Posted on 11/24/2001 10:05:49 AM PST by ChaseR
Just a few minutes ago, at 1:45pm CST, I got through on the JW Sat. Radio program and asked this key question:
"Is Judicial Watch going to refile the all-important Loral Shareholders case?"
(here is the reply from Larry Klayman himself:
"The Loral case has been refiled in Judge Lamberth's court and even though this case is moving along slowly, it is has been refiled."
(I didn't tape my question or Mr Klayman's reply, but above is basically what was stated)
The reason I didn't address it is because I never said anything like that; you are the one that wants a new investigation, right?
Aren't you the one that wants to exhume Ron Brown's HEAD???????
Larry has been investigating. Why hasn't HE or even YOU come up with the evidence to go to a court with? You seem to have all the so called "facts;" I suggest YOU go to court and prove your theory.
We seem to be the last of a LONG line of straight men for him. But if we stopped, who would BeAChooser rant at?
ROFL...or Der SchleekMeister's, whatever the case may be.
FReegards...MUD
FReegards...MUD
So why did you object so vehemently to me calling the incriminating items that I listed in the Brown case "EVIDENCE"? Those items COULD be "put into EVIDENCE in a trial" couldn't they? Sure, they might then be cross examined and found not to be fact but they would still have been put into evidence ... RIGHT? Shall I pull up the definitions of evidence that both of us cited and see who is disassembling now? I told you all along that the material PRESENTED in the courtroom is evidence and you disagreed, maintaining that it also had to be proven TRUE before it was evidence. You stated, for example, that It's NOT evidence until it gets into a courtroom and is cross examined. That IS quite different than the definition you are now trying to put forth, which by the way IS more in line with the dictionary definitions that BOTH of us cited, way back when.
And why don't you comment on your apparent belief that someone (Klayman?) must go to court BEFORE Ashcroft can begin an investigation into the Brown matter and GATHER the material that will be put into evidence? Is that what you think?
And I AGAIN challenge you to cite and quote an article that gives the details of this lawsuit. You want to use it to impune Klayman's character when the facts seem to suggest that his reasons for filing the suit were entirely noble. Quit trying to impune his character without using FACTS.
2) Attacking our honorable president and his family;
What? For suggesting that they might be MOVING ON in the case of credible evidence of MURDER, TREASON and other serious crimes. Tell me, would YOU remain silent if YOU knew that were going on? Perhaps.
and 3) Having you and Miss Print as his defenders, enablers and shills.
I'm nobody's shill. I've stated over and over that I have no objection to people going after Klayman for some of his RECENT activities, especially where the facts don't seem to support the action. He IS acting like an ambulance chaser. Nor do I suggest giving JW money right now. So why call me a shill?
But, you, on the other hand, DO act like a democRAT shill. You advocate MOVIN-ON ... just like democRATS would be expected to do. You argue like a democRAT bringing nothing but adhominen attacks to the table. You RUN from the facts ... in the Brown case and other matters ... just like democRATS who tend to flee when faced with facts they can't deal with that threaten their world view or their party.
Now if you want to tell us why you LIED about the Brown case, calling an examination that clearly was not an autopsy an autopsy and suggesting that he had no motive for turning state's evidence ... in a blatent attempt to keep the less informed from looking closer at the case ... then go ahead. The whole ISSUE is that there should have been an autopsy and there wasn't one. The whole ISSUE is that there seems to be EVIDENCE which suggests a motive for killing him. Why aren't you interested? Well in any case, Bush and Ashcroft, if they are as honest as you say (and I certainly hope they are), can STILL order an autopsy. THEN we would know who is right ... the "move-on" club or people like me.
LOL...reckon humor's in the eye of the beholder. That's the only time I've seen that one.
FReegards...MUD
BAC refuses to acknowlege there have been pictures taken of the inside of Ron Brown's noggin. I pointed BAC to a very credible link and he still won't let go of the Brown thing. Brown was at the top of the world when he was suppose to have gone south on Clinton. Where BAC gets this from I will never know. Miss Print is playing Moe to Beachooser's Curly. Chase = Larry?
lol,LGE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.