California Supreme Court Case - S226656 (page 16)

Marvin Shilmer

He is just looking to...

Take a look at the graph on this page. It screams. Just what I'll keep to myself.

You look. Your conclusions about what I post because you do not like what I post do not invalidate what I post. Neither do statements and conclusions about my person or about my posts, from you, or from those followers that cheer you on but can contribute nothing to the discussion invalidate what I have posted in this discussion. Liking what you post or having your followers like what you post does not make what you post any more valid. If you do not want me to post because you do not want to be challenged or are afraid of being defeated again before your followers, that is ok too. The graph that you have pointed to, again to divert attention from the points in our discussion have nothing to do with the facts being discussed or shown in our discussion. But that is what your posts are about, leading people to believe your conclusions. I have more to say in response to your last post about this topic. If you do not want me to post, I do not care. I have no agenda. Keep looking and reading at what you say and enjoy your followers and enjoy what you say. The posted case has not been decided yet.

Marvin Shilmer

... to divert attention...

My comment was toward another participant regarding your posting activity, which makes what I said on-point rather than off-point.

Regarding primary subject matter I've raised in this discussion, there's nothing to divert attention away from. What I wrote then remains the case, and despite your embarrassing responses.

Candance's purpose in filing her lawsuit was to affect positive change in an institutional policy regarding allegation of child victimization. She filed and persisted in this lawsuit because it was a legitimate and reachable tool at her disposal, with substantial help from an understanding lawyer. She has not spent any more time on Kendrick (her victimizer) than was necessary to help a court appointed jury make a finding about whether he victimized her, something her and her lawyer met with success. It is not mere opinion that Kendrick sexually battered Candace. It's a question that has been met with an answer by a duly seated court appointed jury. Apparently you don't like this. Too bad. It's done.

Vidiot

Fisherman - "Your conclusions about what I post because you do not like what I post do not invalidate what I post."

"I do not think that means what you think it means."

Fisherman

My comment was toward another participant regarding your posting activity, which makes what I said on-point rather than off-point.

Although you claim that your comment is toward another poster, it is about me and the remark can also be seen by other posters, and your intention is to have your followers conclude negative things about me so that they look at what you want them to conclude about me and not at the points that I am trying to make in the discussion.

Regarding primary subject matter I've raised in this discussion, there's nothing to divert attention away from. What I wrote then remains the case, and despite your embarrassing responses.

You divert attention from the points that I am trying to make in the discussion by trying to discredit me, misleading your followers to believe your conclusions about me so that they do not look at my points but that they look at what you want them to conclude about me and thus discredit what I stated..

Your responses are embarrassing because they expose you. I have helped those that followed our discussion to see that there is a difference between a guilty conviction in Criminal Court and the findings in a Civil Court. You did not clarify this for your followers. I think that you want your readers to conclude that the accused in this case is "gullty as charged". He is not.

My recollection is that had Kendrick wanted to object to aspersions being caste upon his character he could have attended the trial and had his say.

Think again.

But that didn't happen in the Candance lawsuit. There was a trial. Testimony and documents were entered and heard as evidence. The court appointed jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.

I never said that it did. I was just showing how easy it is to "find" someone "guilty" in your book, in Civil Court. No trial is needed. But he is guilty by default. Guilt by default! It happens all of the time. Enough said

based on the belief of the sitting jury.

I think you covered it. In criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to prove it. I also addressed your same response about the US legal system and about the difference between civil and criminal in a previous post.

With OJ, he was acquitted. Case closed. Then he is found "guilty" in Civil after being acquitted in Criminal. You have a dilemma in your book.

You conti nue to post the same thing in all of your posts about Plaintiffs reasons for filing their lawsuit. That is what you say that they say, or maybe it is what they say. But I have no way of knowing their reasons. The point of my discussion is about solid evidence that convicts the accused. If the purpose of the lawsuit is really to use legal proceedings to force WT to change, they failed. All the Appeals Court required from the WTS is that they comply with their existing policies. The case continues in the higher Court.

Anyway, a conviction is not the same as guilt by default which is a legal provision for the Civil Court

I think that I have made my point.

.

Fisherman

Fisherman - "Your conclusions about what I post because you do not like what I post do not invalidate what I post."

"I do not think that means what you think it means."

Let me spell it out for you. MS knew what I meant. Your conclusions about what I post do not invalidate what I post and not liking what I post do not invalidate what I post either.

Boeing Stratofortress

Sounds like someone is a sore loser. Just sayin.'

Fisherman

Sounds like someone is a sore loser. Just sayin.'

You are nothing but a cheerleader in this discussion. Besides your remarks, you contribute nothing

Boeing Stratofortress

I wasn't talking to you. You arrogant pr1ck.

Boeing Stratofortress

In previous posts, I tried to engage Fish. It's futile, because he merely deflects the topic, and avoids answering questions directly. His legalese is limited to a cut and paste regurgitation of 'factoids.' He seems unable, or unwilling to see the big picture.

This is about the only coherent response I got:

You got me Einstein the sailor man, I was just guessing only because Plaintiffs aimed and simply hit Defendant's big pocketbook

California Supreme Court Case - S226656

Share this