Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Sladek who wrote (1115)	12/21/2004 11:37:02 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 5425

Slaydick, your posts are repetitive and basically immaterial to the discussion. As I have posted, you seem to think you are an expert on many topics. Whether it be politically blasting the US or your attempt to profess an understanding of the US jurisprudence or even investment related, you constantly prove that a little knowledge is dangerous. I love this statement. The jury ALWAYS has the right to overrule the judge on law, and they RARELY use it. Sounds like the imaginary friend you must have. The OJ jury did what it felt like doing. It is rare and it isn't going to happen in a complicated SEC and extortion case. Get it out of your head and leave room for the equations you must have learned. Do you know to stay on topic? That's what we have been posting about. Nobody is interested in your foolish thoughts on jurisprudence. You need to realize that juries find facts, they deal with a determination of reality. You can continue to deal with your imaginary friend and the system of jurisprudence in your head. As I suggested to you previously, you need to go to the Nation of DOM, about which others have posted so that you can make up your own system of laws. I am sure that people are sick and tired of listening to us fighting. And I think that it is really quite pointless to continue to argue with you, since you are irrational, unreasonable, and completely incapable of learing a singled thing! I agree that others must be sick and tired of this. So why do you keep posting the same ignorant blather? It is immaterial to the discussion of the trial. The jury is not going to find him innocent because Anthony is a nice guy who fought scams. They are going to determine innocence or guilt based on the judge's instructions. I don't know about "learing a singled thing" (whatever that means) but you have no concept of the judicial system and how it works.