Perjury regarding sex -- it really IS a crime!

[Shattered]

no. I answered you in post 94. the "**** you" was just frosting. how'd it taste?

Didn't phase me in the least, but you can be sure it paints you as a *real* man hell bent on proving he's right, regardless of the fact that he can't comprehend simple English.

You go, boy!

 

[Shattered]

hahahahaha.....You too dude......?????

I just got mine.....

I'm not a dude...

 

[Alpha1]

No one is "guilty" of a "crime" without being found guilty in a court of law. Everyone is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. In your ridiculous analogy, did I speed? of course. Am I guilty of the crime of speeding? not until I plead guilty to avoid a court appearance or until the judge finds me guilty of speeding at that court appearance.

OJ Simpson is "not guilty" of the crime of murder. that's a fact.

Bill Clinton is not "guilty" of the crime of perjury. that's a fact.

Did OJ kill his wife and Ron Goldman? I certainly think he did.

hahaha....but how could he have done the deed....thats murder, and you claim he's not guilty....he can't be not guilty and guilty at the same time....you moron

Did Bill Clinton lie while under oath? or course he did.

99

 

[maineman]

No, what that means is that there either wasn't enough evidence to convict you, or something else got hosed. That does NOT mean you didn't do it. It does NOT mean you're not *guilty*. It just means you didn't get caught, therefore you didn't get sentenced.

Quit being so idiotic.

if a jury finds you "not guilty", you are "not guilty". by definition.

if a jury finds you "guilty", you are "guilty".. by definition.

for you to suggest that such a basic truism is "idiotic" is a fine example of just how thick your ******* head really is.

 

[Alpha1]

I'm not a dude...

Sorry Dudette....

 

[maineman]

Didn't phase me in the least, but you can be sure it paints you as a *real* man hell bent on proving he's right, regardless of the fact that he can't comprehend simple English.

You go, boy!

legal terminology is not simple english.

If a jury finds you "not guilty" of a crime, you are, by definition, "not guilty" of that crime.

actually, that is pretty ******* simple.

 

[Shattered]

if a jury finds you "not guilty", you are "not guilty". by definition.

if a jury finds you "guilty", you are "guilty".. by definition.

for you to suggest that such a basic truism is "idiotic" is a fine example of just how thick your ******* head really is.

What the jury finds, and what the actual facts are can be completely different, you dim-witted fuckwit.

It's so easy to tell when you're getting your ass handed to you - you bring out the big 4-letter words, and loudmouth chest-thumping.. Careful you don't pound right through those brittle bones.

 

[maineman]

99

OJ is not guilty of the crime of murder. That is a legal finding.
deal with it.

 

[maineman]

What the jury finds, and what the actual facts are can be completely different, you dim-witted fuckwit.

It's so easy to tell when you're getting your ass handed to you - you bring out the big 4-letter words, and loudmouth chest-thumping.. Careful you don't pound right through those brittle bones.

look. if a jury finds you not guilty of a crime, you are, by definition, not guilty of that crime. that is a legal finding. it has a meaning that is not necessarily "simple english". why is that so hard for you to understand? I have never ever said that Bill Clinton did not lie under oath. I have never said that OJ did not cut the throats of his wife her pal. I have only said that Bill Clinton is not "guilty" of the crime of perjury. that is a fact. OJ Simpson is "not guilty" of murder. that is a fact.

 

[Shattered]

look. if a jury finds you not guilty of a crime, you are, by definition, not guilty of that crime. that is a legal finding. it has a meaning that is not necessarily "simple english". why is that so hard for you to understand? I have never ever said that Bill Clinton did not lie under oath. I have never said that OJ did not cut the throats of his wife her pal. I have only said that Bill Clinton is not "guilty" of the crime of perjury. that is a fact. OJ Simpson is "not guilty" of murder. that is a fact.

Keep twisting for as long as it makes you feel better...or until your wife lets you back in the house.. Whichever comes first. So long as you get that pent up aggression out, it doesn't matter what's right vs. what's wrong, so long as you get to scream, shout, and push the little rep button to be sure your point is made.

You're a truly pathetic speciman.

 

[maineman]

Keep twisting for as long as it makes you feel better...or until your wife lets you back in the house.. Whichever comes first. So long as you get that pent up aggression out, it doesn't matter what's right vs. what's wrong, so long as you get to scream, shout, and push the little rep button to be sure your point is made.

You're a truly pathetic speciman.

I have never changed my statements about this. I am absolutely correct. I am not upset or angry or filled with pent up anything. I stated a basic truism...when a jury says you are "not guilty" of a crime, you are, by definition "not guilty" of that crime. For you to argue that obvious statement is what is truly pathetic.

 

[Alpha1]

look. if a jury finds you not guilty of a crime, you are, by definition, not guilty of that crime. that is a legal finding. it has a meaning that is not necessarily "simple english". why is that so hard for you to understand? I have never ever said that Bill Clinton did not lie under oath. I have never said that OJ did not cut the throats of his wife her pal. I have only said that Bill Clinton is not "guilty" of the crime of perjury. that is a fact. OJ Simpson is "not guilty" of murder. that is a fact.

Keep it simple...

If OJ cut his wifes throat, didn't he murder her? Yes or no....

Is murder a crime? Yes or no.....

Is OJ guilty of committing murder....Yes or no

Is OJ guilty of committing a crime....Yes or no

Is what the jury said relevant to my logical conclusion?....Yes or no

Gee that was a simple logic problem.....

 

[Alpha1]

look. if a jury finds you not guilty of a crime, you are, by definition, not guilty of that crime. that is a legal finding. it has a meaning that is not necessarily "simple english". why is that so hard for you to understand? I have never ever said that Bill Clinton did not lie under oath. I have never said that OJ did not cut the throats of his wife her pal. I have only said that Bill Clinton is not "guilty" of the crime of perjury. that is a fact. OJ Simpson is "not guilty" of murder. that is a fact.

if a jury finds you not guilty of a crime, you are, by definition, not guilty of that crime.

This is your problem in your own words.....YOU ARE WRONG FROM THE START...

If a jury finds you not guilty of a crime...it has absolutly nothing to do with your guilt or innocence....it is nothing more than an opinion from a third party...

It changes no facts or actual events, actual events that alone determine your guilt or innocence....

But do continue.....we can start a petition to have you committed soon....

 

[Dr Grump]

Shattered/Alpha..

You guys just don't get it do you. MFM actually agrees with you. OJ did kill his wife and Clinton did lie under oath, but in a court of law they are not guilty. For ***** sake take it up with the court system. It's not MFM who found them not guilty of what they did. He wasn't defense counsel, he wasn't on the freakin juries, nor is he a judge.

Alpha
you can give your examples til your arse explodes, but tell me this: Was OJ found guilty of murder in a criminal court of law? Yes or no. Was Bill Clinton found guilty of perjury in a court of law? Yes or no? These are simple questions with pretty simple answers. Just because they were found NOT guilty doesn't mean the didn't do the crime, and you know what, I have yet to see one single post from MFM or Jillian saying otherwise.

 

[Shattered]

Shattered/Alpha..

You guys just don't get it do you. MFM actually agrees with you. OJ did kill his wife and Clinton did lie under oath, but in a court of law they are not guilty. For ***** sake take it up with the court system. It's not MFM who found them not guilty of what they did. He wasn't defense counsel, he wasn't on the freakin juries, nor is he a judge.

Alpha
you can give your examples til your arse explodes, but tell me this: Was OJ found guilty of murder in a criminal court of law? Yes or no. Was Bill Clinton found guilty of perjury in a court of law? Yes or no? These are simple questions with pretty simple answers. Just because they were found NOT guilty doesn't mean the didn't do the crime, and you know what, I have yet to see one single post from MFM or Jillian saying otherwise.

The childish, angry "**** you" double rep is a clear sign of agreement. How silly of us.

 

[Alpha1]

Shattered/Alpha..

You guys just don't get it do you. MFM actually agrees with you. OJ did kill his wife and Clinton did lie under oath, but in a court of law they are not guilty. For ***** sake take it up with the court system. It's not MFM who found them not guilty of what they did. He wasn't defense counsel, he wasn't on the freakin juries, nor is he a judge.

Alpha
you can give your examples til your arse explodes, but tell me this: Was OJ found guilty of murder in a criminal court of law? Yes or no.
NO...


Was Bill Clinton found guilty of perjury in a court of law? Yes or no?
NO..

These are simple questions with pretty simple answers. Just because they were found NOT guilty doesn't mean the didn't do the crime,
EXACTLY......

and you know what, I have yet to see one single post from MFM or Jillian saying otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------


Then you haven't been following along.....he insists in every case it means they are not guilty of the crime....
What he means is they were found not guilty by a court, but ARE GUILTY

and the fact that they are GUILTY is whats pertinent.....

THEY ARE ALL GUILTY

THE ACTS ARE CRIMES, therefor

THEY ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIMES AND WHAT THE JURY SAYS IS IRRELEVANT



]

OJ DID MURDER HIS WIFE
MURDER IS A CRIME
OJ IS GUILTY OF THIS CRIME OF MURDER
WHAT A JURY FOUND DOESN'T CHANGE THESE FACTS....

 

[Alpha1]

So...when mm says:

"If a jury finds you "not guilty" of a crime, you are, by definition, "not guilty" of that crime."

HE IS CLEARLY WRONG.....and hes repeated this false claim for days....

 

[maineman]

we are talking in circles. and we are using two different - equally legitimate - definitions of the word "guilty".

the statement "OJ Simpson is not guilty of the crime of murder" is a correct statement.
The legal definition of the word, guilty is "adjudged to have committed a crime".
In that sense of the word, OJ is not guilty of the crime of murder

the statement "OJ is guilty of killing his wife and Ron Goldman" is also a correct statement.
A non-legal definition of the word guilty is "responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable".
In that sense of the word, OJ is guilty.

 

[maineman]

So...when mm says:

"If a jury finds you "not guilty" of a crime, you are, by definition, "not guilty" of that crime."

HE IS CLEARLY WRONG.....and hes repeated this false claim for days....

no. as stated in the previous post, I am right.

but if you say that Clinton is guilty of lying under oath, you are right as well.

different, equally legitimate definitions of the word "guilty".

 

[Alpha1]

we are talking in circles. and we are using two different - equally legitimate - definitions of the word "guilty".

the statement "OJ Simpson is not guilty of the crime of murder" is a correct statement.
The legal definition of the word, guilty is "adjudged to have committed a crime".
In that sense of the word, OJ is not guilty of the crime of murder

Yeah, I get it....
his wife's death and Goldman's death were not crimes...
his wife's death and Goldman's death were not murders....
So OJ killed them by did not commit a crime and did not commit murder...
OK, MM ...thanks for clearing that up....

If his wife death was a crime
If Goldman's death was a murder
then OJ would be guilty of the crime of murder because of the FACT he fuckin' killed them.....
Yip...thanks alot.....
you're a freekin phycho....



the statement "OJ is guilty of killing his wife and Ron Goldman" is also a correct statement.
A non-legal defintion of the word guilty is "responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable".
In that sense of the word, OJ is guilty.

77