Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Some people seem to have a problem understanding the statement: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

Truth is not a democracy! A legal court cannot CHANGE the truth. In the Dragon Family lawsuit the bonds are either real or fake. Whatever any legal process determines doesn't change the initial fact one iota!!!

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, but it's kind of important when it comes to figuring out what the truth is.

Absolutely. And that's the job of the legal system. Not my job. I'm just adding some speculations about Vatican mind control and things like that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Some people seem to have a problem understanding the statement: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

Truth is not a democracy! A legal court cannot CHANGE the truth. In the Dragon Family lawsuit the bonds are either real or fake. Whatever any legal process determines doesn't change the initial fact one iota!!!

You know that the bond existing would be evidence right?

You know something is not a fact until you provide evidence it has happened?

Or how else would you define a fact? Something somebody said happened and you think it did but have no idea?

 

[Mojo]

Look, the basic fact is very simple. Either one or more claims in the lawsuit are true or they are false. It's that simple!

And if the legal system isn't capable of finding out the truth of the matter it only shows that it isn't capable enough.

It will try to find out the truth by looking at the evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Absolutely. And that's the job of the legal system. Not my job. I'm just adding some speculations about Vatican mind control and things like that.

So again, why discuss the courtcase if you dont want to discuss the evidence?

The evidence is the foundation of the case.

Why talk about speculation if you dont want somebody to ask you to support your assertions?

 

[Mojo]

Look, the basic fact is very simple. Either one or more claims in the lawsuit are true or they are false. It's that simple!

And if the legal system isn't capable of finding out the truth of the matter it only shows that it isn't capable enough. I'm more interested in the truth than what the legal system THINKS is the truth, or HOW it struggles with trying to find the truth. As I have said before: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

Truth is not a democracy! A legal court cannot CHANGE the truth. In the Dragon Family lawsuit the bonds are either real or fake. Whatever any legal process determines doesn't change the initial fact one iota!!!

What outcome would you consider to be an adequate "truth" in this case, in that the court arriving at it would indicate that the legal system was "capable of finding out the truth"?

 

[Garrison]

Some people seem to have a problem understanding the statement: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

Truth is not a democracy! A legal court cannot CHANGE the truth. In the Dragon Family lawsuit the bonds are either real or fake. Whatever any legal process determines doesn't change the initial fact one iota!!!

You really have this backwards, it's only by studying the evidence that the truth can be determined.You don't simply get to pick whatever truth you want and then ignore all the evidence that contradicts it; well based on your posts perhaps you do but the rest of the world tends to use evidence to determine the truth.

 

[Garrison]

absolutely. And that's the job of the legal system. Not my job. I'm just adding some speculations insane ramblings about vatican mind control and things like that.

ftfy

 

[Anders Lindman]

You know that the bond existing would be evidence right?

You know something is not a fact until you provide evidence it has happened?

Or how else would you define a fact? Something somebody said happened and you think it did but have no idea?

It would be evidence yes. And the evidence would not change the truth. Just because some people at the moment are ignorant about the truth doesn't change the fact that either some bonds are real or they are fake!

 

[Anders Lindman]

So again, why discuss the courtcase if you dont want to discuss the evidence?

The evidence is the foundation of the case.

Why talk about speculation if you dont want somebody to ask you to support your assertions?

Let's wait for the evidence and then discuss it. Hopefully there will be information about the ongoing legal procedures about this case published on the Internet.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What outcome would you consider to be an adequate "truth" in this case, in that the court arriving at it would indicate that the legal system was "capable of finding out the truth"?

The bonds already exist you know. It's not the court that makes the bonds manifest out of thin air. And it should be pretty easy to check whether the bonds are genuine or false. Unless some messy conspiracy kicks in distorting the evidence.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You really have this backwards, it's only by studying the evidence that the truth can be determined.You don't simply get to pick whatever truth you want and then ignore all the evidence that contradicts it; well based on your posts perhaps you do but the rest of the world tends to use evidence to determine the truth.

Determining the truth is not the same as what the truth ALREADY is.

 

[Mojo]

The bonds already exist you know. It's not the court that makes the bonds manifest out of thin air. And it should be pretty easy to check whether the bonds are genuine or false. Unless some messy conspiracy kicks in distorting the evidence.

Why would "some messy conspiracy kick in"?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Some of you seem to still not get it, although I suspect you are only joking with me.

Anyway, the truth ALREADY exists. Get it? Just because you or I don't know what the truth IS yet doesn't change the truth itself.

If you seriously don't get this I suspect you are a victim of some mass brainwashing scheme shutting down your ability for sound reasoning.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why would "some messy conspiracy kick in"?

For example if the Fed claims the bonds are false even if they in fact are genuine.

 

[Mojo]

The bonds already exist you know. It's not the court that makes the bonds manifest out of thin air. And it should be pretty easy to check whether the bonds are genuine or false. Unless some messy conspiracy kicks in distorting the evidence.

How would you determine whether the court's decision was determined by the undistorted evidence or the result of "some messy conspiracy"? Would the nature of the court's decision influence you in this?

 

[Mojo]

For example if the Fed claims the bonds are false even if they in fact are genuine.

How would you distinguish between this situation and a situation in which the Fed claims they are false and they are in fact false?

 

[Tomblvd]

I still doubt that attorneys will just accept all kinds of crazy claims in lawsuits. They must have some form of professional pride, if nothing else for their future reputation.

So you are more than happy to believe that the Vatican has "assassins" to keep their control of the world's governments.

You are also perfectly fine, and have stated so on other threads that doctors and researchers knowingly force dangerous and uneffective vaccines on children just for the profit.

Yet you cannot fathom there are a small percentage of lawyers who will file frivolous lawsuits in order to make a quick buck.

I'm stunned beyond all possible disbelief.

 

[Mojo]

Determining the truth is not the same as what the truth ALREADY is.

It is if "evidence doesn't change the truth".

 

[Anders Lindman]

Again, just to hammer in the message: You cannot DECIDE what the truth is. You can LEARN what the truth IS. No authority whatsoever can CHANGE the truth.

Even if Einstein himself, came down from Heaven, and proclaimed (as the conman he is) that 2+2=5, the truth is STILL that 2+2=4. <--- Over-obvious example