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

[Kagami Taiga]

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 ****** 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.

[brick wall]

Why bother write it? Wow you are really dumber than i thought, "I would be praying for you"

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 ****** ones like you will do that.

[Kagami Taiga]

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.

[Ray*]

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"

[brick wall]

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.thefreedicti...urden+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 *****s' 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.

[Kagami Taiga]

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.thefreedicti...urden+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 *****s' 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!

[IMDAZED]

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.thefreedicti...urden+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 *****s' 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 ****ing clown.

[brick wall]

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"

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.

[brick wall]

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.
[B]

[brick wall]

You are such a ****ing clown.

says the guy who says the accused carries the burden of proof