Do you at least get "quality" visits from Tawny Kitaen while you're in your bubble?

I stated my opinion on this subject in one of the earlier pages if you had bother 2 read all the comments as I have you would know my stance.
It's funny 2 me that you would think that I should have 2 explain myself 2 you or anyone else. . . I am 13.

Jesus. Reading your posts is like getting kicked in the brain. You do realise how stupid you look typing 2 right?

U R 2 meen 2 liv.

I will end you Aussie.

(They say a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich)....... I believe the grand jury was mislead on their true duty to society in this case and many others.
the Grand jury's duty is to protect the individual from a bad prosecution. The true purpose of the grand jury was to approve, and go over an arrest warrant, to see if it is constitutionally sound (I have case law that proves that point). But the grand jury has been used for obtaining an indictment As to the grand Jury, almost all grand juries act in the same manner, they just are not instructed properly how to hand DOWN an indictment and they generally end with, handing UP an indictment...... far from their true purpose in law
So they took it to a grand jury, and the grand jury, just looked at it and said YES..... But a true grand jury should have said... WHAT? where is your warrant, where is your case... you don't even have a specific date, how can these defendants prove either way the whereabouts of these witnesses?
But it is good to establish with the grand jury their true duty, to establish that a warrant is credible. that the constitutional protections have been afforded to the defendant..... as it stands a lot of grand juries just hear 1 side of a case... they don't confirm it, they don't challenge it, they just hear 1 side, then the Grand Jury indicts..... but, the grand jury true duty is when an agency has a warrant, then they go to the grand jury, and the grand jury picks that warrant apart, in DEFENSE of the defendant, in order to help solve any constitutional violations that may arise.
But the grand jury gets twisted it sometimes... But I've seen them correct it and they correct real rapidly...sometimes.
They will supersede the original indictment or dismiss it.... based on LAW

You mention the man point, the absolute cruelty to animals.... I believe your main point should be, are these people guilty or innocent of these charges.

It may look like Dog fighting occurred, but the charges are for running an interstate Gambling enterprise, or drug enterprise, or liquor enterprise, or a prostitution enterprise.
The law they are charged with does not fit the crime.
then it says that they used violence to further any of the above.
The indictment names about 19 dog fights over 5 years..... that is far from anything named in the law they are being charged with.
Another law in the indictment fits the crime, but only to a point, then again, not really either.
These federal, in my opinion, were not intended for this type of situation.
then the grand jury uses the term they conspired.... well, you either broke the law, or you didn't. Either the law says conspiracy, which is part of the crime, or it doesn't..... the law doesn't say conspiracy, just the grand jury does......... so that brings the indictment into question as to whether it fits the situation. There are NO exact dates in the indictment.... NOT ONE..............so, How can anyone prepare an alibi, when no date is established... it reads like this...on or about spring of 2003.... in or about late 2002.... not real accurate of a timeline.
second - the 18 usc 1952 charge is not valid, in my opinion. it applies to people to transfer profits, or use violence for specific illegal activities, those illegal activities are gambling enterprise, drugs, alcohol running, prostitution..... unless if one of you guys screwed any of the dogs, it don't apply... misused, a "malicious abuse of the legal process" (look it up)... but it's kinda classic to see the liberal prosecutors back up in arms again...so hypocritical.
third- the 7USC 2156 charge applies to sponsors, and blacks law dictionary defines a sponsor as a Godfather or protection racket. and it is only a 15,000 fine per event and/or 1 year in custody. . . it was alluded to that they conspired . colluded or confederated to do something....... but their was no FORMAL CHARGE, with any legal USC title or section that specifically named a conspiracy crime.... the violations are not for any conspiracy....... conspiracy was just a term used in the indictment.
There are specific crimes for conspiracy... 1 civil violation is title 42 section 1985...conspiracy to deny civil rights....
I've looked over 18 usc 1952 and 7 usc 2156... I don't believe either one mentions conspiracy.

I don't see Al Gore going to jail for driving 100 MPH while drunk with weed and multiple drugs in his possession.... no I see Al Gore III getting NO TIME, just treatment for that offense..... Do you think AL GORE should go to jail for him, just because he bought his son the car?
So I guess Donald Trump is responsible for everything that goes on at his properties since his name is on the deeds.

Peace&Love

Dirty thoughts. Oh wait, you're prego... Eh, I'm over it. Dirty thoughts.

You're right, we should kill and eat them all. Happy?

I guess that's why one of his co-conspirators is pleading out.

Read your own fucking posts. Nowhere in any of them do you explain what your stance is on the XXL article you posted. In fact, your first post was so all over the place and poorly written that it made my eyeballs hurt to try and read it.

Thinking pit bull fighting is abominable is very noble of you, but posting an article basically saying Vick is being prosecuted because of some great Jewish/racist conspiracy without giving your own perspective on it makes you look at best little anti-Semitic.

What part of that don't you understand?

You don't have to explain yourself to me, or anyone else. I don't pay your bills. But also don't post some utter bullshit and then seem all surprised that people will trash you for it.

It's more consistent... Go for it.

I'm exuberant.

If I thought that dog was tasty, I'd have no qualms about eating it.

I think that deer are cute as hell and I'll shoot and eat one any day. I won't get off on mutilating it over and over again before I do so, though.

I hope GatBoy comes back, even though I first read his name as BatBoy, then GoatBoy. I need my eyes checked.

But I want to ask him about the conspiracy against blacks that XXL is talking about, and why they don't mention DMX. Why his dog fighting charges haven't come up in conversation. Or how, shortly after those charges disappeared, he put out an album called "Year of the Dog" with a psychotic-looking mutant Pit Bull cross on the cover. Or how he recently signed on with a new record label.

The Man is really bringing DMX down.

Now I want steak.