On 4/11/12 8:42 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:34 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily
railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



If he's smart he'll hire Jose Bias the miracle worker.

Who do you think is gonna' want to represent him, with a US Justice Dept
sanctioned hit against Zimmerman out there? Remember, Zimmerman is
wanted dead or alive and the most racist administration in history, is
right there fanning the flames...


Are you kidding? Criminal defense lawyers love to take on the
government, federal, state, or local. Perhaps in your world of people of
no accomplishment fear of the government is standard operating
procedure. No criminal attorney worth his or her salt is intimidated by
the Justice Department. And the Justice Department did not sanction a
"hit " on Zimmerman.

You're an ignorant, easily misled, psychotic asshole. Really. Get help.

On 4/11/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article9770907.306.1334087405635.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynbv32, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:49:00 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:33:55 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:17:34 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 4/10/2012 8:37 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

His lawyers want to be paid?

If it were a wash, why would he need lawyers? Also, if a civil suit
arises, and the people who sued him lost, they'd have to pay his costs.

Having to go to court, whether you are guilty as sin or completely
innocent, is NEVER a wash.

Sure it is. Notice, I specifically stated civil cases in with this.

You also said, "...if a civil suit arises, and the people who sued him
lost, they'd have to pay his costs..." There is no guarantee
whatsoever, that the prevailing party will recover all or ANY of their
defense costs.

This really belongs in another thread, but I believe if it WERE true,
there would be a LOT less frivolous litigation.

Absolutely. Also, even when innocent and spending large amounts of money on your defense, there's still no guarantee that the verdict will come back in your favor. McDonald's coffee.

Especially after his lawyers quit because of his stupidness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...yers-withdraw-
trayvon-martin-case/2012/04/10/gIQA09XG9S_story.html



Sure they did... snerk had nothing to do with the fact that anybody
involved will be hunted the rest of their lives... LOL!

On 4/11/12 8:55 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/11/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article9770907.306.1334087405635.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynbv32, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:49:00 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:33:55 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:17:34 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 4/10/2012 8:37 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully
working
over, according to FOX?

His lawyers want to be paid?

If it were a wash, why would he need lawyers? Also, if a civil suit
arises, and the people who sued him lost, they'd have to pay his
costs.

Having to go to court, whether you are guilty as sin or completely
innocent, is NEVER a wash.

Sure it is. Notice, I specifically stated civil cases in with this.

You also said, "...if a civil suit arises, and the people who sued him
lost, they'd have to pay his costs..." There is no guarantee
whatsoever, that the prevailing party will recover all or ANY of their
defense costs.

This really belongs in another thread, but I believe if it WERE true,
there would be a LOT less frivolous litigation.

Absolutely. Also, even when innocent and spending large amounts of
money on your defense, there's still no guarantee that the verdict
will come back in your favor. McDonald's coffee.

Especially after his lawyers quit because of his stupidness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...yers-withdraw-
trayvon-martin-case/2012/04/10/gIQA09XG9S_story.html



Sure they did... snerk had nothing to do with the fact that anybody
involved will be hunted the rest of their lives... LOL!


You sure live in a strange little world, little toad man.

On 4/11/2012 8:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



His lawyers just walked away tonight. I guess they got the message from
Holder and the Injustice dept not going after the new black panther
terrorists, and they don't want to live the rest of their lives like
Zimmerman and his parents are gonna' have to, on the run...

That's just plain stupid.

Yup, that's what you guys do when caught lying...snerk

On 4/11 And the Justice Department did not sanction a
"hit " on Zimmerman.


Prove it.

In article , says...

On 4/11/2012 8:34 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily
railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



If he's smart he'll hire Jose Bias the miracle worker.

Who do you think is gonna' want to represent him, with a US Justice Dept
sanctioned hit against Zimmerman out there? Remember, Zimmerman is
wanted dead or alive and the most racist administration in history, is
right there fanning the flames...

I'm guessing you have some evidence that the Justice Dept. has a
"sanctioned hit against Zimmerman" right? Could you please post that?
Now, I'm not talking about IF it is found to be a hate crime, that's
different, they then would and should be involved. I'm going to guess
that you can't post any evidence of your above bull****, right?

In article , says...

On 4/11/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article9770907.306.1334087405635.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynbv32, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:49:00 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:33:55 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:17:34 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 4/10/2012 8:37 AM, iBoaterer wrote:

Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

His lawyers want to be paid?

If it were a wash, why would he need lawyers? Also, if a civil suit
arises, and the people who sued him lost, they'd have to pay his costs.

Having to go to court, whether you are guilty as sin or completely
innocent, is NEVER a wash.

Sure it is. Notice, I specifically stated civil cases in with this.

You also said, "...if a civil suit arises, and the people who sued him
lost, they'd have to pay his costs..." There is no guarantee
whatsoever, that the prevailing party will recover all or ANY of their
defense costs.

This really belongs in another thread, but I believe if it WERE true,
there would be a LOT less frivolous litigation.

Absolutely. Also, even when innocent and spending large amounts of money on your defense, there's still no guarantee that the verdict will come back in your favor. McDonald's coffee.

Especially after his lawyers quit because of his stupidness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...yers-withdraw-
trayvon-martin-case/2012/04/10/gIQA09XG9S_story.html



Sure they did... snerk had nothing to do with the fact that anybody
involved will be hunted the rest of their lives... LOL!

Uh, did you even read the reasons why they quit?

In article , says...

On 4/11/2012 8:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



His lawyers just walked away tonight. I guess they got the message from
Holder and the Injustice dept not going after the new black panther
terrorists, and they don't want to live the rest of their lives like
Zimmerman and his parents are gonna' have to, on the run...

That's just plain stupid.

Yup, that's what you guys do when caught lying...snerk

Well then show us some cites for your wild allegations.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:42:12 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 4/11/2012 8:34 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily
railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



If he's smart he'll hire Jose Bias the miracle worker.

Who do you think is gonna' want to represent him, with a US Justice Dept
sanctioned hit against Zimmerman out there? Remember, Zimmerman is
wanted dead or alive and the most racist administration in history, is
right there fanning the flames...

"US Justice Dept sanctioned hit" makes you look insane or stupid.

Is Holder a member of the Black Panther Party too?

On 4/11/12 1:11 PM, jps wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:42:12 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/11/2012 8:34 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 4/10/2012 9:33 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2012 8:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article4814189.1595.1334069143835.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynuu20, says...

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:37:53 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
Start a website for the sole purpose of raising money for his
defense if
he is indeed the innocent person that the media is wrongfully working
over, according to FOX?

So last week your stance was that an innocent person should defend
themselves vigorously in the face of an attack.

Yes, I did.

Now you say if a person is indeed innocent, they shouldn't defend
themselves?

No, I never said that.

You are very confused. Or a flip-flopper.

No, because I never said that.

In any case, of course he's entitled to a defense. Even the guilty
are in our courts. Unless you believe he should be summarily
railroaded.

Ever hear of a public defender?

You don't get one until you are charged.



If he's smart he'll hire Jose Bias the miracle worker.

Who do you think is gonna' want to represent him, with a US Justice Dept
sanctioned hit against Zimmerman out there? Remember, Zimmerman is
wanted dead or alive and the most racist administration in history, is
right there fanning the flames...

"US Justice Dept sanctioned hit" makes you look insane or stupid.



He *is* both insane and stupid.