My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes? How would Mystere know? How would you know? Or is it that, when I write no, you just automatically claim it's NewSpeaking? I can NEVER say no and mean no.
Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no". Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent.
Meme: "Oh, look I won again"...
ONLY 8 percent of registered republicans in Iowa voted. Is that what Minus thinks is a bigly win?
\\My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes?
Why not? ;-P
You CONFIRMED that IT is imbecilic liar.
So... why it SO unbelievable -- that its "NO" here is THE SAME imbecilic lie, ahhh? ;-P
Liars tend to lie all of the times -- to cover their previous lies.
\\ I can NEVER say no and mean no.
And with WHAT fact it confirmed? ;-P
As for now, there are only CONFIRMED FACTS -- that your words DO NOT corroborate with FACTS -- means, they are LIES.
So??? What REASON there could be??? To take on faith, in OPPOSITE to all previous OBVIOUS lies, that THIS time... it was truth. Factual TRUTH.
While there is NO evidances what so ever -- that that "no" based on ANY fact.
\\Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no".
Your alter-ego "Qtard"???
Most probably.
Cause it is imbecile. Just like you. And UNABLE to get simple truth --- that ANY meaning of ANY word -- is conventional.
That's why we have that VERY IMPORTANT things -- dictionaries. For people to know what meanings of this or that word are widely known. To be able to communicate, with using that common meaning.
But it... is an imbecile. That DESPISE dictionaries. And trying to claim that ONLY imbecile's "what I mean" matters.
Well... continue-continue.
It's VERY DAMN FUNNY... to observe such imbecilic behavior. Not very often. And quite rare, actually. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent.
Ough???
That Mistere would be glad to know -- about such a self-admission of Derpish Sadners. ;-P
But I... don't care.
Yawn.
Because you bodily functions is of no interest for me. Only your imbecilic brain products. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Why? Mystere has zero evidence to come to that conclusion. As do you. Except for your 100 percent BS assertion that my "no" was a NewSpeak "yes".
Qtard: You CONFIRMED that IT is imbecilic liar.
Lie. I never confirmed that.
Qtard: So... why it SO unbelievable -- that its "NO" here is THE SAME imbecilic lie, ahhh?
Because I confirmed I don't use NewSpeak.
Qtard: Liars tend to lie all of the times -- to cover their previous lies.
You believe you are entitled to an honest answer regarding me being constipated or not? Are you constipated? I DEMAND an answer. Though, if the answer is no, I will assume you mean yes. In NewSpeak. If you refuse to answer I will assume the answer is yes and you are too embarrassed to say.
Qtard: \\ I can NEVER say no and mean no\\ And with WHAT fact it confirmed?
With what fact is it confirmed that you aren't constipated? I demand evidence.
Qtard: As for now, there are only CONFIRMED FACTS -- that your words DO NOT corroborate with FACTS...
There is not.
Qtard: -- means, they are LIES.
No.
Qtard: So??? What REASON there could be??? To take on faith...
Qtard is constipated. It just confirmed it. I should not take it on faith if it says no. Unless it FedExes me lab results signed by a notary that says it is not constipated. Though it must verify it's idenity first. So it can't just have someone else take the test.
Qtard: in OPPOSITE to all previous OBVIOUS lies...
Falsely alleged lies.
Qtard: ...that THIS time... it was truth. Factual TRUTH.
This time and every time.
Qtard: While there is NO evidances what so ever -- that that "no" based on ANY fact.
And there is no evidence that you are not constipated.
Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no"\\ Your alter-ego "Qtard"???
I have no such alter ego. When I say "Qtard" I mean YOU. And I did not write "you" and mean "I".
Qtard: Most probably.
...you are constipated? Don't you know? Because you're having problems pooping?
Qtard: Cause it is imbecile. Just like you. And UNABLE to get simple truth --- that ANY meaning of ANY word -- is conventional.
Lie. Completely unsupported by any facts.
Qtard: That's why we have that VERY IMPORTANT things -- dictionaries. For people to know what meanings of this or that word are widely known.
And yet, even after quoting a dictionary, you STILL get the definition wrong. Like with "escalate" and "cherry pick".
Qtard: To be able to communicate, with using that common meaning.
But you don't.
Qtard: But it... is an imbecile. That DESPISE dictionaries. And trying to claim that ONLY imbecile's "what I mean" matters.
The imbecile fully embraces it's "what Derpy really mean" lie.
Qtard: Well... continue-continue.
Self encouragement. Imbecile insists I only mean what it says I mean.
Qtard: It's VERY DAMN FUNNY... to observe such imbecilic behavior. Not very often. And quite rare, actually.
Imbecile is amused by its own imbecility. Thinks it proved it can tell me what my words mean. Like, "no, you meant the opposite of what you said" aka it's babbling "NewSpeak" over and over.
Qtard:\\Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent\\ Ough??? That Mistere would be glad to know -- about such a self-admission of Derpish Sadners.
"No, not me, you" again. NewSpeak confirmation that it has raped many men.
Qtard: But I... don't care. Yawn. Because you bodily functions is of no interest for me.
Lie. It is very interested in if I am constipated or not. VERY interested.
\\My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes?
\\Why not? ;-P
\\Why? Mystere has zero evidence to come to that conclusion. As do you. Except for your 100 percent BS assertion that my "no" was a NewSpeak "yes".
Why not?
If you'd be silent on it... it would be another case.
But you decided to shout your imbecilic "No". And that is THE FACT -- your admission as a witness.
And with a priori knowledge from all previous facts -- that you are lair. It's easy to conclude -- that with high probability the true answer is "Yes".
Or... how do you think they do it in court??? Asking criminal "are you criminal?", that answers "No"... and judge are like that "Well... he said No, you see... that must be true, so... let's free him and decide him not guilty" -- that is how it working in your imbecilic mind??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Imbecile thinks if a judge asks, "how do you plead" the defendant should be silent! Because if the defendant says "not guilty", the judge will say, "that is a NewSpeak confession of guilt". And the defendant will be placed in handcuffs and sent to prison immediately. No actual evidence is necessary.
Why does it think trials work this way? Obviously because it is a total imbecile.
IT... throwed into the bin that title. Of just own free will. ;-P
Well, anyway, how'd it be helpful... to it?
To score "imbecilic judge title"??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Qtard: ...you decided to shout your imbecilic "No". And that is THE FACT -- your admission as a witness.
\\It is not.
The Court specifically held that: “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
Miranda warning | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute LII / Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
What *I* have said???
Imbecile Judge title scored in a jiffy. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Judge: The defendant just testified against himself with his NewSpeak denial. I find him guilty!
\\That's Qtard's idea of how trials work.
Thank you for revealing how you alter-ego "Qtard" thinks trials should go.
(well... now it becomes apparent -- why "imbecilic judge" screeched "but dRump is guilty" SO MANY TIMES)
Becsause it DUNNO (not a surprise, for cretin) about
Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.
Fifth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute LII / Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
\\Now it says a not proven guilty defendant is a "criminal" who can be found guilty by pleading not guilty.
And obviously.
Cretin -- unable to understand what Counter-Example could be. Naturally.
But, let be patient... with so mentally impaired poor soul.
Who else but someone who is mentally impaired would think a "no" would be considered a "NewSpeak yes" in a court of law? And be ruled an admission of guilt?
Just because some cretin proclaimed it... out of the blue??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Of course no.
There is NO other reason -- apart from cretin having nothing to answer to sound logic and facts -- so IT decided to blurt our such a cretinic retort. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That is what YOU revealed. When you moronically claimed my "no" was an admission of guilt.
Like there is NO criminals... that claim not guilty in court room??? Or even later while being in jail????
Another word... in accordance to cretin Derpish Sadners... when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately. (well, if that is not dRump... who are guilty, even if there is NO facts of his guilt provided... just because DEMN propaganda howling it till no end)
Crimnals are liars. And liars, obviously, cry their false "No"s all of the time.
And that is -- what cretin Derpish Sadners doing, too. ;-P
\\Trials should definitely not go like that.
Of course!
Cause there is no cretins like you eligible to be in court... in any other role apart from judged. ;-P
Totalitarin Derpish Sadners do not know... that pleaing "guilty" -- DO NOT counts as an evidence.
Only in totalitarian countries self-incrinating is ENOUGH for people to be put in jail. Like after tortures and/or threats.
\\Saying "not guilty" is not "self-incrimination".
Saying "No" to questions, when it shown in court that criminal are liar -- is. ;-P
Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt", that there is NO REASON... to listen for more baseless nonsensical uttering, which consist only of cretinic denial of obvious facts. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard reveals that, when it cried about its concern for presumption of innocence, it lied through its teeth. It ONLY cares about innocence being presumed in regards to Putin's puppet, dotard donald.
That is not surprising, given that Qtard is a Putin puppet itself.
Other defendants are criminals who, when they enter "not guilty" pleas, should assumed to be lying. Not only that, but the totalitarian-loving Qtard believes their "not guilty" should be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Qtard: ...do not know... that pleaing "guilty" -- DO NOT counts as an evidence.
Oh, so a defendant can plead guilty but be found innocent? How??? Given that, even before the trial was started, Qtard has declared the defendant to be a criminal and a liar.
Well, unless the defendant is dotard donald. Then Qtard says "fair trial, my ass" and calls the accusations "political feces throwing". Because... Mark Twain.
Qtard: Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt"...
Oh, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" means the criminal looks guilty? No need for any actual evidence. Or so the totalitarian-lover believes.
Qtard: ...when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately...
Yes. If there is no evidence. Only totalitarian-lovers like YOU -- saying the "criminal" looks guilty. Because the defendant "admitted" guilt -- by saying he is NOT guilty.
\\Qtard has declared the defendant to be a criminal and a liar.
And there IMPOSSIBLE to know if someone are liar and criminal... before court?
So, with that, you admitting that dRump are innocent as a newborn baby? ;-P
\\Qtard: Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt"...
\\Oh, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" means the criminal looks guilty?
AGAIN. ;-P
So, with that, you admitting that dRump are innocent as a newborn baby? ;-P
\\No need for any actual evidence. Or so the totalitarian-lover believes.
Obviously. Cretin UNABLE to follow even OWN arguments.
Yawn.
That is YOU are one -- who trying to DEFEND that idea -- that one who admitted being guilty -- are guilty, without any actual evidences investigated and tested in court.
But well.
Cretin will cry "I NEVER said it, YOU said it"... without any factual quotes or credible arguments...
\\Qtard: ...when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately...
\\Yes. If there is no evidence.
Of course.
How cretin would know???
That for any person to appear in court... without ANY evidences -- that would be SEVERE breaching of any and all possible laws (of democratic country).
But... quite usually happen in totalitarian countries -- which gives one more clue -- into Totalitarian Derpiness. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Only totalitarian-lovers like YOU -- saying the "criminal" looks guilty.
Yeah.
Blurted out cretin.
That keep howling "dRump are guilty"... without Court Judgment, or EVEN ANY sound evidences presented...
\\Because the defendant "admitted" guilt -- by saying he is NOT guilty.
Cretin thinking that it SUCCESSFULLY derailed discussion. And now trying burgeoning on it.
Naaaah, cretin.
I saw through that imbecilic trick right away.
And just allowed it to happen... to give you time enough to weave that r0pe... long enough to haaang itself. ;-P
We was talking about your cretinic statements of denial -- your "No"s in respect to questions and statements of others... or just out of the blue. :-)))))))))))))))))
EXACTLY.
What criminals and liar do... in court rooms... under cross-examination of their lies.
And bury itself with their own lies. ;-P
And they CAN... and they DO... cry "I am NOT guilty, court was unfair, questions was wrong, all FACTUAL evidences was faked and all witnesses are liars, wee-wee-wee"...
but, who will care about whining of such a loser? ;-P
Qtard: \\Oh, so a defendant can plead guilty but be found innocent? How??? \\ Go enlighten itself. ;-P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
Qtard thinks someone who incriminates himself (maybe they plead guilty then say, "this is how I did it") but they can still be found innocent?
If I read the page Qtard linked to I would be enlightened as to how this is possible? That's what the imbecile thinks?
I don't see that the linked to page claims such moronity. Maybe the idiot can quote where the page says this?
But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
I see that cretin decided to return to his long forgotten trick -- impostering people of power. ;-P
\\But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
\\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
\\:-))))))))))))
And why *I* NOT surprised... how Totalitarian Judge Dervish Sanders HAILING in favor of totalitarian "justice" -- to judge people without evidences and facts examined, and even WITHOUT trial.
And EXACTLY because of that you have written. With EMPHASIS to boot.
You added the emphasis. My original comment didn't contain any bolded words.
Qtard: \\But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial\\ Or... it "NEVER said it"???
Why would I deny the truth. That is what qtards do.
Google: A plea deal is a negotiated agreement in a criminal case. The defendant and prosecution agree to settle the charges without a trial. There can be many benefits of taking the deal, but pleading guilty means giving up some of your constitutional rights.
\\You added the emphasis. My original comment didn't contain any bolded words.
O.K. double-checking.
Copying that
\\\\\\But... I KNOW that,
and pasting it in Ctrl-F field.
Naaah.
Liar as always LIED.
That excerpt first appeared in comment
\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...
But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
:-))))))))))))
\\ January 20, 2024 at 2:38 PM
With exactly that emphasis "I KNOW" in capital letters.
And it was HIGHLIGHTED with bold... NOT emphasized. ;-P
\\Google: A plea deal is a negotiated agreement in a criminal case. The defendant and prosecution agree to settle the charges without a trial. There can be many benefits of taking the deal, but pleading guilty means giving up some of your constitutional rights.
Yeah.
And Internet are full of suggestions from lawyers in response to a question "if someone pleads guilty can they appeal".
Because that is SO-O-O-O constitutional and SO-O-O-O protective of Human Right schema of conviction... and there SO-O-O-O few people, whose rights was waved in this or some other way.
In USA.
Which speeding up in direction of becoming Totalitarian Paradise -- where all people happily agree being guilty and marching in tight columns... into Gulag.
Qtard: O.K. double-checking. Copying that ... Naaah. Liar as always LIED.
Yep. You lied. My comment contains no bolded words.
Qtard: That excerpt first appeared in comment\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Yes. That is a point to reality fact.
Qtard: \\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise. :-))))))))))))
The imbecile laughs at its own imbecility?
Qtard: With exactly that emphasis "I KNOW" in capital letters.
With exactly that emphasis "NEVER said it" in capital letters. In continuance of its lie that I say things then deny saying them.
Qtard: And it was HIGHLIGHTED with bold... NOT emphasized.
False. "The bold tag is used for strong emphasis. When you feel like emphasizing something, you need to first consider using the italics..."
34 comments:
Again? The last time he lost. That's why he isn't president any more. He did a very bad job and got the boot.
He lost the Iowa Caucus in 2020? He lost Iowa in the 2020 General Election? Who knew?
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Constipated, Dervish?
Derpy's angry because he just suffered sudden constipation.
You cast a constipation curse on me, Mystere? Satan told you it worked? Is that what your religious delusions tell you?
No.
NewSpeak ;-P
Qtard: NewSpeak.
My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes? How would Mystere know? How would you know? Or is it that, when I write no, you just automatically claim it's NewSpeaking? I can NEVER say no and mean no.
Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no". Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent.
Meme: "Oh, look I won again"...
ONLY 8 percent of registered republicans in Iowa voted. Is that what Minus thinks is a bigly win?
\\My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes?
Why not? ;-P
You CONFIRMED that IT is imbecilic liar.
So... why it SO unbelievable -- that its "NO" here is THE SAME imbecilic lie, ahhh? ;-P
Liars tend to lie all of the times -- to cover their previous lies.
\\ I can NEVER say no and mean no.
And with WHAT fact it confirmed? ;-P
As for now, there are only CONFIRMED FACTS -- that your words DO NOT corroborate with FACTS -- means, they are LIES.
So??? What REASON there could be??? To take on faith, in OPPOSITE to all previous OBVIOUS lies, that THIS time... it was truth. Factual TRUTH.
While there is NO evidances what so ever -- that that "no" based on ANY fact.
\\Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no".
Your alter-ego "Qtard"???
Most probably.
Cause it is imbecile. Just like you. And UNABLE to get simple truth --- that ANY meaning of ANY word -- is conventional.
That's why we have that VERY IMPORTANT things -- dictionaries. For people to know what meanings of this or that word are widely known. To be able to communicate, with using that common meaning.
But it... is an imbecile. That DESPISE dictionaries. And trying to claim that ONLY imbecile's "what I mean" matters.
Well... continue-continue.
It's VERY DAMN FUNNY... to observe such imbecilic behavior. Not very often. And quite rare, actually. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent.
Ough???
That Mistere would be glad to know -- about such a self-admission of Derpish Sadners. ;-P
But I... don't care.
Yawn.
Because you bodily functions is of no interest for me. Only your imbecilic brain products. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Why not? ;-P
Why? Mystere has zero evidence to come to that conclusion. As do you. Except for your 100 percent BS assertion that my "no" was a NewSpeak "yes".
Qtard: You CONFIRMED that IT is imbecilic liar.
Lie. I never confirmed that.
Qtard: So... why it SO unbelievable -- that its "NO" here is THE SAME imbecilic lie, ahhh?
Because I confirmed I don't use NewSpeak.
Qtard: Liars tend to lie all of the times -- to cover their previous lies.
You believe you are entitled to an honest answer regarding me being constipated or not? Are you constipated? I DEMAND an answer. Though, if the answer is no, I will assume you mean yes. In NewSpeak. If you refuse to answer I will assume the answer is yes and you are too embarrassed to say.
Qtard: \\ I can NEVER say no and mean no\\ And with WHAT fact it confirmed?
With what fact is it confirmed that you aren't constipated? I demand evidence.
Qtard: As for now, there are only CONFIRMED FACTS -- that your words DO NOT corroborate with FACTS...
There is not.
Qtard: -- means, they are LIES.
No.
Qtard: So??? What REASON there could be??? To take on faith...
Qtard is constipated. It just confirmed it. I should not take it on faith if it says no. Unless it FedExes me lab results signed by a notary that says it is not constipated. Though it must verify it's idenity first. So it can't just have someone else take the test.
Qtard: in OPPOSITE to all previous OBVIOUS lies...
Falsely alleged lies.
Qtard: ...that THIS time... it was truth. Factual TRUTH.
This time and every time.
Qtard: While there is NO evidances what so ever -- that that "no" based on ANY fact.
And there is no evidence that you are not constipated.
Qtard obviously dunno that "no" means "no"\\ Your alter-ego "Qtard"???
I have no such alter ego. When I say "Qtard" I mean YOU. And I did not write "you" and mean "I".
Qtard: Most probably.
...you are constipated? Don't you know? Because you're having problems pooping?
Qtard: Cause it is imbecile. Just like you. And UNABLE to get simple truth --- that ANY meaning of ANY word -- is conventional.
Lie. Completely unsupported by any facts.
Qtard: That's why we have that VERY IMPORTANT things -- dictionaries. For people to know what meanings of this or that word are widely known.
And yet, even after quoting a dictionary, you STILL get the definition wrong. Like with "escalate" and "cherry pick".
Qtard: To be able to communicate, with using that common meaning.
But you don't.
Qtard: But it... is an imbecile. That DESPISE dictionaries. And trying to claim that ONLY imbecile's "what I mean" matters.
The imbecile fully embraces it's "what Derpy really mean" lie.
Qtard: Well... continue-continue.
Self encouragement. Imbecile insists I only mean what it says I mean.
Qtard: It's VERY DAMN FUNNY... to observe such imbecilic behavior. Not very often. And quite rare, actually.
Imbecile is amused by its own imbecility. Thinks it proved it can tell me what my words mean. Like, "no, you meant the opposite of what you said" aka it's babbling "NewSpeak" over and over.
Qtard:\\Ask any of the hundreds of men it has raped. They all said "no" to sex with Qtard. But it thought they gave NewSpeak consent\\ Ough??? That Mistere would be glad to know -- about such a self-admission of Derpish Sadners.
"No, not me, you" again. NewSpeak confirmation that it has raped many men.
Qtard: But I... don't care. Yawn. Because you bodily functions is of no interest for me.
Lie. It is very interested in if I am constipated or not. VERY interested.
Qtard: Only your imbecilic brain products.
Definite use of "your" when it meant "my".
\\My "no" was in regards to Mystere comment about me being constipated. You think I meant yes?
\\Why not? ;-P
\\Why? Mystere has zero evidence to come to that conclusion. As do you. Except for your 100 percent BS assertion that my "no" was a NewSpeak "yes".
Why not?
If you'd be silent on it... it would be another case.
But you decided to shout your imbecilic "No". And that is THE FACT -- your admission as a witness.
And with a priori knowledge from all previous facts -- that you are lair. It's easy to conclude -- that with high probability the true answer is "Yes".
Or... how do you think they do it in court??? Asking criminal "are you criminal?", that answers "No"... and judge are like that "Well... he said No, you see... that must be true, so... let's free him and decide him not guilty" -- that is how it working in your imbecilic mind??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Imbecile thinks if a judge asks, "how do you plead" the defendant should be silent! Because if the defendant says "not guilty", the judge will say, "that is a NewSpeak confession of guilt". And the defendant will be placed in handcuffs and sent to prison immediately. No actual evidence is necessary.
Why does it think trials work this way? Obviously because it is a total imbecile.
Dervy's a "judge"... ;)
Qtard: ...you decided to shout your imbecilic "No". And that is THE FACT -- your admission as a witness.
It is not.
Judge: how do you plead?
Defendant: not guilty, your honor.
Judge: The defendant just testified against himself with his NewSpeak denial. I find him guilty!
That's Qtard's idea of how trials work.
And I see it refers to the defendant as "criminal".
Making it CLEAR that it's prior cries concerning the presumption of innocence -- were false. It lied.
Now it says a not proven guilty defendant is a "criminal" who can be found guilty by pleading not guilty.
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
\\ Dervy's a "judge"... ;)
IT... throwed into the bin that title. Of just own free will. ;-P
Well, anyway, how'd it be helpful... to it?
To score "imbecilic judge title"??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Qtard: ...you decided to shout your imbecilic "No". And that is THE FACT -- your admission as a witness.
\\It is not.
The Court specifically held that: “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
Miranda warning | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
What *I* have said???
Imbecile Judge title scored in a jiffy. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Judge: The defendant just testified against himself with his NewSpeak denial. I find him guilty!
\\That's Qtard's idea of how trials work.
Thank you for revealing how you alter-ego "Qtard" thinks trials should go.
(well... now it becomes apparent -- why "imbecilic judge" screeched "but dRump is guilty" SO MANY TIMES)
Becsause it DUNNO (not a surprise, for cretin) about
Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.
Fifth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu › Wex
\\Now it says a not proven guilty defendant is a "criminal" who can be found guilty by pleading not guilty.
And obviously.
Cretin -- unable to understand what Counter-Example could be. Naturally.
But, let be patient... with so mentally impaired poor soul.
Definition: A counter-example to an argument is a situation which shows that the argument can have true premises and a false conclusion.
Counter-examples - FutureLearn
FutureLearn
https://www.futurelearn.com › info › courses › steps
If a defendant decides to remain silent when asked how they are pleading, "the court is obligated to enter a not-guilty plea on your behalf".
ONLY a "guilty" plea is a "guilty" plea.
Silence = not guilty.
Not guilty = not guilty.
The court NEVER assumes a "not guilty" plea is a NewSpeak "guilty" plea.
Saying "not guilty" is not "self-incrimination".
Qtard: Thank you for revealing how you alter-ego "Qtard" thinks trials should go.
That is what YOU revealed. When you moronically claimed my "no" was an admission of guilt.
Trials should definitely not go like that.
So mentally impaired poor soul = you.
And I did not write "you" but mean "me".
Who else but someone who is mentally impaired would think a "no" would be considered a "NewSpeak yes" in a court of law? And be ruled an admission of guilt?
ONLY an imbecile. Which you clearly are.
\\ Dervish Sanders said...
\\ So mentally impaired poor soul = you.
Just because some cretin proclaimed it... out of the blue??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Of course no.
There is NO other reason -- apart from cretin having nothing to answer to sound logic and facts -- so IT decided to blurt our such a cretinic retort. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
\\That is what YOU revealed. When you moronically claimed my "no" was an admission of guilt.
Like there is NO criminals... that claim not guilty in court room??? Or even later while being in jail????
Another word... in accordance to cretin Derpish Sadners... when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately. (well, if that is not dRump... who are guilty, even if there is NO facts of his guilt provided... just because DEMN propaganda howling it till no end)
Crimnals are liars. And liars, obviously, cry their false "No"s all of the time.
And that is -- what cretin Derpish Sadners doing, too. ;-P
\\Trials should definitely not go like that.
Of course!
Cause there is no cretins like you eligible to be in court... in any other role apart from judged. ;-P
\\ONLY a "guilty" plea is a "guilty" plea.
Totalitarin Derpish Sadners do not know... that pleaing "guilty" -- DO NOT counts as an evidence.
Only in totalitarian countries self-incrinating is ENOUGH for people to be put in jail. Like after tortures and/or threats.
\\Saying "not guilty" is not "self-incrimination".
Saying "No" to questions, when it shown in court that criminal are liar -- is. ;-P
Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt", that there is NO REASON... to listen for more baseless nonsensical uttering, which consist only of cretinic denial of obvious facts. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Qtard reveals that, when it cried about its concern for presumption of innocence, it lied through its teeth. It ONLY cares about innocence being presumed in regards to Putin's puppet, dotard donald.
That is not surprising, given that Qtard is a Putin puppet itself.
Other defendants are criminals who, when they enter "not guilty" pleas, should assumed to be lying. Not only that, but the totalitarian-loving Qtard believes their "not guilty" should be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Qtard: ...do not know... that pleaing "guilty" -- DO NOT counts as an evidence.
Oh, so a defendant can plead guilty but be found innocent? How??? Given that, even before the trial was started, Qtard has declared the defendant to be a criminal and a liar.
Well, unless the defendant is dotard donald. Then Qtard says "fair trial, my ass" and calls the accusations "political feces throwing". Because... Mark Twain.
Qtard: Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt"...
Oh, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" means the criminal looks guilty? No need for any actual evidence. Or so the totalitarian-lover believes.
Qtard: ...when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately...
Yes. If there is no evidence. Only totalitarian-lovers like YOU -- saying the "criminal" looks guilty. Because the defendant "admitted" guilt -- by saying he is NOT guilty.
\\Qtard believes their "not guilty" should be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
How else words of liars can be interpreted? As Truth??? :-))))))))))))))))))
Might be, night be... for cretins.
\\Oh, so a defendant can plead guilty but be found innocent? How???
Go enlighten itself. ;-P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
But.
Cretin will only confirm being cretin -- unable to learn.
But.
Continue-continue, cretin. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard has declared the defendant to be a criminal and a liar.
And there IMPOSSIBLE to know if someone are liar and criminal... before court?
So, with that, you admitting that dRump are innocent as a newborn baby? ;-P
\\Qtard: Every next "no", making him looking only MORE being liar, only MORE guilty... until that court would admit, "beyond reasonable doubt"...
\\Oh, so "beyond a reasonable doubt" means the criminal looks guilty?
AGAIN. ;-P
So, with that, you admitting that dRump are innocent as a newborn baby? ;-P
\\No need for any actual evidence. Or so the totalitarian-lover believes.
Obviously. Cretin UNABLE to follow even OWN arguments.
Yawn.
That is YOU are one -- who trying to DEFEND that idea -- that one who admitted being guilty -- are guilty, without any actual evidences investigated and tested in court.
But well.
Cretin will cry "I NEVER said it, YOU said it"... without any factual quotes or credible arguments...
\\Qtard: ...when some criminal blurting "no" in a court -- we, and court, and everybody else... SHOULD take it as TRUTH... and release that criminal immediately...
\\Yes. If there is no evidence.
Of course.
How cretin would know???
That for any person to appear in court... without ANY evidences -- that would be SEVERE breaching of any and all possible laws (of democratic country).
But... quite usually happen in totalitarian countries -- which gives one more clue -- into Totalitarian Derpiness. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Only totalitarian-lovers like YOU -- saying the "criminal" looks guilty.
Yeah.
Blurted out cretin.
That keep howling "dRump are guilty"... without Court Judgment, or EVEN ANY sound evidences presented...
\\Because the defendant "admitted" guilt -- by saying he is NOT guilty.
Cretin thinking that it SUCCESSFULLY derailed discussion. And now trying burgeoning on it.
Naaaah, cretin.
I saw through that imbecilic trick right away.
And just allowed it to happen... to give you time enough to weave that r0pe... long enough to haaang itself. ;-P
We was talking about your cretinic statements of denial -- your "No"s in respect to questions and statements of others... or just out of the blue. :-)))))))))))))))))
EXACTLY.
What criminals and liar do... in court rooms... under cross-examination of their lies.
And bury itself with their own lies. ;-P
And they CAN... and they DO... cry "I am NOT guilty, court was unfair, questions was wrong, all FACTUAL evidences was faked and all witnesses are liars, wee-wee-wee"...
but, who will care about whining of such a loser? ;-P
Qtard: \\Oh, so a defendant can plead guilty but be found innocent? How??? \\ Go enlighten itself. ;-P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
Qtard thinks someone who incriminates himself (maybe they plead guilty then say, "this is how I did it") but they can still be found innocent?
If I read the page Qtard linked to I would be enlightened as to how this is possible? That's what the imbecile thinks?
I don't see that the linked to page claims such moronity. Maybe the idiot can quote where the page says this?
But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
:-))))))))))))
\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...
I see that cretin decided to return to his long forgotten trick -- impostering people of power. ;-P
\\But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
\\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
\\:-))))))))))))
And why *I* NOT surprised... how Totalitarian Judge Dervish Sanders HAILING in favor of totalitarian "justice" -- to judge people without evidences and facts examined, and even WITHOUT trial.
Qtard: Totalitarian Judge Dervish Sanders HAILING in favor of totalitarian "justice" -- to judge people without evidences and facts examined...
Lie. I am 100 percent opposed to that. Defendants take plea deals because the evidence and facts are against them.
Qtard: ...and even WITHOUT trial.
Yeah, that is the system we have. Most defendants take plea deals and do not go to trial. You don't know this because you are an imbecile.
\\Lie. I am 100 percent opposed to that. Defendants take plea deals because the evidence and facts are against them.
And EXACTLY because of that you have written. With EMPHASIS to boot.
\\\\But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Or... it "NEVER said it"???
Or... somebody ELSE said it.. like, some alter-egos??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are SO-O-O-O cretinic cretin, SO that is just spectacular. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
But.
Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Yeah, that is the system we have. Most defendants take plea deals and do not go to trial. You don't know this because you are an imbecile.
Yeah.
Speeding in direction of totalitarian rule.
So what???
No more imbecilic taunts??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000
And EXACTLY because of that you have written. With EMPHASIS to boot.
You added the emphasis. My original comment didn't contain any bolded words.
Qtard: \\But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial\\ Or... it "NEVER said it"???
Why would I deny the truth. That is what qtards do.
Google: A plea deal is a negotiated agreement in a criminal case. The defendant and prosecution agree to settle the charges without a trial. There can be many benefits of taking the deal, but pleading guilty means giving up some of your constitutional rights.
\\You added the emphasis. My original comment didn't contain any bolded words.
O.K. double-checking.
Copying that
\\\\\\But... I KNOW that,
and pasting it in Ctrl-F field.
Naaah.
Liar as always LIED.
That excerpt first appeared in comment
\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...
But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
:-))))))))))))
\\ January 20, 2024 at 2:38 PM
With exactly that emphasis "I KNOW" in capital letters.
And it was HIGHLIGHTED with bold... NOT emphasized. ;-P
\\Google: A plea deal is a negotiated agreement in a criminal case. The defendant and prosecution agree to settle the charges without a trial. There can be many benefits of taking the deal, but pleading guilty means giving up some of your constitutional rights.
Yeah.
And Internet are full of suggestions from lawyers in response to a question "if someone pleads guilty can they appeal".
Because that is SO-O-O-O constitutional and SO-O-O-O protective of Human Right schema of conviction... and there SO-O-O-O few people, whose rights was waved in this or some other way.
In USA.
Which speeding up in direction of becoming Totalitarian Paradise -- where all people happily agree being guilty and marching in tight columns... into Gulag.
No cretin's retorts here??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
Qtard: O.K. double-checking. Copying that ... Naaah. Liar as always LIED.
Yep. You lied. My comment contains no bolded words.
Qtard: That excerpt first appeared in comment\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...But... I KNOW that, if a defendant pleads guilty and accepts a plea deal, they cannot be found innocent. Because there is no trial.
Yes. That is a point to reality fact.
Qtard: \\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise. :-))))))))))))
The imbecile laughs at its own imbecility?
Qtard: With exactly that emphasis "I KNOW" in capital letters.
With exactly that emphasis "NEVER said it" in capital letters. In continuance of its lie that I say things then deny saying them.
Qtard: And it was HIGHLIGHTED with bold... NOT emphasized.
False. "The bold tag is used for strong emphasis. When you feel like emphasizing something, you need to first consider using the italics..."
\\Yep. You lied. My comment contains no bolded words.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00
Cretin cannot help it, isn't it? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
To double-down on own cretinism. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00
Continue-continue, cretin :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
\\Qtard: \\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise. :-))))))))))))
\\The imbecile laughs at its own imbecility?
Yeah.
Somebody who have written that line and laughing under...
\\ Judge Dervish Sanders said...
\\...
\\Yet the imbecile thinks otherwise.
\\:-))))))))))))
Clearly cretin trying to return to being (self-admitted) imbecile.
But.
Too bad.
IT... already REASSURED me... that it bona fide C-R-E-T-I-N.
Yawn.
(with this retort too ;-))
\\False. "The bold tag is used for strong emphasis. When you feel like emphasizing something, you need to first consider using the italics..."
That rule for smart people.
Cretin CANNOT understand such subtle hints. So I just forced to do it bold. ;-P
But still... no success. Cretin just doubling-down on its cretinism. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Post a Comment