Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Here you go:



(that is just one post, there are many others where Anders continues with the conspiracy)

You are quite at ease with accusing anyone and everyone involved with vaccines of the most horrid things. Yet lawyers are immune to this.

But that's not about doctors forcing vaccines on children for profit! That's a speculation about vaccines used in a Nazi kind of way to create children with super intelligence. And the 'Nazi' scientists responsible are only a very few gatekeeper scientists at the very top. The medical doctors would have no clue that some such sinister agenda was going on. And again, that's a very speculative conspiracy theory. I post a whole spectrum of theories, from the more ordinary to some very extreme speculations.

 

[tsig]

It's of course not a direct lawsuit against the Vatican, since they are not included among the defendants. It's then an indirect lawsuit against the Vatican.

How can the Vatican control the entire Western world? The answer is that they can do that by having at their disposal legions of assassins and kidnappers etc. So even the most cocky western leaders are scared excrementless of the Vatican.

The college of Cardinals is really the red robed demons of death?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The college of Cardinals is really the red robed demons of death?

There are also the Jesuits with the Black Pope at the top. Who is the leader? The Pope or the Black Pope? The Vatican may not at all be those who have the shadow power, but let's assume that. Then the power structure is likely a hierarchy with several levels of power, and the level at the top involves many people and not just some single individuals.

 

[Craig4]

The Dragon Family can then hire me for a huge sum of ca$h! Because I will then be an expert on the case. Well, maybe not. At least it would be good to be well prepared if the lawsuit turns into a huge media story.

I admit I would find it darkly comic if someone from the "Dragon Family" engaged you in some capacity. Read the court filings and see what happens to those who fall for this scam. You'd end up out of a good chunk of money (assuming you have any to steal). I'd find that... poetic.

 

[Anders Lindman]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pdfs/11 civ 8500 Keenan Complaint.pdf

Here is the filing. This is a variation on a 419 scam. The Keenan guy got duped by this Bosco person and defrauded. It's not a very sophisticated scam.

Are you accusing the Vatican for fraud?!

On page 41 in the lawsuit it says:

"DAL BOSCO whom Zagami represented was a trustworthy Vatican Banker ..."

 

[Mojo]

Are you accusing the Vatican for fraud?!

On page 41 in the lawsuit it says:

"DAL BOSCO whom Zagami represented was a trustworthy Vatican Banker ..."

Read the whole sentence. It doesn't say quite what your excerpt implies it does.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Read the whole sentence. It doesn't say quite what your excerpt implies it does.

The full sentence is: "At that time, Zagami introduced Fulford through SKYPE conversations to DAL BOSCO whom Zagami represented was a trustworthy Vatican Banker and also associated with the P2 Masonic Lodge."

That means that Bosco was a Vatican banker.

 

[ngc6205]

The full sentence is: "At that time, Zagami introduced Fulford through SKYPE conversations to DAL BOSCO whom Zagami represented was a trustworthy Vatican Banker and also associated with the P2 Masonic Lodge."

That means that Bosco was a Vatican banker.

No, it doesn't. That means that one person said to another that Bosco was a Vatican banker.

I would like to introduce you to my dear aunt Margaret, she grows prize-winning tomatoes near the Sea of Tranquility.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, it doesn't. That means that one person said to another that Bosco was a Vatican banker.

I would like to introduce you to my dear aunt Margaret, she grows prize-winning tomatoes near the Sea of Tranquility.

So you are accusing Bosco of NOT being a Vatican banker? Or are you accusing Zagami of lying? How dare you!!! Just kidding. But seriously though, how do you know Bosco isn't a Vatican banker?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Does it matter? He was not acting as the vatican banker, freemason, or anything else.

 

[Border Reiver]

So you are accusing Bosco of NOT being a Vatican banker? Or are you accusing Zagami of lying? How dare you!!! Just kidding. But seriously though, how do you know Bosco isn't a Vatican banker?

All that quote of yours showed was that Keenan never met Bosco in person initially, and that he only was introduced as a "Vatican banker" and a "P2 Freemason".

I will strongly speculate that Bosco is not a freemason, as the ones I am familiar with don't go around introducing themselves as such to persons they don't know well

 

[ngc6205]

So you are accusing Bosco of NOT being a Vatican banker? Or are you accusing Zagami of lying? How dare you!!! Just kidding. But seriously though, how do you know Bosco isn't a Vatican banker?

I am NOT accusing Bosco of anything. I am also NOT accusing Zagami of anything. I also never stated that Bosco isn't a Vatican banker. I don't know whether he is or isn't and neither do you.

You said the statement that you referenced in post #267 meant that Bosco IS a Vatican banker when it means no such thing. The only fact that can be obtained from the statement is that Keenan believes that Zagami represented to him that Bosco was a Vatican banker. Whether Bosco is or not cannot be determined from that statement.

 

[Craig4]

The full sentence is: "At that time, Zagami introduced Fulford through SKYPE conversations to DAL BOSCO whom Zagami represented was a trustworthy Vatican Banker and also associated with the P2 Masonic Lodge."

That means that Bosco was a Vatican banker.

What it really means is this Bosco person and Zagami found a live one who believed this Vatican, Freemason, America is a corporation nonsense and conspired to separate him from his money.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I am NOT accusing Bosco of anything. I am also NOT accusing Zagami of anything. I also never stated that Bosco isn't a Vatican banker. I don't know whether he is or isn't and neither do you.

You said the statement that you referenced in post #267 meant that Bosco IS a Vatican banker when it means no such thing. The only fact that can be obtained from the statement is that Keenan believes that Zagami represented to him that Bosco was a Vatican banker. Whether Bosco is or not cannot be determined from that statement.

Ok, so you have a conspiracy theory then, that some of the statements in the lawsuit may be lies.

 

[Mojo]

Ok, so you have a conspiracy theory then, that some of the statements in the lawsuit may be lies.

ngc6205 was explaining why the statement you quoted does not support the conclusion that you used it to support.

 

[Anders Lindman]

ngc6205 was explaining why the statement you quoted does not support the conclusion that you used it to support.

To believe that people mentioned in the lawsuit may not exist or not have the roles stated is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Mojo]

To believe that people mentioned in the lawsuit may not exist or not have the roles stated is a conspiracy theory.

The post to which you were replying, and which you claimed showed that its author has a conspiracy theory, didn't say that people mentioned in the lawsuit may not exist or not have the roles stated. It said that the statement you quoted cannot support the conclusion that you drew from it. Here it is again:

I am NOT accusing Bosco of anything. I am also NOT accusing Zagami of anything. I also never stated that Bosco isn't a Vatican banker. I don't know whether he is or isn't and neither do you.

You said the statement that you referenced in post #267 meant that Bosco IS a Vatican banker when it means no such thing. The only fact that can be obtained from the statement is that Keenan believes that Zagami represented to him that Bosco was a Vatican banker. Whether Bosco is or not cannot be determined from that statement.

 

[ngc6205]

Ok, so you have a conspiracy theory then, that some of the statements in the lawsuit may be lies.

NO!

If you cannot understand a two paragraph, seven sentence post, what makes you think you can analyze anything?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The post to which you were replying, and which you claimed showed that its author has a conspiracy theory, didn't say that people mentioned in the lawsuit may not exist or not have the roles stated. It said that the statement you quoted cannot support the conclusion that you drew from it. Here it is again:

To claim that requires a conspiracy theory. Ha ha. A belief that there can be fake people or people with fake roles in the lawsuit.

 

[Border Reiver]

To believe that people mentioned in the lawsuit may not exist or not have the roles stated is a conspiracy theory.

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. It is a belief that someone people may be lying.

If my kids tell me that the cat knocked the vase onto the floor and I suspect they are not telling the truth that is not a conspiracy theory, it is a belief that I can (possibly) prove or disprove.

Keenan may have had an honest belief that this Basco character was a Vatican Banker and a P2 Freemason. I suspect that this was not a well founded belief. If it comes out in court that Mr. Basco is employed by a Vatican based banking establishment and can give the correct handshakes then I will have been shown to be wrong, alternately if it comes out in court that Basco is an alias for a conman that can spin a story then my beliefs will have been shown to have been correct and Mr. Keenan mistaken.

The conspiracy theory would come when you or someone else declines to accept the evidence and maintains an incorrect position because "somebody manipulated the evidence."