Pacquiao visited Tim Smith's office (email accuser), Smith was nowhere to be found?

See how hard was that? Oh my.. nice background music :love:

See how hard was that?

Doesn't matter if I believe them to be true or not, I don't know enough about the situation to comment either way. What I do know is that I have never seen anything in Tim that would bring his character into question. I've known Tim for a number of years, and if he believed he was getting good information from a quality source, then he had the journalistic duty to report it. your awesome and have a great career ahead of you.

2011 and people are still talking about the phantom email? :nonono: Here's something new to argue pointlessly over. I'm about to pull a Tim Smith and write an article, fresh off the BS (short for boxingscene of course) presses: Floyd Mayweather Jr and Leonard Ellerbe Confirmed to be gay lovers February 15, 2011 By ThePrince, BS Times http://media.mlive.com/mayweather_impact/photo/-leonard-ellerbe-boxing-533297414cb7e57a_large.jpg Floyd Mayweather Sr, ever a fixture on the Boxing landscape both in and out of the ring, has had a penchant for starting rumors that spread like wildfire. In late 2009 following Manny Pacquiao's dominant KO victories while moving up in weight versus Ricky Hatton, who was trained by Mayweather Sr at the time, and Miguel Cotto, Mayweather began a campaign of slander against the Filipino fighter and accused him of taking steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. This claim was backed by Tim Smith, writer for the NY Daily News, who wrote an article detailing an email correspondence that was observed by an unnamed source with 'knowledge of the negotiations' between Pacquiao and Mayweather's son Floyd Jr for a superfight. It appears the seemingly slanderous vitriol of Mayweather Sr has once again proven to be reality by unnamed sources with no evidence. Floyd Sr had this to say about his son's adviser Leonard Ellerbe: "He thanks everyone but his daddy. He thanks Leonard Ellerbe, a homosexual, I know he's a homosexual and everyone else knows it. You can print that because I said it, I can tell you nothing else but how gay he is." Many would've passed this statement off as simply the ramblings of a punch-drunk former fighter and rumored crack addict, but it seems once again Boxing's wordsmith has been vindicated. I was informed by a trusted source, who will remain unnamed, with knowledge of these matters that Floyd Jr, after having posted videos of Manny Pacquiao's KO losses from the 90s, accidentally forwarded pictures and messages from Mr. Ellerbe that were meant to be private. It seems that the emails contained amorous correspondences between Mayweather Jr and Ellerbe- secret rendevousz plans, reservations at honeymoon sweets, and sweet nothings of all sorts. But most damning, were raunchy photos of both gentleman- Mr. Ellerbe in Oscar De La Hoya-like skimpy prostitute outfits, Mayweather Jr dressed in 'gimp' attire, pictures of what can only be described as romantic getaways in a folder labeled 'our vacation'. The subject matter is very graphic in detail and not for the feint of heart. Unfortunately, even though I'm staring at all these pictures and letters as I type this and releasing them to the public would in no way give away my source and thereby would not go against any journalistic ethical code, I don't think I'll publish them with this or any follow ups articles (don't expect any by the way). Why not you ask? I don't f*cking know is my reply. I don't f*cking know. ThePrince is a syndicated writer for BS Times and his articles can be viewed with a monthly subscription to our online magazine. 4 easy installments of $69.99 and olympic style online blood tests, with a 14 day max cut-off... for now.

OMG :lol1: :lol1: Let all pray for him.

it's the same thing in civil cases...so what's your point. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses. OMG :lol1: :lol1:

The guy really IS a dumbasss lol, the funniest part is he doesnt see it.. But am praying for him though!!! says the guy who considers email as non-proof but it's okay to be used as the center of a journalist's article...you're the dumbass.

it's the same thing in civil cases...so what's your point. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses. im done, goodnight!

lmao!!! this aint a criminal case buddy. gtfo! You are such a f*cking clown. :lol1: The guy really IS a dumbasss lol, the funniest part is he doesnt see it.. But am praying for him though!!!

You are such a f*cking clown. :lol1: says the guy who says the accused carries the burden of proof:lol1:

lmao!!! this aint a criminal case buddy. gtfo! it's the same thing in civil cases...so what's your point. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

If you dont understand why a journalist write or print somethine like that then i feel sorry for you, Like i said before "I would be praying for you":flowers1: just because they're journalists doesn't mean they're not responsible for what they write. freedom of the press does not encompasses baseless articles. if you have a basis and your readers or your subject demand for it you should provide it...as simple as that.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof that's very basic...only a moron like you would think otherwise. can you imagine if accusers are not required to present proof to back up their allegations? and instead you pass that burden to the accused? and if the accused can not provide proof he will be convicted...damn. only in flomos' world. and no, you can't impress me with your latin phrases. i'm sure you don't understand it anyway. that is not even applicable to this discussion as it deals with the underlying circumstances and the behaviour of people involved. you're a joke...all you got is useless blabber. You are such a f*cking clown. :lol1:

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof that's very basic...only a moron like you would think otherwise. can you imagine if accusers are not required to present proof to back up their allegations? and instead you pass that burden to the accused? and if the accused can not provide proof he will be convicted...damn. only in flomos' world. and no, you can't impress me with your latin phrases. i'm sure you don't understand it anyway. that is not even applicable to this discussion as it deals with the underlying circumstances and the behaviour of people involved. you're a joke...all you got is useless blabber. lmao!!! this aint a criminal case buddy. gtfo!

all i read from u is blah blah blah blah i dont know what im talking about but im railing anyways blah blah. dont tell about no dumb ass college law course, colleges cant teach law. they barely kno basic street law. secondly have u ever heard of res ipsa loquitur? look it up. the rest of what u said is garbage. u dont know what ur talking about, u think law is simply a strict set of rules where something always applies absolutely? if it was there would be no need for appeals courts and justices. go back to ur college law class, ur not ready to play with the big boys. and finally!!! look up the legal definition of libel and all of the prongs necessary to prove a case. im not gonna teach u, obviously u didnt pay attention in "college law courses". dude, stick to ur huge walls of text and ur tardism because u obviously have no idea what ur taking about. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof that's very basic...only a moron like you would think otherwise. can you imagine if accusers are not required to present proof to back up their allegations? and instead you pass that burden to the accused? and if the accused can not provide proof he will be convicted...damn. only in flomos' world. and no, you can't impress me with your latin phrases. i'm sure you don't understand it anyway. that is not even applicable to this discussion as it deals with the underlying circumstances and the behaviour of people involved. you're a joke...all you got is useless blabber.

if that email can not be considered a proof like what you're saying then what's the point of writing an article about it? and what's wrong if i wanna see the email as proof? . If you dont understand why a journalist write or print somethine like that then i feel sorry for you, Like i said before "I would be praying for you":flowers1:

then why are you suggesting that pac should've sued his ass? im suggesting that if pac or arum or anyone else on pac's team thought that what was said was false and detrimental to pac's reputation, they sure didnt put any effort into impeaching the truthhood of the existence of such an email. u idiots are under the assumption that such an e mail somehow implies that pac takes something. the email could have been strictly for legal purposes, i.e. a lawyer looking out for his client, etc. such things exist. it is totally possible the email does exist and even if it did, it is little proof of anything besides a lawyer doing his due diligence. but alas, u guys are the legal geniuses, so u keep on talking about **** thats above ur heads all day.

Why bother write it? Wow you are really dumber than i thought, "I would be praying for you" :banana: i'm talking about smith dumbass...if that email can not be considered a proof like what you're saying then what's the point of writing an article about it? and what's wrong if i wanna see the email as proof? do you expect people to believe the content of that article just like that because it was written by smith for ny times? only the stupid ones like you will do that.

it's you who have no idea of what you talking about. i'm not a lawyer but i took up some units in law in college and that's a basic premise. if you accuse somebody make sure you can back it up otherwise don't make the accusation. this world will be in great chaos if we have to follow your dumbass logic. idiot...even in courts of law, somebody's testimony is the least acceptable evidence because humans by nature is capable of lying. and what he got was a 2nd hand information...his source could be lying...or even the author himself was lying. he wrote that there was an email...then by all means provide the email. if there was a sender for sure there was a recipient. the alleged recipient was on the other side of the fence so for sure he's more than glad to help provide the email. so how hard is that? unless such email didn't really exist. it's just common sense moron but you don't have it. this world works well without stupid people like you that's for sure. who cares if smith is a well known reporter...that doesn't mean he can't make up ****. and who cares if he has claimed to have an inside source or not? that doesn't prove anything. it's all about the email...where is it? he wasn't talking about the weapons of mass distruction in iraq...it's just an email. that's the easiest proof that can be provided in this times if indeed it exist. the problem is if it doesn't. all i read from u is blah blah blah blah i dont know what im talking about but im railing anyways blah blah. dont tell about no dumb ass college law course, colleges cant teach law. they barely kno basic street law. secondly have u ever heard of res ipsa loquitur? look it up. the rest of what u said is garbage. u dont know what ur talking about, u think law is simply a strict set of rules where something always applies absolutely? if it was there would be no need for appeals courts and justices. go back to ur college law class, ur not ready to play with the big boys. and finally!!! look up the legal definition of libel and all of the prongs necessary to prove a case. im not gonna teach u, obviously u didnt pay attention in "college law courses". dude, stick to ur huge walls of text and ur tardism because u obviously have no idea what ur taking about.

if floyd can poke everyone in the face... imagine what a gentleman pacquiao will do to him.