know more than you since you put me out there as if I dont.

Plus, I knew you wouldnt back up what you previously said when it aint even going on with that "you're too special" etc stuff you put on here as if it were so so. You like to inject misleading statements for readers you think are not wise? Then if I question you you want to deem me as young and not in the know? Haha. I just knew you'd put me in the not know mix based on how only your post could be answered with questions.

Sometimes questions bring certain types to the surface.

These fabricating types unjustified exist for now. Dont let the anti-Christ bible say what's in store for them.

I dont get why ppl still taking shots at me as if they slick in how they word it.

Not once did I mention my age as anyone else wise can see.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

There is no need for you to post your age or retorts of any kind about your intellect. Your sentence structure, word choice, spelling, lack of understanding the fundamentals and basic principles of our legal system, all speak loud and clear enough for most of us to assess your status.
You have not been looking for an answer, you are looking to fight. You have realized that you have the power to challenge and then ignore and effectively shutting down opposition to your rants and this brings you some level of satisfaction. All of this puts you at an emotional age around puberty.
Good luck my young friend.

Originally posted by eaganthorn

Originally posted by Mabus
reply to post by eaganthorn

 

I know more than you since you put me out there as if I dont.

Plus, I knew you wouldnt back up what you previously said when it aint even going on with that "you're too special" etc stuff you put on here as if it were so so. You like to inject misleading statements for readers you think are not wise? Then if I question you you want to deem me as young and not in the know? Haha. I just knew you'd put me in the not know mix based on how only your post could be answered with questions.

Sometimes questions bring certain types to the surface.

These fabricating types unjustified exist for now. Dont let the anti-Christ bible say what's in store for them.

I dont get why ppl still taking shots at me as if they slick in how they word it.

Not once did I mention my age as anyone else wise can see.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

There is no need for you to post your age or retorts of any kind about your intellect. Your sentence structure, word choice, spelling, lack of understanding the fundamentals and basic principles of our legal system, all speak loud and clear enough for most of us to assess your status.
You have not been looking for an answer, you are looking to fight. You have realized that you have the power to challenge and then ignore and effectively shutting down opposition to your rants and this brings you some level of satisfaction. All of this puts you at an emotional age around puberty.
Good luck my young friend.

Only thing you've revealed is that you are delusional. You've assumed, have you not? Plus, you are the cowardly. How? You try to be slick with taking shots at me first! Why do it? O a coward wont answer that to their victim.

If you dont call taking a shot at me by deeming me young and not knowing jack, then you are ugh. And you live with that on the inside. Why would you even want to? Ugh! Must feel like crap all day. And dont get mad if someone treats you like you treat them with that delusional assuming that's actually revealing hatred of some kind.

why would they even need a coverup?Most of our courts are admirlty courts and the constitution has no bearing what so ever in an admirlty court.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

read this if you want conspiacy