and theyd claim it was suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

Right.. you are right. I was looking at a different document and got confused. thats my bad.

However, you are posting a link to a motion that has not been filed with the court.
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl...sideration.pdf

Thats what i'm talking about. That is just a pdf of a motion (reaL?? who knows) that has not been filed. If it hasn't been filed... then where did it come from and why is it being passed around the web?


EDIT: (i was looking at all the blank spaces on the bottom including the blank space for a case number) -http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl/Motion_Reconsideration.pdf

12 Clicks, your hat's on crooked.

Why risk her spilling beans by allowing her to be put on public trial. Would make more sense for "they" to cap her ass before anyone ever even heard of her.

Try thinking.

You raise an excellent question ManPuppy :thumbsup

A lot of you will remember when TeenCat got banned, he posted a warning on GFY that a large adult company were involved in criminal activities. The company in question had many partners and affiliates to defend them out of loyalty/belief, they were even GFY advertisers which meant that GFY were caught in an incredibly difficult situation. The result initially was that TeenCat was banned as he could not provide enough evidence. However, eventually someone bigger than TeenCat came along and made the same allegations, this time the outcome was different. Eventually 99% of GFY were in agreement, the company left GFY and TeenCat was brought back to life.

Once the belief was there and everyone knew that their traffic had been supporting criminals, tens of thousands of links were pulled. Webmasters are unlikely to be creating new blogs to support the programs that are destroying the industry. Webmasters will also know not to trust the people involved EVER again.

So, if these so-called Truthers actually turn out to be right and there is enough belief around the world, we will know who not to trust again, we will know that we can NEVER believe anything that these Media Outlets report. Even if they stay at the top the pile, we won't believe any propaganda like Swine Flu, recent events in Libya or Occupy WallStreet BS, as we will conclude that the media is actually just another branch of a criminal government. If they no longer have the ability to herd us around to wherever they want us, it will change the game! :2 cents: (though do keep in mind it could turn very nasty at that point)

my point was, people who know things end up disappearing or they make you out to be insane.

The madame linked above, had so much dirt on so many politicians... including my home state politician David Vitter (used her service to be put in diapers by women)

of course they are removed from the game.

Then "They" are awful fucking lazy to wait for her to be put on trial, be put all over the media, and convicted before "They" did away with her, no?

as i said i didnt watch the video just speaking generally about secrets vs conspiracies

i have no reason to defend her in any way, just discussing how they smear or remove you.

you could have picked a better example.

secondly, they do not kill everyone LOL

making someone look like an idiot is much easier hahaha :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

i have nothing to argue was just drive by commenting this topic isnt that interesting to be honest, just crusing by

Yeah. Agree about the whole making someone look like an idiot being easy thing.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

have no idea why they thought her mentally unfit when she claimed to have psychic powers and met bin laden (this is not disputed in this motion, but defended btw).

bahahaha

As Tony Blair sent the Britain to war in Iraq, Robin Cook was the biggest thorn in his side.

Here is Robin Cook's resignation speech




Former minister Robin Cook dies http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4127654.stm

Do we have proof that he was assassinated? No, however, once a pattern starts to emerge, once there appears to be a rule as to which people have accidents/early deaths, then we should look closer, especially when there is a motive.

And there there's the UN Weapons Inspector (Iraq)...

2003 Weapons expert Dr David Kelly had spoken to three separate journalists at the BBC about his concerns that the September dossier had been subject to "political interference", said Mr Caldecott. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3139546.stm

2003 Body 'matches' Iraq expert (David Kelly) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076801.stm

Who else is going to want to speak out knowing that they might be bumped off? People know the rules, they know the risk, only the very brave (or stupid) ones will speak out :2 cents:

Expert witnesses for the defense predictably saying she seemed normal is good enough for me.

It's just that they can spot crazy people at a distance just like I spot chicks with VD. I'm only barely ever wrong.

:2 cents:

Now you're just plain full of shit.

From the document-
To anyone interested just read the doc and draw your own conclusions.
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl...sideration.pdf

I don't have an hour of free time to listen some crazy women who's been arrested multiple times, is most likely a spy for another country, and seems to have been locked up multiple times for "evaluation" because she's insane.

Dumbass... this a motion by her attorneys in an attempt to get the court to reverse its decision that she's too mentally incompetent to stand trial.

More facts than this were heard before the court made the decision that she was. But who needs those right?

Furthermore, its highly unlikely that its real being that it hasn't been filed with the courts and there's no reason an unfiled motion for anything would be circulating the web unless it was bullshit to begin with.

Using your logic, all anyone need to do is simply respond to allegations and they're automatically not guilty of anything.

hard to debate you when you don't have even the most basic levels of reading comprehension. pointless really.

keep looking for "truth" in the ramblings of crazy women. good luck with that path.

Says the moron who refers to the document he considers fake:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Haha you're as dumb as a shithouse rat.:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

that is a good question :2 cents:

I guess that makes you the turd of a shithouse rat:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

of course that two different judges and multiple psychiatrists / psychologists found her mentally incompetent as well as multiple anecdotal reports from neighbors and co-workers means nothing except for more proof of the vastness of the conspiracy.

to be honest, for a women that might have taken a payment from an enemy during to time of war she was very very lucky how things turned out. a trial could have left her rotting in a hole for the rest of her life.

because they never mastered basic critical thinking skills, have no idea what sources are, what sources mean and how to check them.

basically self-educated types who never learned the basics of source checking and criticism. not many of them did any higher education i presume. they think just embracing the counterpoint of idea is being "critical."

Once again, if anyone is interested in reading the document which makes a good reference to the original video, don't waste your time with the trolls' posts...
just check it out for yourself-
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl...sideration.pdf



.

why don't you post the first judge's 36 page decision?

When are you gonna get it through your thick fucking skull that that document proves absolutely nothing other than this woman is batshit insane?

yes and learn they are arguing that she did meet bin laden which proves she was a government asset.

also that she has psychic powers but that is not sign she is crazy because the us government studied psychic phenomena at some point (the proof of that claim? there are google results for that search).

yes please check out this very sound legal argument.

Once again, if anyone is interested in reading the document which makes a good reference to the original video, don't waste your time with the trolls' posts...
just check it out for yourself-
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl...sideration.pdf



.

yes read it and learn how she met bin laden and has psychic powers.

:thumbsup

lol, yea. we started the war. If you believe that america created 9/11, then yea. Maybe we created the war. But since it didn't, its was the terrorists who started the war. You asshole. I drove past the buildings about 5 minutes before they were hit by the planes? Where were you? Moose hunting? Did you know anyone who was in the buildings who died? I did, Did you know police officers who were at the scene? I did. So don't go saying what Canada did. You didnt do shit. Canada does shit because the US says so. And if I am not mistaken, isnt Canada technically still partially commanded by the Queen of England?

Why can't you understand that its just a pdf. A draft of a motion that was NEVER filed with the court.

If it hasn't been filed with the court... and obviously an attorney isn't going to just let a draft of a motion intended to be filed float around the internet.. then where did it come from?

A prudent question would be: why are YOU trying to use it as proof of anything if it clearly isn't a legit document?

:2 cents:

there is no convincing conspiracy nuts.

not one shred of proof or evidence has been shown to say 9/11 was a conspiracy. Just hear-say and opinions.
did the u.s. use the disaster for their benefit? You bet, who the fuck wouldn't.

New "truther" videos come out all the time, and "non-truthers" will immediately and firmly call it bullshit. They could have bush on tape admitting to the whole thing and they'd still deny it.

At least keep an open mind about the damn thing. Something just isn't right no matter which way you look at it.

On the other hand, non-conspiracy nuts can't be convinced that conspiracies aren't all theories. At least tinfoil hats question things.

Why are you people bothering to argue with people that are so clearly disconnected from reality that nobody will ever take them seriously enough to have any impact on your life? Just let them believe what they want. It doesn't make one bit of difference.

Nobody is being mocked for questioning things. It's a good idea to question things. I myself question the official story of 9/11. At least some parts of it.

What's actually happening here is people are completely dismissing all the evidence that supports the official story and offering their own theories based on wild speculation and less than credible evidence. See the difference?

I think there is an equal need to remind ourselves that we are grounded in a reality governed by reason just as much as they have a need to convince themselves that their paranoid delusions are justified.

:2 cents:

Fair enough. :thumbsup

and who was in charge of the "official story"?

what would be the outcome if a criminal was in charge of his own investigation?

to be fair, if any resident gfy nutjob made an hour long video explaining his psychic skills and how they met bin laden I most likely wouldn't watch that either. this thread is a little embarrassing.

its simply hilarious how truthers with no critical abilities think others don't question things and they are somehow enlightened, pretty sure it's the feeling of being what they consider an enlightened being that allows them to bypass logic and be manipulated by crazy people.

An open mind is sadly what many people lack...

Once again, if anyone is interested in reading the document which makes a good reference to the original video, don't waste your time with the trolls' posts...
just check it out for yourself-
http://electionfraudnews.com/News/sl...sideration.pdf



.

Sound like my dad. :2 cents:

What exactly do you think that document proves? I am reading it, but I have to agree with those that suggest you do not know what you are looking at.

What you have is a Motion, otherwise known as a request to overturn a prior ruling that deemed the defendant as incompetent to assist in her own defense,

You have the argument in favor of the request as laid out by the defendant's attorney.

You also have a proposed order GRANTING the request. You do not have anything that suggests it was granted or the Plaintiff's argument against it, and what their side of the story was.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not it was actually filed since there is no stamp from the clerk of the court, but it may have been an e-Filing.

And you have apparently not read this thread so you do not understand what the argument is about.

Many are saying this woman is nuts, batshit crazy etc., and I am simply saying that according to testimony of doctors within that document that she is not.

So my question to you is, if you really did read the document can you see where doctors who observed her for long periods of time came to the conclusion that she was sane?

If you do not see that, then there is no point...


I am not going to re-quote those passages of testimony, they are already in this thread.


.

Because there are doctors that say she isn't mentally ill does not mean that she isn't and it is the court that makes that determination after hearing all of the testimony. In most...if not all...cases where "expert" testimony is used there are contradicting "experts"...and it is up to the court or jury...if it is a jury trial to determine which experts are correct. In this case the court decided based upon "expert" testimony that she was to mentally ill to stand trial.

I watched the video and did not have any knowledge of this woman when I watched the video and it became apparent to me that she is a nut case.