Pacquiao Lawsuit: "It was Floyd's camp who told Tim Smith about the FAKE emails"

[Danny Gunz]

Nah i didnt miss the point, I understand the whole point perfectly..Firstly i wasnt asking for evidence for myself (I hope all the ******s can get that through their respective thick skulls), My point was what evidence have they got to think "The Mayweather camp told smith" because the evidence would have to be proven in court...I guess i have to spell that out to people who cant read in between the line.

Secondly, I implore anyone of you to please dig out a post of mine where i have ever imply that Pac or his team did indeed send anyone any email, Not only that but i also questioned the "Supposely email" that was seen by a few..

So in conclusion before you or anyone else reply to my post about "How i didnt get it" please go back and dig out my post where i didnt question or ask for evidence of the "Supposely email" if not all you mutha****as can ****ing take a suicide pill.

Ight I'm gonna go take a suicide pill real quick.

[Kagami Taiga]

preponderane of the evidence just means more likely than not. meaning, when eveything is weighed, the plaintiff just has to prove more likely than not (which comes out to roughly 51%) the defendant is guilty of whatever he is accused.

[The Gambler1981]

preponderane of the evidence just means more likely than not. meaning, when eveything is weighed, the plaintiff just has to prove more likely than not (which comes out to roughly 51%) the defendant is guilty of whatever he is accused.

It isn't that simple~ but that is a common misconception.

[Kagami Taiga]

It isn't that simple~

nothing ever is...but if u think ur gonna be able to come into a boxin forum and explain the complexities of law to a bunch of simpletons then ur wasting ur time. for all intents and purposes, this standard is much lower than the beyond resonable doubt standard found in criminal cases. thats pretty easy for anyone to understand.

[The Gambler1981]

nothing ever is...but if u think ur gonna be able to come into a boxin forum and explain the complexities of law to a bunch of simpletons then ur wasting ur time. for all intents and purposes, this standard is much lower than the beyond resonable doubt standard found in criminal cases. thats pretty easy for anyone to understand.

Oh of course, but wasting time here is my hobby.

Still beyond a reasonable doubt is a ridiculously high standard (as it should be to take away somebodies freedom) so there is a lot of room for gray area and people are making it out like these cases are easy to win.

[Gutz]

*****s are getting ****d in this thread

Fixed for you..



Floyds going to owe Pac big time.. Then Pac going to kick his ass in the ring!

[JoeDaWg]

If they can prove that email ( if it even exists ) came from floyds camp it's game over for money.

[Malicious]

Preponderance of evidence is like 75-80% sure which is low compared to like 100%. Most likely is not close to 50%~

Don't use words or definitions you don't know how to use.

Whatever, look it up if you don't believe me. I don't have time to play professor for someone who clearly knows little to nothing about the subject.
Edit: Nevermind someone already looked it up for you. You'll probably still cling to your idiotic arguments though. BTW you are definitely not a more credible source than a law professor who defined preponderance as what i said. So again stfu and stop putting your foot in your mouth.

[Eastbay Giant]

Basically what I get from this **** long thread, is that if the Mayweather camp produces the email in court then the Pacquiao camp will say it's "Fake
". Well, we already knew that.

I see quotes from Ronnie N, and Rick Reeno which basically exposed their bias and the numerous Mayweather hate threads that can be pulled from this site can support as much.

After reading that deposition I can honestly say for those who think Pacquiao isn't on Peds ok fine, your entitled to your opinion. To say that dudes EGO isn't on steroids is lying to yourself. That is the worst argument for Malice that could be possibly made, and if it;s contingent upon statements made on Boxingscene well..

[The Gambler1981]

Whatever, look it up if you don't believe me. I don't have time to play professor for someone who clearly knows little to nothing about the subject.
Edit: Nevermind someone already looked it up for you. You'll probably still cling to your idiotic arguments though. BTW you are definitely not a more credible source than a law professor who defined preponderance as what i said. So again stfu and stop putting your foot in your mouth.

I posted a link in this thread already explaining it, which is more credible than wiki. Number 189 to be exact~

Glad you feel that way though shows your true colors~