SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, you have continually referred to my "junk" as being short for some odd reason. As I can assure you and others that you have never seen or felt my "junk" you have no basis for coming to that conclusion. It would appear that you are just insulting me with no basis for doing so or are trying to goad me into proving otherwise. Guess what 3rd Chair, you've backed yourself into a corner. You've proven before a group here that you have been insulting people or you're just trying to find a short dick for whatever personal reasons you have in mind. Just so you know, PPP is not a Pee Pee club where you can drum up business. Stick to ambulance chasing. I don’t think I’m alone in never having seen or handled your “junk.” Based your attitude and temperament, I’d bet it’s pretty dusty. But let’s put those points aside. After you admitted your tiny baby hands issue, and after you kept on alluding to your related issue in response to innocent, innuendo-free posts that I made, perhaps I should not have made light of your problem. For that I apologize. I will be mindful of your sensitivities about humorous comments from randos on the Internet about your anonymous Internet personality moving forward. In the spirit of reconciliation, I won’t even put you on the Snowflake List over this incident. Consider that a small peace offering on my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Yes Case of the Terrified Typist Case of the Deadly Verdict. And those were just against Mason who must have learned his courtroom tactics from Bill Belichick. I think we are dealing in real time with The Case of The Confused Chef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: OMG, you went all through that and didn't even mention that good old Dr. Ford was/is an expert in "repressed memories". How convenient for her but inconvenient for you. Let’s play nice here today. I just kept you off of the Snowflake List. We have a fragile detente, you and me, so let’s work on being civil and leave the sarcasm at the door, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I don’t think I’m alone in never having seen or handled your “junk.” Based your attitude and temperament, I’d bet it’s pretty dusty. But let’s put those points aside. After you admitted your tiny baby hands issue, and after you kept on alluding to your related issue in response to innocent, innuendo-free posts that I made, perhaps I should not have made light of your problem. For that I apologize. I will be mindful of your sensitivities about humorous comments from randos on the Internet about your anonymous Internet personality moving forward. In the spirit of reconciliation, I won’t even put you on the Snowflake List over this incident. Consider that a small peace offering on my end. Ah, the truth is now known. Simply put, you've been trolling (like real trolling for a fish) for a piece offering for your end. Forgetaboutit. I don't do that stuff and if I ever was to change my mind it wouldn't be with a schitty attorney. Edited May 28, 2020 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Ah, the truth is now known. Simply put, you've been trolling (like real trolling for a fish) for a piece offering for your end. Forgetaboutit. I don't do that stuff and if I ever was to change my mind it wouldn't be with a schitty attorney. Comments like these will destroy our detente, sir. I was aware of your penis envy. I am becoming aware of your homophobia. I think we all would be better if you would keep both of those issues to yourself. This community will be better for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Let’s play nice here today. I just kept you off of the Snowflake List. We have a fragile detente, you and me, so let’s work on being civil and leave the sarcasm at the door, sir. Here's an avatar for you: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I think we are dealing in real time with The Case of The Confused Chef. Confused?? You asked for evidence that he ever won a case and I gave you two. Where’s the confusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: It’s impressive that you spent 35 years in and around a courtroom. It doesn’t seem that you paid much attention during that time. 1. Your actual evidence point is patently wrong. Her testimony is “actual evidence.” 2. Your point about corroboration is misplaced. Typically corroboration is required only where the only evidence against a defendant is accomplice testimony. The absence of corroboration frankly is common in matters involving attempted (but unachieved) sexual assault and delayed disclosure. 3. Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading. Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility. Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents. 4. I don’t owe you or anyone else an explanation for a matter of opinion. As noted, I indicated that I watched and/or listened to the entirety of the hearings. I heard her speak. I heard him speak. I thought about Bart, Squiggy, and the crew. And I drew a conclusion accordingly. As I’m sure you’re aware given your 3.5 decades of apparently blithely sitting in a courtroom, an ultimate finder of fact doesn’t have to explain its conclusion. But I’ll give you a thumbnail sketch of factors relevant to a determination like mine: plausibility, absence of bias, imbalance of shame/humiliation versus any possible personal benefit to be gained from testimony, sound recall, and manner of testimony. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s hear about how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. The floor is yours, big boy. 1. My evidence point was spot on. I asked for actual evidence that her accusation was credible. I did not say her testimony was not evidence. It is evidence; however, the fact that it is evidence, in and of itself, has no bearing on if it is credible or not. Hence the request for what you believe made it credible. 2. Corrobating evidence is absolutely part of the process of determining whether something is provable or not, or credible or not. To say anything different is to show complete ignorance. 3. I am well aware of the fact that many assault victims do not make contemporaneous disclosures. Many of them do. It has nothing to do with the facts here. Your point shows how biased you are or how ignorant you are of the actual facts. Ford claimed to have made a contemporaneous disclosure and the person she named stated Ford never did. The absence of a contemporaneous disclosure is not, alone, a determination of whether an accusation is credible. However, when the victim claims to have made one to her best friend, her best friend denies she ever did, and her best friend says she did not believe it ever happened, then it does have some bearing on credibility. 4 (a). You really have a skewed ability to analyze behavior if you base anything on a perceived lack of bias or benefit to be gained. 4 (c). You believe it because it is plausible? Back to square one. What actual facts make it "plausible?" 4 (b). You are welcome to your opinion. I don't have a problem with you saying you believe her. Just quit trying to say there is any foundation to it other than you want to believe her. If you look at facts and the law in the courtroom like you do in this discussion, you should be disbarred. Edited May 28, 2020 by billsfan1959 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: Confused?? You asked for evidence that he ever won a case and I gave you two. Where’s the confusion? Link? Edit: Nevermind, I found those cases all by myself. Yes, you were confused, Chef. Those cases went to OT and were eventually called wins for Perry. Must have been heartbreaking for Hamilton/SectionC3. Edited May 28, 2020 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: 1. My evidence point was spot on. I asked for actual evidence that her accusation was credible. I did not say her testimony was not evidence. It is evidence; however, the fact that it is evidence, in and of itself, has no bearing on if it is credible or not. Hence the request for what you believe made it credible. 2. Corrobating evidence is absolutely part of the process of determining whether something is provable or not, or credible or not. To say anything different is to show complete ignorance. 3. I am well aware of the fact that many assault victims do not make contemporaneous disclosures. Many of them do. It has nothing to do with the facts here. Your point shows how biased you are. Ford claimed to have made a contemporaneous disclosure and the person she named stated Ford never did. The absence of a contemporaneous disclosure is not, alone, a determination of whether an accusation is credible. However, when the victim claims to have made one to her best friend, her best friend denies she ever did, and her best friend says she did not believe it ever happened, then it does have some bearing on credibility. 4 (a). You really have a skewed ability to analyze behavior if you base anything on a perceived lack of bias or benefit to be gained. 4 (c). You believe it because it is plausible? Back to square one. What actual facts make it "plausible?" 4 (b). You are welcome to your opinion. I don't have a problem with you saying you believe her. Just quit trying to say there is any foundation to it other than you want to believe her. If you look at facts and the law in the courtroom like you do in this discussion, you should be disbarred. More gibberish from you. You asked for an answer and you got it. The fact that you don’t like it is on you. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. The question on the floor is how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. I’ll take any further dodges on your part as an admission that you can’t answer the question. 9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Here's an avatar for you: You’re weakening the detente again. I could have a lot of fun with the fact that you’ve posted an image with a pretty short flagpole, but I won’t. I will respect your sensitivity. I only ask that you engage in civil discourse moving forward, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: More gibberish from you. You asked for an answer and you got it. The fact that you don’t like it is on you. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here. The question on the floor is how I’m “always wrong” on matters of law. I’ll take any further dodges on your part as an admission that you can’t answer the question. You’re weakening the detente again. I could have a lot of fun with the fact that you’ve posted an image with a pretty short flagpole, but I won’t. I will respect your sensitivity. I only ask that you engage in civil discourse moving forward, sir. This might suit you better: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: This might suit you better: Based on the text size, that’s still a short flagpole. It’s also crooked, which some people might say is unbecoming. But if it’s how you want to represent yourself, I’m not going to stand in your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Your point about contemporaneous disclosures also is misleading. Such disclosures are not essential to a finding of credibility. Moreover, as I’m sure you know based on your decades of sitting in a courtroom and apparently paying little attention to what occurred there, sexual assaults — particularly those involving minors — often are not promptly disclosed given the shame and humiliation attached to those incidents. 22 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: 3. I am well aware of the fact that many assault victims do not make contemporaneous disclosures. Many of them do. It has nothing to do with the facts here. Your point shows how biased you are or how ignorant you are of the actual facts. Ford claimed to have made a contemporaneous disclosure and the person she named stated Ford never did. The absence of a contemporaneous disclosure is not, alone, a determination of whether an accusation is credible. However, when the victim claims to have made one to her best friend, her best friend denies she ever did, and her best friend says she did not believe it ever happened, then it does have some bearing on credibility. This is classic you. Providing an analysis without having an actual grasp on the facts. Which then makes your analysis irrelevant. She stated she did make a contemporaneous disclosure and was pretty specific about it. Her best friend, the one Ford stated she made the disclosure to, stated Ford never made the disclosure and that she didn't believe Ford. If you don't actually know the facts of a case. Maybe you should refrain on offering any analyses. It would save the rest of us the time in having to point it out. Edited May 28, 2020 by billsfan1959 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Just now, billsfan1959 said: This is classic you. Providing an analysis without having an actual grasp on the facts. Which then makes your analysis irrelevant. She stated she did make a contemporaneous disclosure and was pretty specific about it. Her best friend, the one Ford stated she mad the disclosure to, stated Ford never made the disclosure and that she didn't believe Ford. If you don't actually know the facts of a case. Maybe you should refrain on offering any analyses. It would save the rest of us the time in having to point it out. Still no answer from you, big fella. Let’s put your 35 years of courtroom experience to work and get some specifics about how I’m “always wrong.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Still no answer from you, big fella. Let’s put your 35 years of courtroom experience to work and get some specifics about how I’m “always wrong.” Please explain to all of us how, with all your experience in your careful watching of Ford's testimony and the rest of the hearings, you missed such a critical fact as her statement that she made a contemporaneous disclosure to her best friend and her best friend said it never happened - and that she didn't believe Ford's accusation? Seriously. Nobody with any experience in this field at all would have missed that information in an assessment of credibility. Nobody. I certainly didn't miss it. You did miss it. My experience: 1 Your experience: 0 Don't you ever tire of being exsposed as the fraud that you are? That's a rhetorical question. Narcissistic people have little ability for introspection. Edited May 28, 2020 by billsfan1959 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: Please explain to all of us how, with all your experience in your careful watching of Ford's testimony and the rest of the hearings, you missed such a critical fact as her statement that she made a contemporaneous disclosure to her best friend and her best friend said it never happened - and that she didn't believe Ford's accusation? Seriously. Nobody with any experience in this field at all would have missed that information in an assessment of credibility. Nobody. I certainly didn't miss it. You did miss it. My experience: 1 Your experience: 0 Don't you ever tire of being exsposed as the fraud that you are? That's a rhetorical question. Narcissistic people have little ability for introspection. And yet you continue to ignore the question on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 17 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: Please explain to all of us how, with all your experience in your careful watching of Ford's testimony and the rest of the hearings, you missed such a critical fact as her statement that she made a contemporaneous disclosure to her best friend and her best friend said it never happened - and that she didn't believe Ford's accusation? Seriously. Nobody with any experience in this field at all would have missed that information in an assessment of credibility. Nobody. I certainly didn't miss it. You did miss it. My experience: 1 Your experience: 0 Don't you ever tire of being exsposed as the fraud that you are? That's a rhetorical question. Narcissistic people have little ability for introspection. Which best friend of Ford are you referring to? Does this person have a name? Or is it the woman who was downstairs at the party and, to paraphrase Ford, would not have known of what Ford characterized as her assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: And yet you continue to ignore the question on the floor. You lost the argument. You have been proven to not be able to understand the critical underlying facts of the issues of which you feel the need to constantly, and in such a condescending manner, share your opinion - and always based on your vast legal experience. Honestly, how could you have not known that she lied about making a contemporaneous disclosure? You really should never again chastize anyone for offering an opinion on legal issues: Chances are they have a greater understanding of the facts than you. Now you are just embarrasing yourself. Peace out, Hamilton Burger. Better luck on your next case 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said: You lost the argument. You have been proven to not be able to understand the critical underlying facts of the issues of which you feel the need to constantly, and in such a condescending manner, share your opinion - and always based on your vast legal experience. Honestly, how could you have not known that she lied about making a contemporaneous disclosure? You really should never again chastize anyone for offering an opinion on legal issues: Chances are they have a greater understanding of the facts than you. Now you are just embarrasing yourself. Peace out, Hamilton Burger. Better luck on your next case Bottom line: you can’t name this purported “best friend,” and you can’t tell me how I’m “always wrong.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Bottom line: you can’t name this purported “best friend,” and you can’t tell me how I’m “always wrong.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts