Aurora theater shooting court documents blows inside job conspiracy wide open

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Please read the WHOLE THREAD before posting.

You obviously haven't read it,




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


I'm contacting her. If her cell phone number hasn't changed I'll have it in about 24 hours and be able to call her and at least leave a voice mail.

Hopefully she'll reply to my inquiry through her site, so we'll see. Time will tell, hopefully.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying the aurora shooting is an inside job makes no damn sense.

At least when people say 9/11 was an inside job, it doesn't sound absolutely ridiculous and makes sense.

Now if you want to say he had an accomplice, fine. But don't say it was an inside job. That's not the correct terminology. even if you think TPTB were behind it, it's still not an "inside job."


I find it so odd that in american culture we spend millions dollars and millions of hours watching and reading spy thrillers that revolve around covert attacks and mind controlled agents, yet when presented with a situation where facts point to such a case, so many people want to bury theIr heads. Its like all those movies are fairy tales.

By the very nature of these operations, the evidence is controlled and erased. What we find is simply the leftovers. Sortof like tracking the smoke from a gunshot, but the gun and bullet are missing. We KNOW that covert teams are operated all over the world. We KNOW that our government has worked extensively on mind control psychology. Its naive to think that it couldn't be a possibility.

As for terminology...inside job, false flag, wetwork. It all might apply. Or not. I personally think there are definitely some questions in this case that need some real answers, now including the medias voluntary silence regarding this witness and his/her allegations.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I think the most recent motion was filed by "Yeom Pyo Lee." The only ones I have seen, before the names were blacked out, were filed by Allison Michele Ernst, Yeom, and Jonathan Lee Riches. I could be wrong, but I think Jonathan may have filed a motion using Yeom's name. He may have even done the Allison one. I'm not positive though. In any case, all of the motions that have been filed, are worded in a similar way. If you go to Jonathan Lee Riches' FB page, there are samples of all of the motions he's filed before.

In a Youtube message he sent me, Jonathan claims that the FBI went to his home on August 31 to question him about James, his Youtube posts, and James' mail going to his residence. In my opinion, all of these motions are the work of this guy.

www.facebook.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


Good luck brother, keep your eyes open and your head down. You're getting up close to the potential web by doing that. I'll stick to posting stuff on here. I'm allergic to black helecopters!



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


It was filed by a female. Check out this post and the few that follow.

reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


I've ridden in some, not CIA, but US Army ones. Don't fear the man, make the man fear you.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


Who knows at this point. For all we know, it's the work of the judge. Maybe it's a poster from forums such as this one, who is pretending to a victim or "victim"...along the lines of Bonnie Kate Pourciau? A lot of people don't think she was really shot that night. I do wonder why they've started blacking out the names in these though. Is it because they're COMPLETELY fake? And there is no real person filling the motion?


This looks fairly similar to the latest motion. Obviously, she wasn't on the victim list though.

allisonmichelleernst.blogspot.ca...
edit on 10-9-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by thesungod
 


Who knows at this point. For all we know, it's the work of the judge. Maybe it's a poster from forums such as this one, who is pretending to a victim or "victim"...along the lines of Bonnie Kate Pourciau? A lot of people don't think she was really shot that night. I do wonder why they've started blacking out the names in these though. Is it because they're COMPLETELY fake? And there is no real person filling the motion?


This looks fairly similar to the latest motion. Obviously, she wasn't on the victim list though.

allisonmichelleernst.blogspot.ca...
edit on 10-9-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)


Well that requires a forged ID or a lawyer registered with the state of Colorado to file the motions. Most lawyer's wouldn't risk doing this because they'd lose their license. It's not civil case, criminal.

Judge's Retort

He doesn't cite any evidence to the contrary which is odd to say the least, most judges do. And he violates his own gag order more than most as evidences by this... All available docs from CO



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


I'm not concerned about the dude who commented regarding the article, I'm more interested in knowing if in fact there is a scandal regarding the Federal Reserve ( and more) with the father of James Holmes!!??

Now of that's the case, and chicken poo died in her pool( ????) who was a dr?? And helped when shtf at the theaters?? Then.....

Yeah, this case is craaaaazy already!! Lol



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Please read the WHOLE THREAD before posting.

You obviously haven't read it,


While I do think a conspiracy involving the shooting is BS, I wasn't saying that in my post.
ALL I was saying was don't call it an 'inside job.' That's not what it is. And using that term makes you look ridiculous. I'm doing you a favor by telling you not to call it an inside job. You obviously don't realize how dumb that phrase makes you sound. "The aurora shooting was an inside job" sounds ridiculous. Same with "False Flag." These are terms that mean very specific things. using it in the wrong context makes you sound like a moron.

Say something like, "the shooting was part of a conspiracy," if you want to be taken half seriously.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


Star..!

and totally agree..and I'd rather say more .. but, for now ..



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I'm wondering if the judges remarks about the filers sanity, and putting the filer away is something that he would be qualified to say in his official capacity? Not really, he would need a second opinion for that, there has already been a cock-up with Brandon Raub, and crazy law about crazyiness. Not that I think all that much about the Examiners take on things, with the secondhand remarks about different James Holmes photographs being of different people, just to sex up the story, but that is what the press and TV and other media do, mainstream or otherwise, mainstream just have to be more careful, although they were woeful over 9/11, and still are, constantly re-representing the events. While there are certain areas similar to what Anders Breivik did, there are differences, Breivik was persistent in what he did and unhurried, and has been found to be sane, as he said he was. Holmes was more hit-and run, and having a totally captive audience initially, while it is unclear if Holmes himself has questioned his sanity, before or after his actions.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I copy & pasted the title from the article in question to the title of the thread. Again read the whole thread before posting please. You obviously haven't even clicked the links.
edit on 10-9-2012 by thesungod because: & not =



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I'm wondering if the judges remarks about the filers sanity, and putting the filer away is something that he would be qualified to say in his official capacity? Not really, he would need a second opinion for that, there has already been a cock-up with Brandon Raub, and crazy law about crazyiness. Not that I think all that much about the Examiners take on things, with the secondhand remarks about different James Holmes photographs being of different people, just to sex up the story, but that is what the press and TV and other media do, mainstream or otherwise, mainstream just have to be more careful, although they were woeful over 9/11, and still are, constantly re-representing the events. While there are certain areas similar to what Anders Breivik did, there are differences, Breivik was persistent in what he did and unhurried, and has been found to be sane, as he said he was. Holmes was more hit-and run, and having a totally captive audience initially, while it is unclear if Holmes himself has questioned his sanity, before or after his actions.


Yeah this isn't par for the course in law, they normally cite things, such as codes, laws, regs, presidence and instants. Plus HE, the Judge violated his own gag.

Which is why I question all this.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by telemetry
 


You should read the whole thread before posting.


Based on that response, I'm under the impression that you think I didn't read it. Fair enough, I prefer reading between the lines.

Pay attention to this


C.R. just so happens to be the initials of one Carli Richards.

Here is the blog post that connects that dot.
carlirichards.blogspot.com


eta - that is why I think it was thrown out by the judge.
And, it's also why I believe that it all points to one man.



edit on 12/9/10 by telemetry because: I don't normally fill out forms, but when I do... I go outside the lines.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by telemetry
 


Fair enough, why they redact one and no the other is against normal legal proceedings, but just for arguments sake let's assume they didn't. And the person you think filed the motion, a male.

Here is the form required to file a Motion to Intervene.

See that Verification part?

Without an attorney registered with the state on is required to go to notary public so that the document is verified with a raised seal, photo ID is required for this, as per Colorado state law. As a matter of fact I can't think of a single state that doesn't require this.

Now let's look at the Judge's Retort.


This Court has information that the named victim, REDACTED, did not file this pleading, and it appears that someone may be filing pleadings with false names.


Okay so your saying YPL (or whomever) dressed up like a female or got a female to risk jail time, got a fake ID for Carli Richards, fooled a notary public or a lawyer, or got one to jeopardize their license (admittedly not hard to get a notary license, but this carries serious jail time,) and filed this pleading? Which was also considered by several people (at least two clerks and then the Judge) for at least a week before being turned out?

Also why does "it appear" that someone is filing false pleadings? One should be able to just call the notary, the lawyer or even the victim and confirm this 100% certainty.

What are your thoughts on this?

Anyhow check out this post. The few before this one.

Hopefully I'll be able to get and give a bit more info.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I don't for a second believe it was the real Carli filing the motion. She has a Fb page begging people to buy stuff to help pay her medical bills. Why would she file a motion saying she wasn't a real victim, and then in the next breath, ask people to donate to help pay her medical bills? She's actually been using whatever happened to her that night, to help spark her career.

As for the judge not citing anything, as I said, maybe the entire motion is fake. I hate to think that this mess goes that deep, but you never know. Maybe it was put out there to try to convince the public that anyone questioning things in this case is just a nutcase, just like the fake person who filed the motion. It almost seems too obvious at this point.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 




Okay so your saying YPL (or whomever) dressed up like a female or got a female to risk jail time, got a fake ID for Carli Richards, fooled a notary public or a lawyer, or got one to jeopardize their license (admittedly not hard to get a notary license, but this carries serious jail time,) and filed this pleading? Which was also considered by several people (at least two clerks and then the Judge) for at least a week before being turned out?


I still think this ^ is being glossed over by many.



Maybe it was put out there to try to convince the public that anyone questioning things in this case is just a nutcase,


I think, but until I get confirmation, who knows?

edit on 11-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Well, you are assuming to know what the "Illuminati" stated goals are then. For all we know they have a 100% success rate.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


If everything about the motion is corrupt, they wouldn't have to go through the normal channels to file the motion. Kind of like how they're not going through the motions to have it thrown out...it just is.





 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join