If Kav was innocent he would want FBI investigation

Stretch said:
We're using FloridaFan's new rule................YOU have to prove it's false first. LOL!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry thats not how it works, the one making the affirmative claim, if its questioned, has to provide a basis. Do what you want, its your creditability.
 
Jarod said:
Sorry thats not how it works, the one making the affirmative claim, if its questioned, has to provide a basis. Do what you want, its your creditability.
Click to expand...

Exactly.............try telling that to FF!
The accuser must go first. SHE has to provide her claims first.
 
Stretch said:
Exactly.............try telling that to FF!
The accuser must go first. SHE has to provide her claims first.
Click to expand...

Looks like she has a lot of bargaining power in this, she can do what she wants as long as its legal.
 
"So in any court of law that you have been in, name a time when a defendant goes first. Can you name one time?" TD #193
Click to expand...
Even if you have a valid point here, if your intended point is that Kav should be vetted first, and then his accuser should be heard, that's absurd.

Our Supreme Court is a powerful law interpreting, and law making body. It is not a legislature. But in some cases it might as well be, the way Stare Decisis is applied in the U.S.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;... Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803)

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."

Hertado v. California, 110 US 516.
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Click to expand...
These are legal standards. But these and others do not emanate directly from a legislature.

Instead they were established as the correct legal interpretation in a court of law.
In what way would it be considered prudent to refuse to review the best available evidence?
 
Teflon Don said:
So in any court of law that you have been in, name a time when a defendant goes first. Can you name one time?
Click to expand...

This isn't a court of law, and you're the one who doesn't want an investigation by the FBI.

So that just leaves you as one stupid motherfucker who is tying himself to rapists, creeps, abusers, and perverts.

Have fun with that guilt-by-association, rapist.
 
LV426 said:
This isn't a court of law, and you're the one who doesn't want an investigation by the FBI.

So that just leaves you as one stupid motherfucker who is tying himself to rapists, creeps, abusers, and perverts.

Have fun with that guilt-by-association, rapist.
Click to expand...

An investigation that the FBI has already said there's no evidence for them to conduct an investigation; but you want them to go on "fishing" expedition in the hopes they can find something / anything. :palm:
 
LV426 said:
This isn't a court of law, and you're the one who doesn't want an investigation by the FBI.

So that just leaves you as one stupid motherfucker who is tying himself to rapists, creeps, abusers, and perverts.

Have fun with that guilt-by-association, rapist.
Click to expand...
From the one who tells people to kill themselves...*‘glad you're here and not out endangering the public;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top