[David Butler]

MINI, on 08 April 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

David Butler I have given you a clear indication of what I think of your opinions. Rubbish stuff. Not evidence at all. Doing a case like that at the moment. Twisting words here, leaving off words there and altering the whole context of the statement I made in the first place. Only in this instance it is the ACC doing submission to reviewer, with utter crap in it.

Watch these pages see How I get on!!

Mini

It is you that has made the opinions a facts publicly Ms Hollis where yo accuse yet you can NOT appear with evidence to back u what you accuse of which you again AVOID and response relating to that particular issue re the e/mail /laudafinem where you accuse the content as offering lauda info about forum members

So you are LEFT out here in PUBLIC AS YOU SHALL REMAIN until you come up with proof of your accusations or a public and that most generous offer as my Legals say it is from me -aint on the table to long either

David

[David Butler]

MINI, on 08 April 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

You "gotcha" will mean as much as you efforts to assist him in Court. What come of that?? Nothing because his lawyer and even Alan Thomas himself, does not trust your information.

Neither do I. I don't have to see it to know it can be shot down in flames. Anything yourve put up here as evidence has all been shown to be unsuitable for evidential purposes.

I don't run away, I simply have more important things to do than talk crap with you.

you want me to reply that is why you snap "got-cha" so that I will bite. You hope also that you can harm me in someway or worry an old lady. So sorry I am past your threats and garbage. My emotional reactions to you these days, are nothing, yourve lost the memento to alarm, you simply only pester now. Can pester be used in the same place as harass?

I really do think so.

Mini

Assiat whom in court Calire ?
WHAT came of that ???? What are you referring to as That ?
You say Nothing became of that ,so YOU must be chatting about the bomb plot again of which you are the accforum expert on.
There was never anything io become nothing as it was nothing as you claim Claire
Alans said the exact opposite Claire re my informatiom Just hes not game enough to open up the bomb plot case himself as he knows he will lose.
re his lawayer You do not have the communications neither does Thomas that i had with him so you can only make up what you want things to be
Evidence ive put up in here and you state it is unsuiltable as evidence


What evidence = no evidence in here by me Claire Hollis so WHO DECIDED ANYTHING WAS UNSUITABLE AS EVIDENCE and evidence as to what exactly.>Yo as the expert in al evidential matters come on claire your not that good at all as ive told you so before specially when you have no idea of what your involved yourself in with me.

I have no idea as to why you think i want or was going to assist in any thing to do with Thomas and the bomb plot
your way off the target there Claire and thus you can make your fairy tales up all ya like as a complete waste a time CLAIRE HOLLIS.

So There be NO evidence at all in here Claire
why would i place evidence in here ?
RUN AWAY Yes you do YOU WONT BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATIONS THAT YOU MAKE MAKING YOU LOOK A LIAR IN PUBLIC-which is good as if you want to act as you theh yo be left out here as you do


Gotcha is not a snap so ya wrong again-
its a polite way of telling you what i should have said and that was this -. your fuked over again in here re your INABILITY to back up your statements of accusations against myself and others.


Harm-you getting asked to stop your LIES and crap -now that is harmful Calire Your the one creating your own problems here and trying to use me to do that is a BIG MISTAKE
threats You consider being asked to produce facts to back uo your accusations as threats do you
harm / my my thats a good one


You finish there with words as one who appears to be depressed as yo cant get your own way
oh miini there be no needed momento for me to lose
All going quite nicely -you make my day every day with your publications youve been asked to desist in doing ,so thank you and im moving along without any hitchs at all ,so smooth as for me Claire/

David.

[David Butler]

REX, on 08 April 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Are you speaking on behalf of Alan Thomas' beliefs and opinion ?
Are you speaking on behalf of Mr Thomas' Lawyer as I haven't seen this opinion in any posts ? (Can you provide support to your statement please?)


Has the said evidence been scrutinised for the courts judgement, because there is some REALLY damming uploaded information in here
Is that why you publicaly harass the admin and discredit this site because the admin hasn't removed it...? (Thats not very professional )



You really need to stop making suggestive statements on behalf of others about how people think, hope MINI as it looks DUMB.
It only supports your own lack of credibility.



I think David would be happy to hear he causes you no distress.

What is in here from me that Ms Hollis seems to be referring to as evidence
well well = she s the expert who says its no good
laugh a minute is that It was never been placed in here as evidence
as Rex says quite rightly ,damming information is abounding in here which I placed in here certain informations to do what it did and is still doing it seems

Ms Claire Hollis despite her accusations and alleged expert opinions on information's she sights and based as no good > on what grounds who would ever know as claire certainly dont ,
so ITs /Not evidence as yet -but unknown to Ms Hollis SURPRISE TIME Claire >has mostly been in the hands of authorities long long ago / Thus was also before the courts in various forms written and orally and along the way of the trial as admitted to as coming from / by Weal himself as being the author of it all which tends to show why Van Helmonds been agitated and so upset about the linkings to himself and Weal knowing he cant dispute whats there.
something to SERIOUSLY ponder apon there for ya Claire as Many more surprises will arrive re what you accuse allege of -as to what the truth really is when i decide to let it all out so play on as you will .
A most enjoyable exercise in watching a stupid one look more stupid by there own actions which is the area of HARM to others by Hollis herself.

David

[MINI]

David Butler, on 08 April 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

What is in here from me that Ms Hollis seems to be referring to as evidence
well well = she s the expert who says its no good
laugh a minute is that It was never been placed in here as evidence
as Rex says quite rightly ,damming information is abounding in here which I placed in here certain informations to do what it did and is still doing it seems

Ms Claire Hollis despite her accusations and alleged expert opinions on information's she sights and based as no good > on what grounds who would ever know as claire certainly dont ,
so ITs /Not evidence as yet -but unknown to Ms Hollis SURPRISE TIME Claire >has mostly been in the hands of authorities long long ago / Thus was also before the courts in various forms written and orally and along the way of the trial as admitted to as coming from / by Weal himself as being the author of it all which tends to show why Van Helmonds been agitated and so upset about the linkings to himself and Weal knowing he cant dispute whats there.
something to SERIOUSLY ponder apon there for ya Claire as Many more surprises will arrive re what you accuse allege of -as to what the truth really is when i decide to let it all out so play on as you will .
A most enjoyable exercise in watching a stupid one look more stupid by there own actions which is the area of HARM to others by Hollis herself.

David

[MINI]

David Butler, on 08 April 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

It is you that has made the opinions a facts publicly Ms Hollis where yo accuse yet you can NOT appear with evidence to back u what you accuse of which you again AVOID and response relating to that particular issue re the e/mail /laudafinem where you accuse the content as offering lauda info about forum members

So you are LEFT out here in PUBLIC AS YOU SHALL REMAIN until you come up with proof of your accusations or a public and that most generous offer as my Legals say it is from me -aint on the table to long either

David

[MINI]

Oh how he rumbles on!! Past reading it now.
so if anyone can be bothered and he says anything slighting interesting, let me know eh?

Im off again


Mini

[David Butler]

MINI, on 09 April 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Oh how he rumbles on!! Past reading it now.
so if anyone can be bothered and he says anything slighting interesting, let me know eh?

Im off again


Mini

What a lame excuse for being UNABLE to back up your accusations with proof of fact Claire
It is very obvious to all that you are in a spot of bother here ,as your performances to date have left you as that , and your responses to date and above clearly shows that to be
Your the interesting one with all your rumbles and as for letting you know
You do know your in a mess ,as you continue to show how much you dont know ,thus you have no option but to do your avoiding ,showing how much you dont know but can ''only'' rely on your venomous spiteful harmful publications in the hope you get away with it
sorry there -WRONG tactic with me Claire as you will be shown up until you front up.

David

[David Butler]

David Butler, on 08 April 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

It is you that has made the opinions a facts publicly Ms Hollis where yo accuse yet you can NOT appear with evidence to back u what you accuse of which you again AVOID and response relating to that particular issue re the e/mail /laudafinem where you accuse the content as offering lauda info about forum members

So you are LEFT out here in PUBLIC AS YOU SHALL REMAIN until you come up with proof of your accusations or a public and that most generous offer as my Legals say it is from me -aint >NOT<on the table from today.

David

Still unable to back yourself up i see Claire
ah well googles where ya be then -and i see ya also in a spot of bother with others now re your unqualified VERY STUPID FALSE public statements


David

[MINI]

David Butler, on 08 April 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

It is you that has made the opinions a facts publicly Ms Hollis where yo accuse yet you can NOT appear with evidence to back u what you accuse of which you again AVOID and response relating to that particular issue re the e/mail /laudafinem where you accuse the content as offering lauda info about forum members

So you are LEFT out here in PUBLIC AS YOU SHALL REMAIN until you come up with proof of your accusations or a public and that most generous offer as my Legals say it is from me -aint on the table to long either

David

Of course you have not got my evidence. It is not for you it is for the court.

Mini

[REX]

MINI, on 14 April 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

Of course you have not got my evidence. It is not for you it is for the court.

Mini

Geesus mini its been over a decade since you started threatening courts

BTW any information been posted is publicised and therefore your excuse not to support your accusations when people challenge your slander is /> quite OK to repost but since you can't back your fowl mouth you only prove you're an idiot

It just proves you know nothing of court procedure You're still threatening court action to the members in public.

I thinking this thread needs reporting as well so it can be in archives where all the crap belongs

Would you show some respect for the readers mini !

[David Butler]

MINI, on 14 April 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

Of course you have not got my evidence. It is not for you it is for the court.

Mini

I dont want what you call evidence .
In the world of reality where you dont appear to reside -what ive done is Given you the option to reconsider all your publications and to check your validity of accusations and understand youve made a calamitous blunder
I KNOW your full of crap as i have the EVIDENCE here which WILL BE USED in a court against you to show as ive said.>
>YOUR FULL OF LIES AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS
However proceed as you threaten as any offer to be reasonable is now well withdrawn


Any one for instance -Can read the laudfinem email you accuse with and clearly see that IT DOES NOT CONTAIN WHAT YOU ACCUSE OF so what planet your on who knows but its certainly not the one named the TRUTH.


David
PP
By the way Claire Hollis -seeing as you cant answer the real hard ones out here so out of sight you hide like a weasel and having your associates harass and falsely accuse me and others on what can only be ,As on your behalf ,

Silly move that is as well.
ppp
rex
Better to leave the thread in public as far as im concerned. Why hide away what a nasty vindictive person Ms Hollis shows herself to be.