IT’S A FAKE! Analyst Says Judge Roy Moore Signature Inside Allred's Accuser’s Yearbook Was FORGED

[Faun]

There are no court proceedings taking place here. There is no judge involved. So in which court do you believe Allred should turn over evidence for examination?

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Sadly, you’re addressing your hallucinations and nothing I wrote.

 

[Pop23]

One thing that I do know is that during court, in order to submit any evidence that both parties has the right to examine the evidence, to authenticated. If the other party doesn't let them to examine the evidence, that the judge will hand it over to the other party to examine it while court is in process. But if they are unable to give the evidence to the other party, that the judge will have to throw that evidence out. But I never heard of any lawyer that will not hand over evidences to be examine by the other party. .The first thing when evidence is brought into court, that the judge asked the other party, "Do they approve of this as evidence". Allred knows how it goes. Unless she is suffering from Alzheimer and her license needs to be revoke .

There are no court proceedings taking place here. There is no judge involved. So in which court do you believe Allred should turn over evidence for examination?

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

Then you have zero issue with doubting.

Gotcha.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There are no court proceedings taking place here. There is no judge involved. So in which court do you believe Allred should turn over evidence for examination?

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

 

[bripat9643]

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

 

[Faun]

There are no court proceedings taking place here. There is no judge involved. So in which court do you believe Allred should turn over evidence for examination?

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

Then you have zero issue with doubting.

Gotcha.

What part of, ”and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not,” baffles you?

 

[bripat9643]

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

 

[bripat9643]

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

Then you have zero issue with doubting.

Gotcha.

What part of, ”and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not,” baffles you?

Why are you so afraid to have the yearbook examined by an expert?

 

[ABikerSailor]

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

Like I said, I don't care where they examine it, I just want it examined by a handwriting expert and done soon so we can get this thing put to bed.

Screaming that it's fake or genuine without examination is a waste of effort.

 

[Faun]

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

 

[bripat9643]

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

Like I said, I don't care where they examine it, I just want it examined by a handwriting expert and done soon so we can get this thing put to bed.

Screaming that it's fake or genuine without examination is a waste of effort.

We all know that ambulance chaser Allred isn't going to allow that because she knows it's a fake.

 

[bripat9643]

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

That's exactly what you said.

 

[Faun]

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

Then you have zero issue with doubting.

Gotcha.

What part of, ”and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not,” baffles you?

Why are you so afraid to have the yearbook examined by an expert?

I never said that either. You’re so fucking disconnected from reality, you don’t know what I said. I don’t care if they turn the yearbook over or not, but doing so is a waste of time since you rightards will b’lieve it’s fake no matter what professional analysis determines.

 

[Faun]

Again......................you can't say it's a forgery or authentic until AFTER a trained handwriting analyst examines it and compares it to other signatures of Moore. Until then? It's kinda like Schroedenger's kitten, in a state of being both false (dead) and true (alive) at the same time.

It's only when it is examined (the box is opened) that we will know which.

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

That's exactly what you said.

LOL

Try quoting me saying that.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't have to be done in a court of law.

You wasted a post.

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

That's exactly what you said.

LOL

Try quoting me saying that.

Why do you keep bringing it up if it has no bearing on the authenticity of the signature?

 

[Faun]

You really have reading comprehension issues dude. I didn't say anything about it being done in or out of a court of law. I simply said that until it has been examined by a handwriting analyst who compares his signatures to others he's done, we won't know if it's genuine or not.

But, if it is authenticated by a handwriting analyst, that would be a compelling reason to take him to court.

I don't care who does it or when, but I would like the signature to be examined by an expert.

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

That's exactly what you said.

LOL

Try quoting me saying that.

Why do you keep bringing it up if it has no bearing on the authenticity of the signature?

Imbecile....

That’s not a quote.

Thanks for demonstrating once again how right I am when I point out how wide the canyon is between you and lucidity.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, at least BritPat isn't screaming at the top of his lungs that the yearbook signature is a fake, but rather now, he appears open to having it examined.

That's progress, I guess.

 

[bripat9643]

Faun has been claiming that if it isn't examined in court, then it's not a forgery.

I said no such thing, ya freak of nature conservative.

That's exactly what you said.

LOL

Try quoting me saying that.

Why do you keep bringing it up if it has no bearing on the authenticity of the signature?

Imbecile....

That’s not a quote.

Thanks for demonstrating once again how right I am when I point out how wide the canyon is between you and lucidity.

Where did I claim I was quoting you, douchbag?

 

[bripat9643]

Well, at least BritPat isn't screaming at the top of his lungs that the yearbook signature is a fake, but rather now, he appears open to having it examined.

That's progress, I guess.

I never scream, moron. And I never said I was 100% certain that it's fake. Only turds like you do things like that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There are no court proceedings taking place here. There is no judge involved. So in which court do you believe Allred should turn over evidence for examination?

You need a court? To establish that what you say is the truth?

How many courts you think we have?

Can you pay attention? The poster I responded to was talking about how in court, Allred could be compelled to turning over evidence otherwise a judge could throw said evidence out.

There is no court case here. There is no judge or plaintiff. There are merely allegations and Allred is not compelled to turn over any evidence on behalf of her client.

She will when Moore sues her. The point is her evidence isn't up to a standard that will stand up in court. It doesn't matter if the issue actualy goes to court.

IF he sues.

If he doesn’t, the matter is no different than it is now — the yearbook is not being turned over for further examination and folks decide for themselves if they believe he signed it or not.

That's right, the matter is no different. A forged signature is a forged signature, whether he sues or not. Apparently you're too stupid to understand that not going to court doesn't mean that forgeries suddenly become authentic.

Well, at least BritPat isn't screaming at the top of his lungs that the yearbook signature is a fake, but rather now, he appears open to having it examined.

That's progress, I guess.

I never scream, moron. And I never said I was 100% certain that it's fake. Only turds like you do things like that.

You have been stating repeatedly that the signature in the yearbook is a fake. It's just recently that you have admitted that it may be real, but it has to be authenticated by an analyst.