Pacquiao Lawsuit: "It was Floyd's camp who told Tim Smith about the FAKE emails"

12 pages. to summarize the debate, flomos believe pac should put up evidence before they believe. but when this all started, they believed tim smith right away about the email, even when there was no evidence back then or now. LOL.

Actually, that's not true. If you argue too many issues rather than choosing only those that are relevant and winnable, it becomes harder to focus the attention of the jury to the point you are trying to make. Worse, you also give the opposing counsel the opportunity to pick apart the weaker issues and give the jury the impression that they are dismantling your arguments. A good lawyer knows that the jury cannot digest every single argument. Thus, he will focus on making a few strong arguments and keep hammering at them to create the impression that his case is strong. Just review the OJ case and you will see that the strategy of the defense was to nitpick just one or two of the prosecution's arguments, like the small size of the gloves. In the end, that's all that the jury focused on and all the rest of the prosecution's arguments, testimonies and evidence were disregarded. actually what u said is not true at all. if ur a prosecutor, u try to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent. yes sure u confuse the jury, but the more stuff u have to back up your point, the better. the oj case is a bad example, there was sooooo much wrong with the prosecutions case that it was totally forseeable that oj wouldnt be convicted. had nothing to do with the few points the prosecution may have dropped the ball on. but like i said, a prosecutor has argue all of his points, if he doesnt, hes precluded from arguing them later....which would probably lead to, u guessed it, a malpractice suit.

LMAO! You are indeed stupid! A bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, please don't hold on that belief of yours and if you have indeed studied law, then what a waste of money it is. Looks like this is where he is getting his education on lawsuits. :lol1: :owned: Oh dear, flomos...oxygen robbers. Glad someone like you feels that way~

What if it turn out it was the truth and was the focal point of Pacquiao's accusations? It can happen you know, just like you dismissing evidences just from reading on here and a couple of articles from the other boxing websites... Well anything can happen in court, I don't think this would be the focal point though because how can you prove one to the defendants sent the e-mail, they can prove where it came from but not who was in front of the computer and we all know Floyd has an entourage. They would then have to prove it was sent on order from Floyd (or one of the other on trial). To me that is getting away from their main point, which is why I don't find it very meaningful, maybe it will turn out to be meaningful though.

Actually, that's not true. If you argue too many issues rather than choosing only those that are relevant and winnable, it becomes harder to focus the attention of the jury to the point you are trying to make. Worse, you also give the opposing counsel the opportunity to pick apart the weaker issues and give the jury the impression that they are dismantling your arguments. A good lawyer knows that the jury cannot digest every single argument. Thus, he will focus on making a few strong arguments and keep hammering at them to create the impression that his case is strong. Just review the OJ case and you will see that the strategy of the defense was to nitpick just one or two of the prosecution's arguments, like the small size of the gloves. In the end, that's all that the jury focused on and all the rest of the prosecution's arguments, testimonies and evidence were disregarded. You start wide then narrow it down, this may not even come up in court and they could still win. Before the trial you throw in every possible arguement because that is the time to get them in and depending on how the trial goes something might turn out that you didn't even really intend on using. Once you get to trial though you do go with your strongest stuff butit is always good to have back up plans. We are still before the trial.

They have to prove nothing, they only need prove the case against them is full of shit. That is how it works. Don't talk about things you obviously know nothing about. LMAO! You are indeed stupid! A bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing, please don't hold on that belief of yours and if you have indeed studied law, then what a waste of money it is. Quit watching Boston legal re-runs. Looks like this is where he is getting his education on lawsuits. :lol1: :owned: Oh dear, flomos...oxygen robbers.

One point will not lead to their defeat, they would just lose on that issue. You bring in multiple issues in hope of proving your point. Some fall by the wayside as you begin to focus in on the ones that are more likely to work. Obviously you do not~ Actually, that's not true. If you argue too many issues rather than choosing only those that are relevant and winnable, it becomes harder to focus the attention of the jury to the point you are trying to make. Worse, you also give the opposing counsel the opportunity to pick apart the weaker issues and give the jury the impression that they are dismantling your arguments. A good lawyer knows that the jury cannot digest every single argument. Thus, he will focus on making a few strong arguments and keep hammering at them to create the impression that his case is strong. Just review the OJ case and you will see that the strategy of the defense was to nitpick just one or two of the prosecution's arguments, like the small size of the gloves. In the end, that's all that the jury focused on and all the rest of the prosecution's arguments, testimonies and evidence were disregarded.

lawsuits are stupid Pac's team wasting their time with that they need to just ignore him until he signs to get in the ring

These people claim you arent a lawyer yet they act like one, somethings are just basic simple things that you know as you grow up in any civilised world, Am not a lawyer but i do know a few things. LMAO!!! I've read through all the pages and unfortunately, you don't know squat!

Keep searching~ you might come up with a real point before the end of the day. Don't put you and I on the same level on this topic~ we are as far apart as an ant and a hawk, this thread has shown it. My opinion is firm I don't find this very meaningful nor do I think it will mean much. What if it turn out it was the truth and was the focal point of Pacquiao's accusations? It can happen you know, just like you dismissing evidences just from reading on here and a couple of articles from the other boxing websites...

Some of these guys are morons of the highest order, "Oh now you need evidence"? Dah! the judge would ask for it morons...."Oh oh the double standards" what double standards lol...wow Fail... The only MORON I see on this thread is you.

When did you ask Mayweather for his evidence before you decided it was ok to jump on the bandwagon and drag Pac's name through the mud? Like i said you're a *****h asss moron, Fvck off, you fvcking female..these thread is about the allege emails, You can be butthole hurt all you fvcking want biitch. Tsk.. tsk... tsk... Once you got beaten by a good argument and you seem flustered by a reply, you always resort to this. Typical Flomo response... :nonono:

If those email doesn't exist then someone must be lied on it. If those email really exist all they have to do is to get a court order to legally extract those email from the source. This how it works.Your recieved an email. You read then delete and it's gone. NOPE! They still there! This is what happen when you deleted an email. The email was still in there lying somewhere in your hard drive unless some file overwrites on it but then even if it was permanently gone. You can still recover it from the mail server where it was downloaded/uploaded. Let us say you used Yahoo mail and you already deleted the mail from their website. Now you think is gone! sorry no it's not. All deleted email in the yahoo mail servers they still keep a copy of it for about 2 years I think before it finally trashed it for good. Company policy. With proper court order, now you can have the email you want. Now what you don't see in your email, it keep records of the mac address of the computer you used, ip address and the ISP. Basically these informations will tell the investigator the exact address of the sender and which computer in the house he used to send the email. Hopefully Floyd or any member of his team is not dumb enough to email it from his house. LOL! Basic computer forensic baby.

I.P Address. CCTV Cameras. With these things. getting all these information is not impossible. It won't be easy though unless it got saved, there is a digital footprint but that can go cold as memory is limited. We will have to see how that goes.

Huh? Is this an exclusive club? I thought this was a forum and not your private little girl's corner. If you are going to respond be a man about it and come at me directly~ Don't stroke off another guy that thinks he is witty. Like I said glad you feel that way, as I don't care what clowns have to say.

Exactly, Because i see people "LOL" etc when its just an allegation in court documents, They would still need evidence to show that it was indeed Mayweather or GBP or his team that send the journalist those notes or emails or phone calls....Good luck to them finding that. I.P Address. CCTV Cameras. With these things. getting all these information is not impossible.

Did I walk in on your circle jerk~ I didn't mean to interrupt Glad guys like you feel that way~ Huh? Is this an exclusive club? I thought this was a forum and not your private little girl's corner.

:lol1::lol1:

Quit watching Boston legal re-runs. Watch as The InternetLawyer1981 dismiss your opinion with his obscure and "doesn't make any sense" reply. Did I walk in on your circle jerk~ I didn't mean to interrupt Glad guys like you feel that way~

Quit watching Boston legal re-runs. Watch as The InternetLawyer1981 dismiss your opinion with his obscure and "doesn't make any sense" reply.