conspiracee ting

[Derek]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R_C</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please explain.
Thanks </div></div>

I'll let you know when I have more information.
Not that I should bother,because you won't believe anything I post anyway.

[Derek]

Re: conspiracee ting

<span style="font-style: italic">Hey, what happened to the passengers on Flight 77 again?

<span style="font-weight: bold">there were no passengers on flight 77. What flight 77? the BTS database says it never even took off that day... </span>

As far as I know, they were taken to Cleveland


<span style="font-weight: bold">ya, maybe from me too
But it ended up a rabbit hole.</span></span>


Make of that what you will; but it neither proves nor disproves 'the Muslims did it.'

[Suesumba]

Re: conspiracee ting

are airplanes made of aluminum and if so, can they go through the steel girders in the building?

let me go ask jeeves.

[blugiant]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wat da canspiracee label iss doinn potrayinn peeps woo offer alternative xxplanations as criminals </div></div>

how yuh mek that leap? </div></div>

so a man beeeleeve so imm beecum

[RichD]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wat da canspiracee label iss doinn potrayinn peeps woo offer alternative xxplanations as criminals </div></div>

how yuh mek that leap? </div></div>

so a man beeeleeve so imm beecum </div></div>
yuh a try mek sense out of nonsense..or is nonsense yuh a mek out of sense.

[blugiant]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yuh a try misedukation

to believe a conspiracy theory does not mean you are part of the conspiracy </div></div>

natt misedumacateshan butt edumacation. so wat yu seinn iss dat agreeeinn widd sintinn does natt mean yu ar part aff de canspiracee. read beelow carefullee ann see iff yu ovatand mii argument betta. does beeleef equal agreement?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CONSPIRACY

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
</div></div>

[RichD]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yuh a try misedukation

to believe a conspiracy theory does not mean you are part of the conspiracy </div></div>

natt misedumacateshan butt edumacation. so wat yu seinn iss dat agreeeinn widd sintinn does natt mean yu ar part aff de canspiracee. read beelow carefullee ann see iff yu ovatand mii argument betta. does beeleef equal agreement?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CONSPIRACY

18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
</div></div> </div></div>

you read it again yourself

[blugiant]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> wat da canspiracee label iss doinn potrayinn peeps woo offer alternative xxplanations as criminals </div></div>

how yuh mek that leap? </div></div>

so a man beeeleeve so imm beecum </div></div>
yuh a try mek sense out of nonsense..or is nonsense yuh a mek out of sense.


</div></div>

dat wass wan aff x seyinn dat mii luv

mii wass juss chattinn bout da ambiguiteee aff da law wear da argument iss being made dat mere beeleef ar agreement mean dat a persan iss part aff de canspiracee

beeleef = argreement read da law pon subject

[RichD]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
beeleef = argreement read da law pon subject </div></div>

you playing with words and misrepresenting what dem saying.

belief in a conspiracy usually come after the fact and as such cannot be construed to have any active role in the completed act.

[blugiant]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blakkgiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
simple definition aff canspiracee two ar more peeps wey agree to commit sintinn criminal. so oww iss itt dat dem usinn a wurd fe descibe criminal activities ar surreptitious plans fe descibe alternative xxplanations aff tings dat doan mekk sense </div></div>

The term 'conspiracy theory' has drifted into also meaning an explanation of something that doesn't tally with the official (government) story. </div></div>

yu seeth butt itt natt only bout guv versian. bizz a canspiracee theory as a defense against legitimate criticism

itt bout da degradateshan aff de meaninn aff canspiracee soo itt beecum cliche by changinn da meaninn. even theory meaninn iss being change.

[blugiant]

Re: conspiracee ting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

you read it again yourself </div></div>


yu knoo mii ann yu arguinn bout two diffarant parts aff canspiracee. mii arguinn dat beeleef = agreement versus yu arguinn bout da crime part. dat point aff de legal dissagreement dat natt clearcut.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1] Common law – At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature. [Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557–58 (1947)] Moreover, a &quot;conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense.&quot;[Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997)] It is enough that each person agrees, at a minimum, to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.



[2] Model Penal Code – Four types of agreement fall within the definition of conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees to:


1.) commit an offense;
2.) attempt to commit an offense;
3.) solicit another to commit an offense; or
4.) aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense.



[B] Overt Act



[1] Common and Statutory Law – A common law conspiracy is complete upon formation of the unlawful agreement. No act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be proved. [United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 13 (1994)]



Today, many statutes require proof of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In jurisdictions requiring an overt act, the act need not constitute an attempt to commit the target offense. Instead, any act (and perhaps an omission), no matter how trivial, is sufficient, if performed in pursuance of the conspiracy. A single overt act by any party to a conspiracy is sufficient basis to prosecute every member of the conspiracy, including those who may have joined in the agreement after the act was committed. Most states apply the overt-act rule to all crimes.</div></div>

[RichD]

Re: conspiracee ting

te statue requires participation..active or passive before the fact and active agreement in the plan after the fact.

theorizing that a conspiracy exists does not = being part of the conspiracy.


you have theorized that there was a conspiracy to ban jesusdread...does that mean you were part of banning him?