Current Events Tidbits Et Al

[jopoc]

yung naiinis sa pagbasura ng DOJ sa kaso ni bigtime pusher/druglord eh maige po munang intindihin...

 

nsa DOJ pa yung case at nadismiss due to poor evidence daw... isipin nsa DOJ pa yung case at wala sa Local Court

 

kung nsa local court na yung case at dahil poor evidence baka madismiss kaagad so laya na si druglord... hanapin nyo yung video ng isang Abogada para magets ninyo...

 

do not listen to the "damage control" palusot on this.

 

if the DOJ really wanted to file, on a mere basis of probable cause, they can do now even with the so-called "weak evidence"

 

on the case is in court, which drags for years and even decades, they can still strengthen their case and add more evidence.

[jopoc]

 

ano kinalaman nun sa issue? as far as i know she is still an attorney...

 

 

suspended nga lang. LOL

 

 

 

De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no.

 

 

hard evidence like drugs? may nakuha ba kahit isang gramo ng drugs kay de lima?

in a drugs case, the "hard evidence" is drugs, the corpus delicti.

[tk421]

I dont have time to answer childish questions.

 

Im asking you definition because it seems you have your own unique interpretation of it. I doubt you even know what hard evidence is supposed to be.

 

So try to answer the more relevant question: is he a drug trafficker or not?

 

Answer my question first.

 

Haha! You're arguing with me and you ask me to define "hard evidence". Learn what is "hard evidence" then get back to me.

Edited March 16, 2018 by tk421

[will robie]

I dont have time to answer childish questions.

Im asking you definition because it seems you have your own unique interpretation of it. I doubt you even know what hard evidence is supposed to be.

So try to answer the more relevant question: is he a drug trafficker or not?

It is not a childish question. I asked that to know if you are gonna believe hearsay. I will answer yours if you answer mine. Again, learn what is hard evidence and revert to me when you already have an idea of what it is. Edited March 16, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

Trying to avoid a legitimate question only raises suspicion that you don't know the answer.

 

Sino ang nagsabing hearsay yun? Confession na nga eh. Na sworn statement.

 

Drug trafficker ba si Espinosa or not? Simple question. Yes or no lang.

 

It is not a childish question. I asked that to know if you are gonna believe hearsay. I will answer yours if you answer mine. Again, learn what is hard evidence and revert to me when you already have an idea of what it is.

[will robie]

Trying to avoid a legitimate question only raises suspicion that you don't know the answer.

 

Sino ang nagsabing hearsay yun? Confession na nga eh. Na sworn statement.

 

Drug trafficker ba si Espinosa or not? Simple question. Yes or no lang.

 

Answer my question then I will answer yours. Hearsay because there is no corroborating evidence which brings us back to my question which you refuse to answer. Really? Do you have a scteenshot of his sworn statement or did you mean verbal confession? Don’t conflate the two. Magkaiba yun.

[tk421]

Answer my question then I will answer yours. Hearsay because there is no corroborating evidence which brings us back to my question which you refuse to answer. Really? Do you have a scteenshot of his sworn statement or did you mean verbal confession? Don’t conflate the two. Magkaiba yun.

 

If there's a facepalm-worthy moment, you previous few replies would be it.

 

Mukhang hindi mo talaga ma gets na ang hearing sa senate ay official statement.

 

O sya. Gusto mo hindi verbal? Eto:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/332398283/Kerwin-Espinosa-Affidavit

 

Ngayon. Pakisagot na ang tanong ko.

[will robie]

 

If there's a facepalm-worthy moment, you previous few replies would be it.

 

Mukhang hindi mo talaga ma gets na ang hearing sa senate ay official statement.

 

O sya. Gusto mo hindi verbal? Eto:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/332398283/Kerwin-Espinosa-Affidavit

Bravo! You found a sworn statement. Again, a sworn statement and a verbal confession are different. You answer my question first then I will answer yours. He can say anything he wants but as long as there is no hard evidence, it's hearsay.

[tk421]

I don’t know where you spent your life on, but in the real world, a cnfession is evidence.

 

Because if you think a confession is not even considered an evidence, then your case that de Lima is guilty just became weaker.

 

Inaantay ko pa din ang sagot mo at yun definition mo ng hard evidence...

[will robie]

So if I confessed I am Batman and I did that in a sworn statement, maniniwala ka?

[tk421]

Sworn statement ba kamo? Then I will accept that statement.

 

O, ikaw ano na sagot mo sa tanong ko? Drug trafficker ba sya o hindi?

[will robie]

Based from hearsay, he is a drug trafficker. But they did not catch him red-handed. It's easy to paint someone as a drug trafficker, a plunderer, a thief, etc. but until you catch him red-handed, then all you have are allegations.

 

Kung maniniwala ka na ako si Batman sa sworn statement, then that makes you gullible. We all know that Batman is fictional.

Edited March 17, 2018 by will robie

[darksoulriver]

suspended nga lang. LOL

 

 

suspended doesn't mean your opinion on the issue is not relevant..

[will robie]

Robie, you made a sworn statement.

 

Sworn statement ang ginawa mo. Process na tinatanggap ng mga sangay ng gobyerno. Will that make him gullible? Hindi, nag sworn statement ka eh. Sa ginawa mo na yan, in question na ngayon ang katinuan ng utak mo. At kung matino ka naman sa pag iisip. Hindi ba perjury un? Once you made a sworn statement, it is expected na nagsasabi ka ng totoo di ba? Kung sinadya mo na magsinungaling. Kamalian mo yon.

I am talking in the context of my making a sworn statement that I am Batman. Everyone knows that Batman is fictional. You really should understand what you are quoting before quoting. The poster formerly called StrawKaPwe has resorted to another pathetic ad hominem. You really can't debunk what I said intelligently and have to resort to an idiotic ad hominem.

Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

I am talking in the context of my making a sworn statement that I am Batman. Everyone knows that Batman is fictional. You really should understand what you are quoting before quoting. The poster formerly called StrawKaPwe has resorted to another pathetic ad hominem. You really can't debunk what I said intelligently and have to resort to an idiotic ad hominem.

 

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

 

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

 

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

[tk421]

Based from hearsay, he is a drug trafficker. But they did not catch him red-handed. It's easy to paint someone as a drug trafficker, a plunderer, a thief, etc. but until you catch him red-handed, then all you have are allegations.

 

Kung maniniwala ka na ako si Batman sa sworn statement, then that makes you gullible. We all know that Batman is fictional.

 

So using that logic kay de Lima. Ano ang ‘red-handed’ eveidence against her na hindi ‘hearsay’? Hindi ba lahat ng charges sa kanya, based on your interpretation of evidences, ay allegations lang?

 

You see, by defending Espinosa’s case, you’re actually losing your case against de Lima.

[rooster69ph]

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

then ano ang credibility niya sa mga pinagsasabi niya laban kay de lima?

[will robie]

I disagree. It’s not an ad hominem attack. You said it as a sworn statement nga eh. And he’s right. He was responding to your hypothetical situation that you swore that you were batman.

I will have to repeat what I said. Understand what is quoted before you quote. If you really understood what I posted, I highlighted the statement in bold.

[tk421]

then ano ang credibility niya sa mga pinagsasabi niya laban kay de lima?

Yun nga ang sinasabi ko sa kanya at ewan ko bakit pinagpipilitan nyang i defend na hindi totoong drug trafficker si Espinosa. By saying he can lie under oath, ibig sabihin lahat ng bintang nya kay de Lima ay mapapa walang bisa.

 

Tapos hard evidence daw yun laban kay de Lima eh eto sinisira nya mismo ang isa sa evidence. Ano ngayon yan? Soft evidence na lang ba? LOL.

[will robie]

For all intents and purposes, what you said was the truth, if said in as a sworn statement. If you happened to lie while saying that, in that context, then he is also right - you are guilty of perjury. And one’s state of mind will be put into question by the authorities.

I was quoting in the context of making a sworn statement that I am Batman. I asked a question and you said that if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman, you will accept it when it is a well-known fact that Batman is a work of fiction. Whether I committed perjury or not when I make a sworn statement that I am Batman is irrelevant. I was asking you a question and you said you would accept that sworn statement that I am Batman even if it is a known fact that Batman is a fictional character. Focus on the question and not on what would happen after because that was just an example. I was testing your gullibility.

If everybody happens to be lying while under oath, what is its purpose for? Ano yan? Gaguhan lang?

Hasn't anyone lied under oath?

Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie

[tk421]

I will have to repeat what I said. Understand what is quoted before you quote. If you really understood what I posted, I highlighted the statement in bold.

 

No, you should understand what you posted first, before coming back to us.

 

He said that statement in response to your hypotheitical situation.

 

How many times do we really have to hammer that detail in before you get it?

[tk421]

I was quoting in the context of me making a sworn statement that I am Batman. I asked a question and you said that if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman, you will accept it when it is a well-known fact that Batman is a work of fiction. Whether I committed perjury or not when I make a sworn statement that I am Batman is irrelevant. I was asking you a question and you said you would accept that sworn statement that I am Batman even if it is a known fact that Batman is a fictional character. Focus on the question and not on what would happen after because that was just an example. I was testing your gullibility.

 

Hasn't anyone lied under oath?

 

LOL. You really didn’t get it, did you? I said I accepted it. Did I say I believed you were referring to Batman as the DC Comics fictional character and you were the same? Pwede naman isa sa alyas mo yun sa drug-running operation mo, diba? (Hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Anyways even if you were referring to DC Comics Batman, your statement will still be accepted. Then you will be sued for perjury. Then all your previous statements will be invalidated. You see, if you lie, there are repercussions. When you lie in a sworn statement, then that is a serious crime. You’re essentially usurping the court’s powers.

[rooster69ph]

Yun nga ang sinasabi ko sa kanya at ewan ko bakit pinagpipilitan nyang i defend na hindi totoong drug trafficker si Espinosa. By saying he can lie under oath, ibig sabihin lahat ng bintang nya kay de Lima ay mapapa walang bisa.

Tapos hard evidence daw yun laban kay de Lima eh eto sinisira nya mismo ang isa sa evidence. Ano ngayon yan? Soft evidence na lang ba? LOL.

remember pamahalaan mismo ang nagpahuli sa kanya dahil suspected drug lord siya. doj din ang nag consider na maging witness ito against de lima ... possible state witness pa nga daw.

 

kung hindi daw siya drug trafficker despite the sworn statement admitting he is then ano na ngayon ang basehan ng sinasabing direct knowledge niya sa mga activities ni de lima. #basag

[will robie]

No, you should understand what you posted first, before coming back to us.

 

He said that statement in response to your hypotheitical situation.

 

How many times do we really have to hammer that detail in before you get it?

Speak for yourself. Again, understand the context of what I am posting before quoting it.

[will robie]

LOL. You really didn’t get it, did you? I said I accepted it. Did I say I believed you were referring to Batman as the DC Comics fictional character and you were the same? Pwede naman isa sa alyas mo yun sa drug-running operation mo, diba? (Hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

Anyways even if you were referring to DC Comics Batman, your statement will still be accepted. Then you will be sued for perjury. Then all your previous statements will be invalidated. You see, if you lie, there are repercussions. When you lie in a sworn statement, then that is a serious crime. You’re essentially usurping the court’s powers.

Accepting it is tantamount to believing it. Haha! I simply asked you if you would believe a sworn statement I made that I am Batman. Focus on the question. Kung san san napupunta yung post mo. My question is simple to understand.

 

Did you read what I just said? Whether I would be sued for perjury after I made that statement is irrelevant because I just made an example. You said you will accept it if I made a sworn statement that I am Batman which is, again, tantamount to believing it. Focus and understand the question.

Ad hominem? Understand the context of your statement? Bago ka magpost ng kung ano man dito sa forum eh dapat pinag isipan mo. Ngayong sinagot ang sinasabi mo eh babanat ka ng ganyan. JC ish that you? Dapat siguro inayos mo muna ang statement mo bago ka bumanat. Halata naman sa porma ng pagkakagawa mo ng statement eh hinuhuli mo lang si tk. Ngayong nag backfire sa mukha mo ang sinasabi mo mangangagat ka. Lol

I wonder how my post backfired on me when the posted I am debating with just said he accepts that I am Batman if I made it in a sworn statement. Another nonsensical post that does not discredit what I said. Nakikisawsaw na naman hindi pala maintindihan ang pinost ko. Haha! Don't you know what an ad hominem is? Get back to me when you know what it is. An example of an ad hominem is the highlighted post I made I bold. Are you the lawyer of tk? The last time I checked, testing someone's gullibility is not against this forum's rules. This is obviously a trolling post which is not connected to what I said.

 

Your initial post did not discredit what I said and neither did this nonsensical post. Understand what I posted before quoting it.

Edited March 18, 2018 by will robie