You have got to be fucking kidding me... Do you have to have above average intelligence to understand that those dingleberry's on screen are not people to take seriously? This is so bad it looks like an SNL skit mocking truthers... You have Frank Oz's brother hosting this thing in a bad hawaiian shirt, the dogs playing poker large sized painting in the background and betty whites retarded sister smiling and gaffing into a microphone.

This is what you have for us? This is what we are supposed to take seriously?

dcat... you have completely embarrassed yourself... This is some pretty shameful shit to say the least. You would have done a more convincing job if you video taped your improve group after a few drinks. Or maybe next time you should go to your local mental hospital and record what some of those guys believe what happened. Hit up some derelicts in the park in toronto! That would be great!

The truth about 9/11 is it exposes people who are completely bored of their own lives...

cia asset... fucking hell that's funny...

Those "facts" ARE the arguments of the defense refuting the allegations.

Get it?

Do you really not familiar with the court system and how it works are you?

No wonder the world is such a confusing place to you where your only explanation for extraordinary events are rooted in fantasy.

no but you have treaded on rationality and critical thinking. i do find that offensive.

No you just posted an irrelevant video of him trying to back up your bullshit case, moron.

did you not read the doc? it was not her lawyers saying she was sane, it was other doctors saying she was sane. are you saying her lawyers bought off the doctors to say something in her defense? i would call that truly delusional.

yes i read it. facepalm.jpg .....

Bradley Manning would like to know why he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life for leaking a bunch of shitty embassy cables. While this woman, who, is completely sane apparently, is allowed to walk free blowing the lid off of the biggest crime of the century.

Dude?

What "document"

Do you not see that its a motion by HER DEFENSE TEAM to have the judge reconsider her competence to stand trial?

What are you looking at?

Do you not understand that this IS NOT a document filed the court? Do you not see that its unsigned, undated, un notarized/unstamped etc etc etc? No mention of her legal counsel and who is acting on her behalf/representing her?

You have NO CLUE what you are looking at.


You are just another lunatic DESPERATELY grasping at straws.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's just a bullshit copy of something that may or may not even be real.

No moron, those are statements made by doctors and used by the defense. If those statements were not factual the very doctors would be at risk of perjury.

Now back away from the pipe:1orglaugh

this is how ordinary people get conflicted with all this bullshit... they take one piece of truth.. that being that the cia PAID MONEY and gave weapons to aid groups in Afghanistan, namely the taliban to assist them fighting the russians. They take that fact and spread it extremely thin and claim that they aided al quaeda to attack the US... that's one hell of a slippery slope.. and untrue.

also chomsky has flat out denied having any belief that the government had anything to do with the attacks, he's said it directly on video even..

You can't be at risk of perjury when you aren't testifying as a witness under oath. You certainly can't be at risk of perjury when quotes from you are being put on a fake court document to rouse a bunch of lunatics.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

no wonder you still live with your mother and believe in magic accountants.:1orglaugh

Dude,
Are you just a complete fucking idiot? Can you actually read?
Now without further haste please place your head back firmly up your ass where it belongs:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Since we're posting Chomsky vids... :)

If its filed with the court and public record... then its dated, stamped etc etc etc. Show me this document on the ney york district courts website where it was filed or in NY legal records and i'll believe you. Until then, its just a pdf that appears to be a motion that has yet to be filed or that was never filed.. or that was doctored and posted for people like you to use as "proof" since you're never going to question its legitimacy.

And thank you, as I was telling you, its a motion filed by the defense (i.e. her attorneys) to request the judge declare her competent to stand trial.

dude... if it was true, she'd be dead...

Whats the case number and what date was it filed and accepted by the court?


Oh... right.


Never mind.


It wasn't.


As far as we know its just a bullshit pdf to make people like you look like assholes because you aren't interested in facts or credible evidence.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


Heres a filed motion:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/C...on_dismiss.pdf


Notice any differences??

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

And then of course... the obvious question to anyone possessing of any semblance of reason, if this is not an actual motion that was ALREADY filed with the court... then its not a document that's on the public record.

So,... uhm... where did it come from?

:2 cents:

Once again, reading is fundamental.

Case No. 03 Cr. 807

If you want to find out when it was filed look it up, otherwise...head back up yer ass:1orglaugh

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.