tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post5272137514381473437..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: When Insulting the Police is a "Crime"William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-49376326935166803662015-10-06T01:23:14.952-06:002015-10-06T01:23:14.952-06:00Yet after he deleted all three of those messages, ...Yet after he deleted all three of those messages, Officer Stroik focused only on the one posted by Smith. máy hút bụi minihttp://www.lg.com/vn/may-hut-buinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-3030870913497939952015-09-30T10:50:44.898-06:002015-09-30T10:50:44.898-06:00"He was replying to the previous remarks publ..."He was replying to the previous remarks published by Marks and Willey, who had introduced the subject of race into the discussion. That critically important fact fell victim to the prosecutor's skillful misdirection" <br /><br />The statement above proves that the defendant was a victim of a felony crime by the prosecutor because the prosecutor was willingly leading the court to base the verdict on lies. That is called, Fraud Upon the Court. The defendant's right to due process was destroyed by the prosecutor to not having a fair trial. If the judge looked at the evidence which would have clearly shown the defendant was posting a reply to other posters. Than the judge clearly went along with Fraud Upon the Court. The defendant did not post to the police but to other posters on the facebook page, that the police do not own but use free of charge. The police needed to contact facebook and have that person ban from facebook for violations of the TOS. This is a textbook example of how the state when going after a citizen that they want to get, will violate the very laws they have taking an oath to uphold. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com