Apo Marcos : Facts And Myths

[farren21]

 

Marami kang wrong presumptions kaya sablay ang arguments mo.

 

First I do not claim that the Marcoses amassed their wealth legally and legitimately. Powerful people become wealthy. I don't really care to know how they managed to be.

 

What I claim is that the PCGG could not prove that the alleged ill-gotten properties they sequestered are owned by the Marcoses.

 

Second, where did I say that land value goes to zero? I even said "lote na lang ang may value" when I referred to the BASECO property.

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

 

"Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, used to be a showcase for our Heavy Industry and Shipbuilding. The facilities has since decayed due to disuse. Lote na lang ang may value.

Palace in the Sky used to be a prime residential property. It could have been converted into a 5-star resort hotel. Nakita mo na ba itsura nito ngayon? Nanlilimahid.

 

Have you seen those properties with your own eyes? I have.

 

Halos lahat bulok na. Pero ang declared value, as if brand new pa ang mga facilities.

 

Kung makikita mo yang mga yan, manghihinayang ka talaga sa mga nabubulok na building and equipment."

 

 

Tanggol pa more

 

[will robie]

Hay nako will, ilang beses nang sinagot yung mga tanong mo.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions.

 

 

 

Yes, enforced. Swiss bank turned it over to PNB. This is public knowledge. There are news reports on this.

PNB and then? Hangang sa PNB ka na lang. After PNB, you are clueless as to where the money went.

 

 

 

The amount indicated in the case I cited was $658M. The actual amount held in escrow in PNB was $683M. Current value is Php36.199B.

So where did it go? I have waited for more than a week for an answer but, so far, my wait is in vain. If you are clueless as to where the money went other than repeat that it is in PNB, I won't take it against you.

Edited August 31, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

Again, you can go to PCGG and HRVCB and check their records. It's there for anyone to sit through, if they really want to see the relevant documents.

 

Tell you what. I can ask a few friends if the HRVCB is willing to accommodate us on a weekend and we can check the records together. That way if I'm wrong you can say it to my face, and I will openly admit it here. What Saturday are you free this September?

Why would I? You challenged my post, you prove it. You go there yourself and post it here. Only then will I give you credence.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

Marami kang wrong presumptions kaya sablay ang arguments mo.

 

First I do not claim that the Marcoses amassed their wealth legally and legitimately. Powerful people become wealthy. I don't really care to know how they managed to be.

 

What I claim is that the PCGG could not prove that the alleged ill-gotten properties they sequestered are owned by the Marcoses.

 

Second, where did I say that land value goes to zero? I even said "lote na lang ang may value" when I referred to the BASECO property.

 

Here's what I wrote:

 

 

"Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, used to be a showcase for our Heavy Industry and Shipbuilding. The facilities has since decayed due to disuse. Lote na lang ang may value.

Palace in the Sky used to be a prime residential property. It could have been converted into a 5-star resort hotel. Nakita mo na ba itsura nito ngayon? Nanlilimahid.

 

Have you seen those properties with your own eyes? I have.

 

Halos lahat bulok na. Pero ang declared value, as if brand new pa ang mga facilities.

 

Kung makikita mo yang mga yan, manghihinayang ka talaga sa mga nabubulok na building and equipment."

 

 

 

 

 

The "big fat ZERO" was in one of your own tweets you quoted, so

 

So you don't deny that the Marcoses amassed wealth illegally. You just don't want to commit to a position because you know that you cannot prove it. Gotcha.

 

You haven't answered any of my questions.

 

 

PNB and then? Hangang sa PNB ka na lang. After PNB, you are clueless as to where the money went.

 

 

So where did it go? I have waited for more than a week for an answer but, so far, my wait is in vain. If you are clueless as to where the money went other than repeat that it is in PNB, I won't take it against you.

 

? Sa human rights violations claimants napunta yun. Hindi ka talaga nagbabasa.

 

Why would I? You challenged my post, you prove it. You go there yourself and post it here. Only then will I give you credence.

 

So ayaw mo magpakita in person at tanungin ang PCGG at HRVCB? LOL okay. Confirmed, hindi ka seryosong naghahanap ng patunay, at ayaw mong makilala bilang pro-Marcos.

 

Linawin lang natin: wala akong obligasyon na patunayan na ginampanan ng mga bangko, ng PCGG, ng HRVCB and kanilang tungkulin na sundin ang utos ng korte at ipatupad ang batas. Ang tawag diyan, "presumption of regularity."

 

Kung ang allegation mo ay hindi nila ginawa yun, na sa iba napunta ang pera, IKAW ang dapat magpatunay ng paratang mo.

 

so, ito na ang ba talaga ang kaya niyo? Ilang pages na mula noong nagtanong ako kung may patunay kayo na legal ang yaman ng mga Marcos, nganga pa rin kayo.

 

 

[camiar]

 

The "big fat ZERO" was in one of your own tweets you quoted, so

 

So you don't deny that the Marcoses amassed wealth illegally. You just don't want to commit to a position because you know that you cannot prove it. Gotcha.

 

 

So what kung big fat zero ang basis mo? You're grasping at straws, taking idiomatic expressions literally.

 

Actually, US$10,000 million claim vs "recovered wealth" of US$ 570 million is a big fat zero. Testimony of PCGG's ineptitude, failing to prove their trumped up claims.

 

What is there to for me deny that the Marcoses obtained their wealth illegally or not? For all we know, they got it all legally, considering the PCGG is now in hot water for failure to prove the ownership of the properties they linked to the Marcoses.

Edited September 3, 2018 by camiar

[jc44 - RETIRED]

So what kung big fat zero ang basis mo? You're grasping at straws, taking idiomatic expressions literally.

 

Actually, US$10,000 million claim vs "recovered wealth" of US$ 570 million is a big fat zero. Testimony of PCGG's ineptitude, failing to prove their trumped up claims.

 

What is there to for me deny that the Marcoses obtained their wealth illegally or not? For all we know, they got it all legally, considering the PCGG is now in hot water for failure to prove the ownership of the properties they linked to the Marcoses.

"Big fat zero" is not an idiomatic expression, it is a hyperbole. And it means "zero." Don't use language if you don't know how to use it.

 

USD10B isn't an empty claim. It is an estimate made by Transparency International. See p.13 of their 2004 report: https://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/2004_gcr_politicalcorruption_en?e=2496456/2106435

 

"Testimony of ineptitude" is harsh, though your assessment isn't original. The fact is that a simple case of estafa takes years to resolve in regular courts, under even the best of circumstances. Ill-gotten wealth recovery cases are highly technical and complex, without considering dilatory tactics that are normal in litigation. Time was never on the side of the PCGG.

 

So you'll neither confirm nor deny that the Marcoses amassed wealth illegally, but you'll postulate that they earned it legally because of PCGG's lack of success in the courts? LOL come on. Let me quote your own sig:

"...So,takot ka palang mabara!

Kaya ayaw mong aminin ang paninindigan mo, para walang babarahin sayo. No intellectual balls. Walang bayag ang utak mo. Manindigan ka..."

So if court findings are your bases, what do you make of GR 152154?

[camiar]

"Big fat zero" is not an idiomatic expression, it is a hyperbole. And it means "zero." Don't use language if you don't know how to use it.

 

USD10B isn't an empty claim. It is an estimate made by Transparency International. See p.13 of their 2004 report: https://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/2004_gcr_politicalcorruption_en?e=2496456/2106435

 

"Testimony of ineptitude" is harsh, though your assessment isn't original. The fact is that a simple case of estafa takes years to resolve in regular courts, under even the best of circumstances. Ill-gotten wealth recovery cases are highly technical and complex, without considering dilatory tactics that are normal in litigation. Time was never on the side of the PCGG.

 

So you'll neither confirm nor deny that the Marcoses amassed wealth illegally, but you'll postulate that they earned it legally because of PCGG's lack of success in the courts? LOL come on.

So its a hyperbole. My bad. Still you interpreted it literally. Grasping at straws.

 

So what if it is Transparency International's estimate? Would that make it truer? They base it on gossips and claims made by political opposition against leaders of countries who do not toe the Western Powers' line. Ever wonder why they themselves cannot bring it to court? And if in rare cases that somebody else does file a case, they can't prove the claims. For starters, take the puny US$ 570 Million vs claim of US 10 Billion.

 

So what's the use of claiming they got their wealth legally? Your inept PCGG cannot prove that Marcos owned the wealth in the first place.

Edited September 3, 2018 by camiar

[juan t]

"Big fat zero" is not an idiomatic expression, it is a hyperbole. And it means "zero." Don't use language if you don't know how to use it.

 

USD10B isn't an empty claim. It is an estimate made by Transparency International. See p.13 of their 2004 report: https://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/2004_gcr_politicalcorruption_en?e=2496456/2106435

 

"Testimony of ineptitude" is harsh, though your assessment isn't original. The fact is that a simple case of estafa takes years to resolve in regular courts, under even the best of circumstances. Ill-gotten wealth recovery cases are highly technical and complex, without considering dilatory tactics that are normal in litigation. Time was never on the side of the PCGG.

 

So you'll neither confirm nor deny that the Marcoses amassed wealth illegally, but you'll postulate that they earned it legally because of PCGG's lack of success in the courts? LOL come on. Let me quote your own sig:

"...So,takot ka palang mabara!

Kaya ayaw mong aminin ang paninindigan mo, para walang babarahin sayo. No intellectual balls. Walang bayag ang utak mo. Manindigan ka..."

So if court findings are your bases, what do you make of GR 152154?

 

Dude, your'e wasting your time arguing with those 2 fake news peddlers. Your facts are based on historical facts, court records and news articles, while their opinions are based on who knows what. THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. The main news sources for one of them is "We Are Collective" and "Rigoberto Tiglao" while the other ones news sources are ... uhm... oh yeah "friends who are in the know" and other sources which he cannot share daw . Tama ba ko Wil Robie and Camiar?

[farren21]

 

Dude, your'e wasting your time arguing with those 2 fake news peddlers. Your facts are based on historical facts, court records and news articles, while their opinions are based on who knows what. THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. The main news sources for one of them is "We Are Collective" and "Rigoberto Tiglao" while the other ones news sources are ... uhm... oh yeah "friends who are in the know" and other sources which he cannot share daw . Tama ba ko Wil Robie and Cami

 

Natumbok po ah..hahaha

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

Dude, your'e wasting your time arguing with those 2 fake news peddlers. Your facts are based on historical facts, court records and news articles, while their opinions are based on who knows what. THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. The main news sources for one of them is "We Are Collective" and "Rigoberto Tiglao" while the other ones news sources are ... uhm... oh yeah "friends who are in the know" and other sources which he cannot share daw . Tama ba ko Wil Robie and Camiar?

 

Di naman. Para rin ito sa iba na baka mabasa itong exchange namin. Kasi kung walang papalag, baka isipin ng iba na talagang tama sila.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

So its a hyperbole. My bad. Still you interpreted it literally. Grasping at straws.

 

So what if it is Transparency International's estimate? Would that make it truer? They base it on gossips and claims made by political opposition against leaders of countries who do not toe the Western Powers' line. Ever wonder why they themselves cannot bring it to court? And if in rare cases that somebody else does file a case, they can't prove the claims. For starters, take the puny US$ 570 Million vs claim of US 10 Billion.

 

So what's the use of claiming they got their wealth legally? Your inept PCGG cannot prove that Marcos owned the wealth in the first place.

 

LOL "Big fat zero," even as hyperbole, does literally mean zero. Again, if you don't know how to use the language, don't use it. Mapapahiya ka lang.

 

"They base it on gossips" First of all "gossip" is collective and has no plural. Second where do you get the impression that Transparency International used unfounded estimates? Since you allege, kindly provide the proof.

 

Yung sa "toe the Western Powers' line," you do realize that Marcos was largely supported by the US up until they could no longer justify their support, right? Heck, it was American helicopters that took Marcos to Hawaii. So saan banda yung "not toe the Western Powers' line" na sinasabi mo?

 

"They themselves cannot bring it to court" because there's this thing called "locus standi" where the court isn't going to allow just anyone to file a sequestration case. Mandate yan ng PCGG, kaya sila lang ang sumasampa ng kaso.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everyone got it wrong, that the Marcoses didn't steal $10B. Let's also assume that in the cases where the courts ruled that PCGG had insufficient evidence to support sequestration cases against alleged cronies, said alleged cronies earned their wealth legally, and without any involvement from the Marcoses.

 

Nevertheless, case law shows that the Marcoses did, in fact, amass ill-gotten wealth of significant value, by pilfering public coffers. I gave you the case, and even quoted the relevant portions.

 

So are you still going to sit there and insist that the source of the Marcos wealth is irrelevant?

[camiar]

 

LOL "Big fat zero," even as hyperbole, does literally mean zero. Again, if you don't know how to use the language, don't use it. Mapapahiya ka lang.

 

"They base it on gossips" First of all "gossip" is collective and has no plural.

 

 

Definitely grasping at straws!

 

Nitpicking now on spelling and grammar.

 

Wala kang mahihita dyan.

Edited September 4, 2018 by camiar

[will robie]

Sa human rights violations claimants napunta yun. Hindi ka talaga nagbabasa.

So ayaw mo magpakita in person at tanungin ang PCGG at HRVCB? LOL okay. Confirmed, hindi ka seryosong naghahanap ng patunay, at ayaw mong makilala bilang pro-Marcos.

Linawin lang natin: wala akong obligasyon na patunayan na ginampanan ng mga bangko, ng PCGG, ng HRVCB and kanilang tungkulin na sundin ang utos ng korte at ipatupad ang batas. Ang tawag diyan, "presumption of regularity."

Kung ang allegation mo ay hindi nila ginawa yun, na sa iba napunta ang pera, IKAW ang dapat magpatunay ng paratang mo.

 

so, ito na ang ba talaga ang kaya niyo? Ilang pages na mula noong nagtanong ako kung may patunay kayo na legal ang yaman ng mga Marcos, nganga pa rin kayo.

 

Sa human rights violation kasi sinabi mo? You have to do better than that. Again, why would I prove something when you are the one alleging. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You challenged my post. Prove me wrong. So far, all I have been hearing from you are ad hominems. You don't have any obligation. Did I say you had? You're the one who keeps quoting my posts and it seems as if you're trying to prove something when you have not answered any of my questions. Edited September 4, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

Nevertheless, case law shows that the Marcoses did, in fact, amass ill-gotten wealth of significant value, by pilfering public coffers. I gave you the case, and even quoted the relevant portions.

 

Ill-gotten you say. If that is so, why isn't any of them in jail? Yes, it is a civil case. But why only civil? Imelda is a respondent. Why wasn't she criminally liable? If the PCGG was so confident it was ill-gotten, why can't they nail her in a criminal case?

[jc44 - RETIRED]

 

Definitely grasping at straws!

 

Nitpicking now on spelling and grammar.

 

Wala kang mahihita dyan.

 

Nice of you to conveniently ignore everything else I posted.

 

Sa human rights violation kasi sinabi mo? You have to do better than that. Again, why would I prove something when you are the one alleging. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You challenged my post. Prove me wrong. So far, all I have been hearing from you are ad hominems. You don't have any obligation. Did I say you had? You're the one who keeps quoting my posts and it seems as if you're trying to prove something when you have not answered any of my questions.

 

Yun nga eh. "The burden of proof is on the accuser." Ikaw ang naga-accuse na hindi sinunod ng mga bangko, ng PCGG, ng HRVCB ang batas at ang desisyon ng korte di ba? So asan yung proof mo?

 

Prove your wrong? Tama ka ba to begin with? Where's your proof of this?

 

Ill-gotten you say. If that is so, why isn't any of them in jail? Yes, it is a civil case. But why only civil? Imelda is a respondent. Why wasn't she criminally liable? If the PCGG was so confident it was ill-gotten, why can't they nail her in a criminal case?

 

Ill-gotten, the Supreme Court says. Let's be clear on that. I'm not the one claiming it. The Supreme Court made a categorical finding of fact that Marcos earned only X amount from his stint as public officer, and that anything wealth above that cannot be anything else except ill-gotten, as defined under the law.

 

If you dispute that fact finding of the Supreme Court, okay lang naman. Kahit ako minsan disagree ako sa sinasabi ni SC. Kaya lang, it is your burden to prove that your position is correct. Can you?

 

Cases for graft against Imelda are ongoing before the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court. Last check, halos 250 pa yung mga active na kaso. That does not preclude the PCGG from trying to recover ill-gotten wealth, the two being separate legal processes and cases.

 

Bakit ang tagal? Tawag namin diyan, "dilatory tactics." Motion dito, reset doon, continuance dito. Time in between hearings spans weeks at least, months at most. At hindi naman smash-and-grab pagnanakaw ang ginawa ni Marcos. Marcos knew what he was doing. Shell corpos, cronies, foreign accounts under fictitious names, etc. Add to that negligence ng handling prosecutors na rin, plus the frequent changes in handling prosecutors over the years. Hindi madali ang litigation.

 

All of that said, Marcos v. Manglapus acknowledges, as a matter of public record, the atrocities under the Marcos regime. So does RA 10368. Again, if you think these are wrong, great. Prove why.

[will robie]

 

Yun nga eh. "The burden of proof is on the accuser." Ikaw ang naga-accuse na hindi sinunod ng mga bangko, ng PCGG, ng HRVCB ang batas at ang desisyon ng korte di ba? So asan yung proof mo?

 

Prove your wrong? Tama ka ba to begin with? Where's your proof of this?

Asking a question and alleging are two different things. Learn to distinguish what the two mean.

[will robie]

Ill-gotten, the Supreme Court says. Let's be clear on that. I'm not the one claiming it. The Supreme Court made a categorical finding of fact that Marcos earned only X amount from his stint as public officer, and that anything wealth above that cannot be anything else except ill-gotten, as defined under the law.

Ok. The Supreme Court said it. So what happened to the money? Paikot-ikot ka lang, hindi mo naman masagot mga tanong ko.

 

If you dispute that fact finding of the Supreme Court, okay lang naman. Kahit ako minsan disagree ako sa sinasabi ni SC. Kaya lang, it is your burden to prove that your position is correct. Can you?

Babaligtarin mo pa. You challenged my post so you prove me wrong. So far, that has not happened.

[will robie]

 

Cases for graft against Imelda are ongoing before the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court. Last check, halos 250 pa yung mga active na kaso. That does not preclude the PCGG from trying to recover ill-gotten wealth, the two being separate legal processes and cases

It's been 30 years and Imelda has not been nailed. Paano ba yan?

 

 

Bakit ang tagal? Tawag namin diyan, "dilatory tactics." Motion dito, reset doon, continuance dito. Time in between hearings spans weeks at least, months at most. At hindi naman smash-and-grab pagnanakaw ang ginawa ni Marcos. Marcos knew what he was doing. Shell corpos, cronies, foreign accounts under fictitious names, etc. Add to that negligence ng handling prosecutors na rin, plus the frequent changes in handling prosecutors over the years. Hindi madali ang litigation.

 

Are you insinuating that the prosecutors were incompetent?

Edited September 5, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

All of that said, Marcos v. Manglapus acknowledges, as a matter of public record, the atrocities under the Marcos regime. So does RA 10368. Again, if you think these are wrong, great. Prove why.

Yes, but there is no evidence that Marcos ordered those atrocities. A little known fact during Martial Law was that thousands of men in uniform were dismissed due to allegations of atrocities.

Edited September 5, 2018 by will robie

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Asking a question and alleging are two different things. Learn to distinguish what the two mean.

 

Asking a question and then rejecting the answers when answers are provided is just making allegations in a roundabout way that serves as an excuse not to prove your position. Baka gumana yasn sa iba. Di yan gagana sa akin. Either patunayan mo yung mga sinasabi mo, or aminin mo na hindi mo kaya. Huwag kang magtago sa "di mo naman sinasagot tanong ko eh" dahil halatang halata na wala kang ebidensya sa kahit anong sinasabi mo dito at puro imbento ka lang.

 

Ok. The Supreme Court said it. So what happened to the money? Paikot-ikot ka lang, hindi mo naman masagot mga tanong ko.

Babaligtarin mo pa. You challenged my post so you prove me wrong. So far, that has not happened.

 

Already told you what happened to the money, and where the documents are that show how the money was handled. Ikaw ang ayaw mag-effort na pumunta at tignan ang patunay para sa sarili mo. Huwag ka kasi tamad. Accessible naman ang Diliman.

 

It's been 30 years and Imelda has not been nailed. Paano ba yan?

Are you insinuating that the prosecutors were incompetent?

 

I explained kung baki antagal. Kung ayaw mong maniwala, patunayan mo na iba ang dahilan sa delay. Ganun lang kasimple.

 

Malinaw naman sinabi ko di ba? "Negligent" Iba ang "negligent" sa "incompetent."

 

Yes, but there is no evidence that Marcos ordered those atrocities. A little known fact during Martial Law was that thousands of men in uniform were dismissed due to allegations of atrocities.

 

Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders 1-6 are fairly conclusive as to the absolute authority exercised by Marcos over all acts of the military and law enforcement during period covering Martial Law up to 1986.

 

Unless you'r arguing that Marcos was so incompetent that there was unabated widespread military adventurism during his time despite "thousands of dismissals" (for which you have no proof) and that he was a lame duck President/Prime Minister/Commander-in-Chief?

[will robie]

 

Asking a question and then rejecting the answers when answers are provided is just making allegations in a roundabout way that serves as an excuse not to prove your position. Baka gumana yasn sa iba. Di yan gagana sa akin. Either patunayan mo yung mga sinasabi mo, or aminin mo na hindi mo kaya. Huwag kang magtago sa "di mo naman sinasagot tanong ko eh" dahil halatang halata na wala kang ebidensya sa kahit anong sinasabi mo dito at puro imbento ka lang.

 

 

Where are your answers? Hindi rin gagana yung style mo sa akin na puro palusot kasi hindi mo masagot mga tanong ko. Ako pa ang aamin eh hindi mo nga masagot mga tanong ko eh. Hilarious. Haha!

 

 

 

Already told you what happened to the money, and where the documents are that show how the money was handled. Ikaw ang ayaw mag-effort na pumunta at tignan ang patunay para sa sarili mo. Huwag ka kasi tamad. Accessible naman ang Diliman.

 

Like I said, hangang sa PNB ka lang tapos wala ka ng masagot. You prove it. You challenged my post. We can do this until hell freezes over. I don't mind. As long as you don't answer my questions, I will just keep on repeating my stand.

[will robie]

 

I explained kung baki antagal. Kung ayaw mong maniwala, patunayan mo na iba ang dahilan sa delay. Ganun lang kasimple.

 

Malinaw naman sinabi ko di ba? "Negligent" Iba ang "negligent" sa "incompetent."

 

30 years? Really? I mean if you can't convict someone in 30 years, then the cases against that person must be really weak. If they are negligent, that is not the Marcoses' problem. The fact remains. No Marcos has ever been convicted.

Edited September 6, 2018 by will robie

[will robie]

 

 

Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders 1-6 are fairly conclusive as to the absolute authority exercised by Marcos over all acts of the military and law enforcement during period covering Martial Law up to 1986.

 

Unless you'r arguing that Marcos was so incompetent that there was unabated widespread military adventurism during his time despite "thousands of dismissals" (for which you have no proof) and that he was a lame duck President/Prime Minister/Commander-in-Chief?

The fact of the matter is nothing has been proven against Marcos regarding Martial Law abuses. As for my proof regarding the thousand of dismissals, I don't need to prove it. You have access to the internet, use it wisely. If you don't believe it, it's not my problem. If you think he was lame duck president, that is your opinion which I would have to say is warped.

[jc44 - RETIRED]

Where are your answers? Hindi rin gagana yung style mo sa akin na puro palusot kasi hindi mo masagot mga tanong ko. Ako pa ang aamin eh hindi mo nga masagot mga tanong ko eh. Hilarious. Haha!

Like I said, hangang sa PNB ka lang tapos wala ka ng masagot. You prove it. You challenged my post. We can do this until hell freezes over. I don't mind. As long as you don't answer my questions, I will just keep on repeating my stand.

 

Since you acknowledged part of my answer to your question, then at least I know that you know that there was an answer.

 

You want bank documents - that normal people don't have access to and are likely confidential - as proof to "counter" what you said. That is unreasonable and irrational.

 

OTOH, you have NO proof of any of your claims.

 

You can keep repeating your stand until hell freezes over, that still won't magically produce any evidence that will support your position.

 

30 years? Really? I mean if you can't convict someone in 30 years, then the cases against that person must be really weak. If they are negligent, that is not the Marcoses' problem. The fact remains. No Marcos has ever been convicted.

 

Here's the problem with your reasoning. When the Supreme Court tells us that Marcos wealth was ill-gotten, ayaw mo maniwala. Panay ang "where's your proof" posts mo na walang katuturan.

 

Pero while the courts have yet to resolve the cases against the Marcoses, you're 100% sure the cases are weak. On what basis? Court cases drag on for decades. This isn't unique to the Marcos cases.

 

The fact of the matter is nothing has been proven against Marcos regarding Martial Law abuses. As for my proof regarding the thousand of dismissals, I don't need to prove it. You have access to the internet, use it wisely. If you don't believe it, it's not my problem. If you think he was lame duck president, that is your opinion which I would have to say is warped.

 

Marcos v. Manglapus

RA 10368

Claims documents filed with the HRVCB

 

Also, akala ko ba ang personal rule mo, whoever alleges has the burden to prove? Bakit biglang "I don't need to prove it" ang sagot mo when asked to prove something you allege?

 

Show me the website or even a physical office where your "proof" is. Please. Humor me. Show me that you actually know what you're talking about instead of making up stories. Kasi this is the second time I've caught you making up "facts" just for the sake of having some kind of answer to things I post.

 

Oh, and please use multiquote. Nakakapagod magbasa ng hiwahiwalay na replies eh isa lang naman yung post ko.

Edited September 7, 2018 by johncarter44

[tk421]

But you have to discern what he says: pag tungkol sa Marcos corruption/abuses, gusto niya may solid proof in court. Pag dating sa Aquino family, auto-guilty daw at ikaw pa dapat mag produce ng proof para ma disprove yun mga accusations nya. LOL.