To U.S. lawyers: Will this work?

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read

Re: To U.S. lawyers: Will this work?

Postby brianv on October 3rd, 2015, 4:40 am

I was hoping for something a little more exciting than "the cable-guy"! How does one convene an International Grand Jury of Laymen and Women to look the evidence? We know who the slime involved are - those men and women working for the US Gov and US Media and a whole slew of sycophants. Where the "Buick" stops in an upwards direction is what I'm interested in.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3914
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: To U.S. lawyers: Will this work?

Postby simonshack on October 3rd, 2015, 10:10 am

SacredCowSlayer,

Thanks for your thoughtful professional input and your no-nonsense attitude in this thread which I consider an important one - were it only to uphold a constructive flow of ideas towards breaking the seemingly 'infrangible judicial stalemate' surrounding the 9/11 scam.


brianv wrote:I was hoping for something a little more exciting than "the cable-guy"! How does one convene an International Grand Jury of Laymen and Women to look the evidence? We know who the slime involved are - those men and women working for the US Gov and US Media and a whole slew of sycophants. Where the "Buick" stops in an upwards direction is what I'm interested in.

Brian,

Just who would you consider as 'exciting guys' to go after - in an upwards direction? If you're not going to name any names - and just say that "we know who the slime involved are'", I can't see how this could help us making any progress. "Men and women working for the US Gov and US Media?" Sure. And yes, there's a whole slew of sycophants too - I can think of a good few and will soon compile a list of those whom we have diligently singled out on this forum over the years - on the basis of our best 9/11 investigations. In the meanwhile, please make an effort and try to contribute with more useful / thoughtful / constructive comments, thanks.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: To U.S. lawyers: Will this work?

Postby brianv on October 3rd, 2015, 1:18 pm

simonshack wrote:SacredCowSlayer,

Thanks for your thoughtful professional input and your no-nonsense attitude in this thread which I consider an important one - were it only to uphold a constructive flow of ideas towards breaking the seemingly 'infrangible judicial stalemate' surrounding the 9/11 scam.


brianv wrote:I was hoping for something a little more exciting than "the cable-guy"! How does one convene an International Grand Jury of Laymen and Women to look the evidence? We know who the slime involved are - those men and women working for the US Gov and US Media and a whole slew of sycophants. Where the "Buick" stops in an upwards direction is what I'm interested in.

Brian,

Just who would you consider as 'exciting guys' to go after - in an upwards direction? If you're not going to name any names - and just say that "we know who the slime involved are'", I can't see how this could help us making any progress. "Men and women working for the US Gov and US Media?" Sure. And yes, there's a whole slew of sycophants too - I can think of a good few and will soon compile a list of those whom we have diligently singled out on this forum over the years - on the basis of our best 9/11 investigations. In the meanwhile, please make an effort and try to contribute with more useful / thoughtful / constructive comments, thanks.


Like your post Simon? I don't like to trample over other's "territory" especially where I'm not qualified, that's why I kept it short and sweet. But yes let's compile that list, looking forward to it.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3914
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby brianv on October 3rd, 2015, 2:26 pm

SacredCowSlayer wrote:Fbenario,

I tried to respond to your message but it said your settings didn't allow for PM?

You asked me about how I teach my daughter to deal with 911 in class, and the flak she would undoubtedly get for speaking up.

The response I tried to PM is as follows:

That is an excellent question, and I swear I'm not dodging it. My kids are homeschooled, and my wife is well aware of fakery, so it's not an issue.

But we have taught our kids that the vast majority of people simply believe what the people on TV say. We have had numerous discussions as parents and with the kids about how to tell if it is the appropriate person, place, and time to discuss media fakery/deception.

It's not always easy, so we generally only bring it up if we think the person is 1. paying attention to the news 2. being manipulated by it, and 3. is open to hearing about fakery. In other words, we don't want to cast pearls before swine.

I am pleased to report that we have had a number of friends and family wake up to the deception. We are just real careful how we bring it up and how we go about it.

As a father I really do appreciate that question. I'll be glad to expound further if you like.
Also please let me know how I can either email or PM you.


What are the "legalities" behind an "Injured Party"? Could not every man and woman in the worlds claim that position in regard to "9/11"? Oh and please excuse my paltry and less than erudite comments on the other thread. :rolleyes:

******************************
viewtopic.php?f=27&p=2396779#p2396779

Only a lie would need man-made statutes to support it! Meanwhile, it's not "illegal" for a clown in the Vatican to say that the millions of dead, excuse the term, "Indians", at the hands of "Catholic Butchers" in the "Americas",
were asking for it,
by their refusal to accept "Jesus". :wacko:
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3914
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: To U.S. lawyers: Will this work?

Postby hoi.polloi on October 3rd, 2015, 6:24 pm

brianv wrote:I was hoping for something a little more exciting than "the cable-guy"! How does one convene an International Grand Jury of Laymen and Women to look the evidence? We know who the slime involved are - those men and women working for the US Gov and US Media and a whole slew of sycophants. Where the "Buick" stops in an upwards direction is what I'm interested in.


When I was searching "Ralph E Eberhart" and other likely perps in the NNDB (http://www.nndb.com) I made some pretty interesting webs very quickly. The missing connections that cannot be found on that site directly can be found elsewhere or assumed based on other research, such as lists of those attending meetings of various institutions leading up to 9/11. They don't exactly hide their closeness. I guess a lot of their nonsense is discussed in private homes, on golf courses, in fraternity lodges ... confirmed through knowing code in meetings that are more public. At the end of The Vicsim Report, I compiled a list of the companies involved in the 9/11 vicsims. CEOs of each company before, during and after 9/11 will produce good leads, I guarantee it. It won't be the final answer or separate the big wigs exactly, but it is a narrower pool that anyone can start with.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4848
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby SacredCowSlayer on October 3rd, 2015, 6:41 pm

brianv wrote:
What are the "legalities" behind an "Injured Party"? Could not every man and woman in the worlds claim that position in regard to "9/11"? Oh and please excuse my paltry and less than erudite comments on the other thread.


Good question about injured parties. I will briefly mention the ones I have looked into as possible ways to get a foot in the door litigation wise.

There is a recognized tort action in all states (note that each state may vary somewhat) called Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and in some states there is even Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (not in Texas). The circumstances where a person can prevail under those theories are relatively narrow, and in the case of 9/11 there would be a statute of limitations problem even if one could overcome immunity claims (amongst others).

Fraud is an interesting route I could see being used in the future for when someone donates money to a vicsim memorial fund. I thought this might be tried in the Sandy Hook case.

All that said, I have almost zero confidence in any institutional legal process to actually uncover the truth of any of these events. That much became clear to me as I watched the "legal system" at work in the Boston Bombing and Aurora hoaxes.

Those events were pretty obvious to me, and yet the players in each court system dutifully played the whole thing out according to script. That was eye opening for me as I would not have thought they would go through the trouble to stage an event that led to a trial. I obviously know better now.

Notice the "defense" in both cases just readily admitted their client was guilty. As a defense attorney I can say that any legitimate lawyer in either of those situations (in the real world) would have had a TON to work with in presenting a defense. But of course those weren't real trials.

I never just come out and say my client is guilty unless I'm doing what is called an open plea to either the judge or jury. But now I'm off track.

Oh yea no sweat about the other thread. The "cable guy" remark actually made me laugh. It reminded me of times in court where I just shrug and say "I'm not sure what you want from me."
By the way I've read through a lot of threads on here and I've seen a lot of your posts. Frankly I like how you deal with shills and trolls. I'm new, but not either one of those things. I think we will get along splendidly. :D
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Previous

Return to HOW TO REGISTER at CLUESFORUM - and other tips

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest