₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Did I not tell you at the beginning that there are so many things you do not know about Law? eg how king Bidden has just overruled and set aside on the noisy chant of legal that in America "no one is above the law and that even the king and the prince can be jailed".

Or is it the case of the billionaire who has been sentenced to death but now she has been given a chance to buy her life with about $9Billion.

Legal is not Law!

If we truly operated on Law you would have seen that sentiments also has evidence andI a just court having properly weighed both fact and Law will come to a decision which even you would hail and trip for when you hear its Judgment.

I wanted to engage you in your statements about "king Biden" and the American version of Magna Carta, but I realized that will be a deflection from basics.

In America, there are so many people in jail for crimes they did not commit, they are in jail because they couldn't bring anything to prove that they are innocent other than their sentiments, tears and "I didn't do it", many of them died, many of them are there for life, many of wasted years in jaiI until years later, they were found to be innocent, it's a common occurrence in America unless you have never been to America.
Why didn't their sentiments bail them out?

JagabanBorgu:
I wanted to engage you in your statements about "king Biden" and the American version of Magna Carta, but I realized that will be a deflection from basics.

In America, there are so many people in jail for crimes they did not commit, they are in jail because they couldn't bring anything to prove that they are innocent other than their sentiments, tears and "I didn't do it", many of them died, many of them are there for life, many of wasted years in jaiI until years later, they were found to be innocent, it's a common occurrence in America unless you have never been to America.
Why didn't their sentiments bail them out?

The word is "they could not bring any evidence sufficient enough to rebut the evidence given against them like the security guard jailed because his friend who is brought him to lagos and gave him the job, then robbed where he worked.

We all listened to his evidence what you would call sentiment and the consensus by everyone including me was that it did not avail him. The evidence was not sufficient to remove the finger and weight of guilt pointing to him.

And it is not that his friend was caught whose testimony could remove him from the hook.

Nevertheless The Law listens to his cry of innocence and activates a person whether lawyer or detective to go looking for evidence to prove the innocence. Which is why you see in America where they find it the court reverses its judgment and the state who made the error of convicting an innocent person is made to pay heavy heavy damages because under Law, it has done a wrong to the innocent accused.

King Trump and King Bidden, and the former kings of Nigeria andI king Putin, kim jong show you that magna carta is a very very funny Joke.

They can all say they are under the law they make aka legal but who is going to place them under it when they do not want to be under it?

You can agree place with everyone in your house, to be in by 10pm in line with your law that everyone should in by 10pm. but who is going to punish you if you come in by 1am?

No one. Why?

Every man is above the law he makes which is why police and all the kings armed men everywhere including America will tell you that they can shoot you and nothing will happen.

And as you see, the magna Carta was forced on the king by bandits.(Barons) who were rulers of their own territories challenging the supremacy, right and Law of the King's right to rule.

Dtruthspeaker:
The word is "they could not bring any evidence sufficient enough to rebut the evidence given against them like the security guard jailed because his friend who is brought him to lagos and gave him the job, then robbed where he worked.

We all listened to his evidence what you would call sentiment and the consensus by everyone including me was that it did not avail him. The evidence was not sufficient to remove the finger and weight of guilt pointing to him.

And it is not that his friend was caught whose testimony could remove him from the hook.

Nevertheless The Law listens to his cry of innocence and activates a person whether lawyer or detective to go looking for evidence to prove the innocence. Which is why you see in America where they find it the court reverses its judgment and the state who made the error of convicting an innocent person is made to pay heavy heavy damages because under Law, it has done a wrong to the innocent accused.

King Trump and King Bidden, and the former kings of Nigeria andI king Putin, kim jong show you that magna carta is a very very funny Joke.

They can all say they are under the law they make aka legal but who is going to place them under it when they do not want to be under it?

You can agree place with everyone in your house, to be in by 10pm in line with your law that everyone should in by 10pm. but who is going to punish you if you come in by 1am?

No one. Why?

Every man is above the law he makes which is why police and all the kings armed men everywhere including America will tell you that they can shoot you and nothing will happen.

And as you see, the magna Carta was forced on the king by bandits.(Barons) who were rulers of their own territories challenging the supremacy, right and Law of the King's right to rule.

At the end of the day, you came back to agree that u only win in court when you have overwhelming evidence not because you can cry or bring sentiments to the fore.
You all like arguing not because it's worth it, because u feel u have something against the person who said what u are arguing.

JagabanBorgu:
At the end of the day, you came back to agree that u only win in court when you have overwhelming evidence not because you can cry or bring sentiments to the fore.
You all like arguing not because it's worth it, because u feel u have something against the person who said what u are arguing.

From the beginning, i told you sentimemts too have evidence.

And in a just court, it is not about winning but about "just is" being accurately and rightfully. done to the disputing parties.

You are the one arguing unnecessary when you actually do not know about Law and the operation of Law. You are just pronouncing the brainwashed legal chants your rulers have taught you to think ignorantly.

Dtruthspeaker:
From the beginning, i told you sentimemts too have evidence.

And in a just court, it is not about winning but about "just is" being accurately and rightfully. done to the disputing parties.

You are the one arguing unnecessary when you actually do not know about Law and the operation of Law. You are just pronouncing the brainwashed legal chants your rulers have taught you to think ignorantly.

I never knew that rulers taught law until u mentioned it.
And you have personally made examples with how sentiments don't win rather evidence does.
No matter how innocent you are, your sentiments won't win you a case when you can't present evidence, it is how it is everywhere in the world.

JagabanBorgu:
I never knew that rulers taught law until u mentioned it.
And you have personally made examples with how sentiments don't win rather evidence does.
No matter how innocent you are, your sentiments won't win you a case when you can't present evidence, it is how it is everywhere in the world.

Look at it. You are still thinking about winning rather than thinking about the "just is" you need. Yet you wonder why there is no just is, in this world. See how deeply brainwashed you are and why you deserve to get whatever you get?

Dtruthspeaker:
Look at it. You are still thinking about winning rather than thinking about the "just is" you need. Yet you wonder why there is no just is, in this world. See how deeply brainwashed you are and why you deserve to get whatever you get?

I admire your strength in trying to stay in argument u obviously lost before you even started it and still came back to make examples stating your lose.
U have been trying so hard to deflect just so you can gain a foothold, maybe you should take that part to people who don't know what an argument is about.
You don't win a case in any court in the world without evidence, you have accepted this fact that ends the argument, the other things you are trying so hard to factor into the topic are irrelevant.

JagabanBorgu:
I admire your strength in trying to stay in argument u obviously lost before you even started it and still came back to make examples stating your lose.
U have been trying so hard to deflect just so you can gain a foothold, maybe you should take that part to people who don't know what an argument is about.
You don't win a case in any court in the world without evidence, you have accepted this fact that ends the argument, the other things you are trying so hard to factor into the topic are irrelevant.

You are thoroughly brainwashed if not you would have heard me say right from the beginning that even sentiments have evidence and a just court is not about winning like it is a boxing ring, but about "just is" being accurately and rightfully. done to the disputing parties, as is even shown here in threads on cases in court.. Which shows no normal person is thinking about winning only about the Rght, the Wrong and the Law and the just is that the contending parties should get.

But since you have nothing valid to say you now resorted to robotic repeaating.

Dtruthspeaker:
You are thoroughly brainwashed if not you would have heard me say right from the beginning that even sentiments have evidence and a just court is not about winning like it is a boxing ring, but about "just is" being accurately and rightfully. done to the disputing parties, as is even shown here in threads on cases in court.. Which shows no normal person is thinking about winning only about the Rght, the Wrong and the Law and the just is that the contending parties should get.

But since you have nothing valid to say you now resorted to robotic repeaating.

I made a point which I stuck with, u have been jumping from pillar to post while I stood my ground.

JagabanBorgu:
I made a point which I stuck with, u have been jumping from pillar to post while I stood my ground.

Only for the purposes of explaining the issues you created from your lack of knowledge about as directed by your own responses.

So i was not moving around at all but it was you who was creatiing issues when you saw you beliefs had no valid basis and neither could you rebut my assertion, so now you are claiming i moved whereas, you are the one leading the course while i simply respond.