Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:47 am

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 76  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
Quote:
You are like Floyd Mayweather challenging Manny to take the drug test for no reason at all. Why should Manny take the test? Why should Duterte show his secrets without proof of order from the courts? They should sue Digong first so that he would be forced to show everthing related to the investigations. But the accusers are afraid to sue the president because they know it will backfire, so they just make noise for publicity. The burden of proof is on the accuser.


Who issued the first challenge? Let me remind you what Duterte said.

PRESIDENTIAL candidate Rodrigo Duterte and his vice presidential running mate, Alan Peter Cayetano, have signed a waiver that will allow the opening of their bank accounts for public scrutiny, and they are daring their rivals to do the same.
“In the light of [graft and corruption] charges faced by Vice President Jejomar Binay and members of his family, we have signed a [statement] challenging other candidates to sign bank secrecy waivers in the interest of transparency and accountability and to deter corruption in any form in the government

And that waiver turned out to be invalid. Duterte as usual duped the likes of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:
In the first statement you said Corona resigned, while in the second one you stated that he was forced to resign but was not able to resign, you couldn't agree with yourself.
After Corona was impeached he no longer held the post , -" The decision removes Corona from his post, disqualifies him from holding public office, and opens him to possible criminal cases." .

So how can Corona resign from an office he no longer holds?

Think too Napoles was considered the mastermind of the pork barrel scam - read Miriam Defensor's statements. Napoles is a principal not an accessory. Look at the Sandigbayan charges , Napoles was charged with plunder not an accessory to plunder. Big difference.

So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.


Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any public officer
who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall
likewise be punished for such offense.
In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall
declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment
thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (As amended by RA 7659, approved Dec. 13, 1993.)

Did it mention accessory in this case? And what is Napoles's degree of participation? Better take note of this particular part of this section.

In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court


How can you even think of Napoles as an accessory?


See? Even Section 2 above specifies that the crime of plunder applies principally to 'ANY PUBLIC OFFICER', not 'any person', get it? The continuation Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense CONTRIBUTING to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. .
The word 'contributing' shows that 'any person', that is, persons other than the principal (public officer) is an accessory, that is, one who contributes to the crime, not the one perpetrating it. How can a private individual plunder public funds when that person has no power over those funds like our lawmakers?

You really have to go back to Grammar 101.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:
In the first statement you said Corona resigned, while in the second one you stated that he was forced to resign but was not able to resign, you couldn't agree with yourself.
After Corona was impeached he no longer held the post , -" The decision removes Corona from his post, disqualifies him from holding public office, and opens him to possible criminal cases." .

So how can Corona resign from an office he no longer holds?

Think too Napoles was considered the mastermind of the pork barrel scam - read Miriam Defensor's statements. Napoles is a principal not an accessory. Look at the Sandigbayan charges , Napoles was charged with plunder not an accessory to plunder. Big difference.

So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.


Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. — Any public officer
who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said
public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall
likewise be punished for such offense.
In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall
declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment
thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (As amended by RA 7659, approved Dec. 13, 1993.)

Did it mention accessory in this case? And what is Napoles's degree of participation? Better take note of this particular part of this section.

In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court


How can you even think of Napoles as an accessory?


See? Even Section 2 above specifies that the crime of plunder applies principally to 'ANY PUBLIC OFFICER', not 'any person', get it? The continuation Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense CONTRIBUTING to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. .
The word 'contributing' shows that 'any person', that is, persons other than the principal (public officer) is an accessory, that is, one who contributes to the crime, not the one perpetrating it. How can a private individual plunder public funds when that person has no power over those funds like our lawmakers?

You really have to go back to Grammar 101.



Where did it says principally and where does it specify accessory - read the succeeding lines .
Quote:
In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as
provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court


Do you understand the word participation - between the Sandiganbayan including Defensor Santiago and you, who is more credible and qualified to interpret the laws of the land?

You couldn't even agree with yourself whether Corona was impeached or forced to resign.

Take and look and comprehend.

Quote:
Last year, the Sandiganbayan allowed her and another co-accused, Masbate Governor Rizalina Seachon-Llanete, to post a bail of P500,000 each for the plunder cases they are facing over the misuse of the latter’s PDAF when she was still a member of the House of Representatives. However, Napoles remains in jail because she was convicted by a lower court for serious illegal detention, a non-bailable offense.


Did it say, accessory , it stated co - accused , even the bail is the same - so where is the accessory part here or even an implication thereof. Your arguments betray a total eclipse of the brain.


Last edited by Emmanuel53 on Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:39 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 5104
10-6 round.. Emmanuel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.


So the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extra judicial too , right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:58 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.



Let's test your comprehension level - this is Philippine jurisprudence.

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code classifies them as principals, accomplices, or accessories. A persons can be liable as a principal for (a) taking a direct part in the execution of the felony, (b) directly forcing or inducing others to commit it, or (c) cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Accomplices are persons who, while not acting as a principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Lastly, accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by: (a) profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime, (b) concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery, or (c) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime.

Principals are punished more severely than accomplices, who are punished more severely than accessories. However, when there is conspiracy, there will no longer be a distinction as to whether a person acted as a principal, accomplice or accessory, because when there is conspiracy, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of one is the act of all.


So in what category does Napoles fall?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:12 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
Quote:
By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general
.

Ah so now I'm the one who is having comprehension and grammar problems. What about the person who couldn't even agree with himself whether Corona was impeached or forced to resign - this person couldn't even comprehend himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:20 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.



Let's test your comprehension level - this is Philippine jurisprudence.

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code classifies them as principals, accomplices, or accessories. A persons can be liable as a principal for (a) taking a direct part in the execution of the felony, (b) directly forcing or inducing others to commit it, or (c) cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Accomplices are persons who, while not acting as a principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Lastly, accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by: (a) profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime, (b) concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery, or (c) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime.

Principals are punished more severely than accomplices, who are punished more severely than accessories. However, when there is conspiracy, there will no longer be a distinction as to whether a person acted as a principal, accomplice or accessory, because when there is conspiracy, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of one is the act of all.


So in what category does Napoles fall?



Based on the above definition, if Napoles and the lawmakers planned the crime as a group, then she can be called an accomplice to plunder. Definition (a) of accessory to a crime most probably fits Napoles in this case. Since plunder is a crime of public officers, she cannot be the principal because she is a private individual who has no say on how the funds are to be used. In other words, she could not have profited without the consent of the principals who had direct control over the funds. In essence, she was a passive accessory to plunder because her profiting therefrom was dependent on the lawmakers' decision to perpetrate plunder. She was not given the funds as budget, so how could she have plundered them? On the other hand, the lawmakers were the ones entrusted with the funds, therefore they would be the ones accused of plunder according to the definition.

In any case, plunder is a crime by public officers, and Napoles is not a public officer, ergo, she cannot be the principal. She can only be either an accomplice or an accessory. I am not a lawyer but I can kick the butts of lawyers. By the way, I represented myself in the 2 cases I filed against my company at the NLRC and the lawyers from the law office representing the company are what you call 'abogado de campanilla'.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:29 pm 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: In exile
Emmanuel53 wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.


So the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extra judicial too , right?



Again you're shooting yourself in the mouth. Your questions are all non sequitur on the context of the definition of extrajudicial, which I have already explained to you several times.

You still cannot get the logic, don't you? It goes like this using Definition 2 of extrajudicial:

Any proceeding done outside of the court is extrajudicial;
The framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution was done outside the court;
Therefore the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extrajudicial.

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:54 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
rizalincarnate wrote:
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.



Let's test your comprehension level - this is Philippine jurisprudence.

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised Penal Code classifies them as principals, accomplices, or accessories. A persons can be liable as a principal for (a) taking a direct part in the execution of the felony, (b) directly forcing or inducing others to commit it, or (c) cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. Accomplices are persons who, while not acting as a principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Lastly, accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by: (a) profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime, (b) concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery, or (c) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime.

Principals are punished more severely than accomplices, who are punished more severely than accessories. However, when there is conspiracy, there will no longer be a distinction as to whether a person acted as a principal, accomplice or accessory, because when there is conspiracy, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of one is the act of all.


So in what category does Napoles fall?




Quote:
Based on the above definition, if Napoles and the lawmakers planned the crime as a group, then she can be called an accomplice to plunder. Definition (a) of accessory to a crime most probably fits Napoles in this case. Since plunder is a crime of public officers, she cannot be the principal because she is a private individual who has no say on how the funds are to be used. In other words, she could not have profited without the consent of the principals who had direct control over the funds. In essence, she was a passive accessory to plunder because her profiting therefrom was dependent on the lawmakers' decision to perpetrate plunder. She was not given the funds as budget, so how could she have plundered them? On the other hand, the lawmakers were the ones entrusted with the funds, therefore they would be the ones accused of plunder according to the definition.

In any case, plunder is a crime by public officers, and Napoles is not a public officer, ergo, she cannot be the principal. She can only be either an accomplice or an accessory. I am not a lawyer but I can kick the butts of lawyers. By the way, I represented myself in the 2 cases I filed against my company at the NLRC and the lawyers from the law office representing the company are what you call 'abogado de campanilla'.


You said -
Quote:
Based on the above definition, if Napoles and the lawmakers planned the crime as a group, then she can be called an accomplice to plunder


And you shot your foot again. Read.

[color=#00FF00]However, when there is conspiracy, there will no longer be a distinction as to whether a person acted as a principal, accomplice or accessory, because when there is conspiracy, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of one is the act of all.[/color][/b

Or[b] (b) directly forcing or inducing others to commit it, or (c) cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished


You forgot that Napoles was charged with creating fake NGOs where the pork barrel funds were channeled without which the pork barrel scam would not have been possible or would have been accomplished. She was also charged with corruption of public officials which falls into the purview of inducing others to commit it.

Also it is the revised penal code which defines what principals , accomplices or accessories are. I don't care if you represented yourself in whatever case you imagine , you couldn't even comprehend or decide if Corona resigned/forced to resign or was impeached , and kept fudging on the matter. So don't twist the law to suit your own ends.
You weren't even aware that Supreme Court justices vote individually, not as a group and proof is there are dissenting opinions made public. Basic legal procedure yet you are totally clueless.


Palusot to the max and yabang pa more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:06 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.


So the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extra judicial too , right?[/quote]


Quote:
Again you're shooting yourself in the mouth. Your questions are all non sequitur on the context of the definition of extrajudicial, which I have already explained to you several times.

You still cannot get the logic, don't you? It goes like this using Definition 2 of extrajudicial:

Any proceeding done outside of the court is extrajudicial;
The framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution was done outside the court;
Therefore the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extrajudicial.


Nice to hear that the framing of the Constitution is extrajudicial , like extra judicial killings , right. Same level.
Grammar 101 - You don't shoot yourself in the mouth, you shoot your mouth off, or you shoot yourself in the foot. Basic idiomatic expressions , and you still fail miserably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:13 am 
Offline
Light Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: In exile
rizalincarnate wrote:
Emmanuel53 wrote:


So are there legislative processes and executive processes that happen inside a court?


Research before you post, pretty soon like one person here , you wouldn't have any foot left.



By the way, you have a comprehension problem concerning the context of our discussion about the meaning of the word 'extrajudicial'. I have already shown to you that one of the meanings of that word is as defined by Meriam Webster, particularly Definition 2. Your question above is a non sequitur. The answer to that is none, that's why I said these are, in a way, extrajudicial proceedings because they are not happening inside the court as I have already explained but which you have a problem understanding.

Your arrogance and intransigence hide your ignorance about grammar and comprehension of the English language in general.


So the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extra judicial too , right?[/quote]


Quote:
Again you're shooting yourself in the mouth. Your questions are all non sequitur on the context of the definition of extrajudicial, which I have already explained to you several times.

You still cannot get the logic, don't you? It goes like this using Definition 2 of extrajudicial:

Any proceeding done outside of the court is extrajudicial;
The framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution was done outside the court;
Therefore the framing and ratification of the 1987 Constitution is extrajudicial.


Emmanuel53 wrote:
Nice to hear that the framing of the Constitution is extrajudicial , like extra judicial killings , right. Same level.
Grammar 101 - You don't shoot yourself in the mouth, you shoot your mouth off, or you shoot yourself in the foot. Basic idiomatic expressions , and you still fail miserably.



Now I really got you this time. Pinasakay lang lita, sumakay ka naman. You keep on quoting non sequitur, so I gave you also a non sequitur logic.

Were we not talking about crime proceedings when we defined 'extrajudicial'? But all of a sudden you inserted the framing and ratification of the constitution which is not a crime. It was non sequitur in the first place and your logic does not hold water. You deviated from the discussion and is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as the impeachment and conviction of Corona. That's tantamount to sophistry which people use when they run out of argument. I'm not senile like you so you cannot impose your logic upon me.

Try harder and review your Logic 101!

_________________
In a land of geniuses, an average person is looked down as an id**t;
in a land of idiots, a genius is looked down as a fool.

Success is measured not by what you have achieved,
but by the degree of satisfaction you derive from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:39 am 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 5886
Quote:
Now I really got you this time. Pinasakay lang lita, sumakay ka naman. You keep on quoting non sequitur, so I gave you also a non sequitur logic.

Were we not talking about crime proceedings when we defined 'extrajudicial'? But all of a sudden you inserted the framing and ratification of the constitution which is not a crime. It was non sequitur in the first place and your logic does not hold water. You deviated from the discussion and is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as the impeachment and conviction of Corona. That's tantamount to sophistry which people use when they run out of argument. I'm not senile like you so you cannot impose your logic upon me.

Try harder and review your Logic 101!


Again quoting you - is out of context to my No. 2 definition of extrajudicial, which is about crime, such as the impeachment and conviction of Corona
Just to remind you , we were talking of the impeachment proceedings right - again you just shot your foot - was the impeachment of Corona a crime in the sense that extra judicial killings is a crime?

To be more concrete about it , if you are caught doing extra judicial killings aren't you liable before the law? So if you conduct impeachment proceedings are you liable before the law because per your definition it is extra judicial?

What amazes me is you constantly borrow lines from my posts. At least try some originality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:03 am 
Offline
Welterweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 493
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
Interesting.

The exchanges are now getting a little more intense -- with both sides dwelling on 'technicalities' (validity of their arguments).

Looks like the end is not near, and neither side will face the final curtain... :lol:

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 ... 76  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mauragon and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group