Send a Message
to Wish of Odz

Comments

47

Joined

Sep 10, 2012

Wish of Odz Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

New York, NY

OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER

We" means the supporters of Obama who is a Marxist/Leninist president who was elected by accident through the political ignorance of those who were organized politically disinterested people called "we". They are mostly from the grassroot level who voted for him into office. When he told Joe the Plumber about "re-distribut ion of wealth" these "we" people from the grassroot didn't know about Marxist idea... that he is going to tax the rich and give money to the "we" people. They will become "free loaders" of the government like for example the lazy OWS, segment of the blacks who abhor working in the farm, the illegal chicanos and the asians and the able bodied people who are classified as disable people by the Obama government. They are the free loaders called "we".  (Sep 27, 2012 | post #8669)

Encinitas, CA

Obama-Economy - Encinitas, CA

When Obama took over government the US economy accelerated its speed towards disaster. Forty seven million Americans are on food stamp is not good for the Obama regime to brag about. Obama's health care program will bury more the US economy in debt. Osama dead and Biden's claim of the end of Al Qaeda is a deception. In retaliation Amb. Chris Stevens was assassinated on the exact date the twin towers collapsed on 9/11. If Obama wins prepare for a government like Greece or Spain.  (Sep 27, 2012 | post #4)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [Can you cite a jurisprudence wherein an affidavit of retraction from an accused in libel does not carry any legal Value???] Reply: Yes there is! Not only a libel case but any other cases criminal or civil. "In the case of People v. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, and People v. Junio, 237 SCRA 826, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated the long-held doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence that an afterthought had no probative value. It would make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A recantation can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for money, and is exceedingly unreliable, the Court stated." Did I not say to you that Rosita Trillanes' retraction was her second opinion and it has no legal value because the court had already rendered its decision? The SC said; "A recantation can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for money, and is exceedingly unreliable." Elias Ibarra wrote: [You can't!!! You are just a plain ignoramus in law!!!] Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Elias Ibarra wrote: [For your information, retraction is one of the defenses against libel and the rest are as follows:] Reply: Retraction is the weakest strategy in a court trial. Recanted testimony is unreliable. According to the Supreme Court; "In the case of People v. Alicante, 332 SCRA 440, and People v. Junio, 237 SCRA 826, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated the long-held doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence that an afterthought had no probative value. It would make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A recantation can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for money, and is exceedingly unreliable, the Court stated." Elias Ibarra wrote: [1. Truth. In the United States, if it is true, then it is not libel.] Reply: If it's true and you've done it with malice and the intention to harm the person then you are guilty of libel. In the case of Rosita Trillanes the Court of Appeals believed her letter published in Ing Cawal as true and the complaint of a certain Felix Manalo was repudiated and his arguments was denied its validity. Elias Ibarra wrote: [2. Privilege. Statements made in a court room or the floor of a legislative body have absolute privilege. If these statements are quoted by a newspaper for example, the newspaper and reporters quoting such statements are protected by qualified privilege. Under broadcast law, the Equal Time Rule protects stations carrying the statements of public officials or people running for office and grants such stations absolute privilege. 3. Fair comment and criticism. Comments made in editorial and opinion pieces on the public performance of public figures who voluntarily put themselves in the limelight are protected by law as long as the statements are specific and precise, can be verified, are in an understood literary context (think The Onion versus the New York Times), and are in an understood public context (e.g., the conduct of candidates running for office in an election). Other defenses used against libel are neutral reportage, statute of limitations and death.] Reply: What you're talking above are privilege speeches in the court and congress, newspaper reporting and broadcasting. What have these all to do with the rape of Rosita Trillanes? Hilo ka na parekoy-koy! Elias Ibarra wrote: [Stop playing intelligent for you have none!!! You are nothing but an ignoramus!!!] Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  (Sep 25, 2012 | post #145)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [You English comprehension is very limited and deals solely with your imaginations!!!] Reply: I am not imagining but it's you who is dreaming that Felix "the rapist" Manalo is an angel. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Trillanes was able to prove in court that she was not a part of the conspiracy to publish the fabrications but only the rest of her co-respondents!!!] Reply: You see! You are dreaming! Trillanes has nothing to prove because after the case was decided in 1942 she was freed and all of her conspirators. Elias Ibarra wrote: [What was the agreement of the respondents at the onset??? Trillanes affidavit states:] Reply: The agreement had nothing to prove. The case was decided already. Tapos na ang boxing! Elias Ibarra wrote: ["5. That the letter and all those matters stated therein was fabricated by Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales who induced me to sign the same upon their representation that it would be shown;". The agreement at the onset was to "show only to the brethren of the Church of Christ (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) to convince them to revolt against the administration of Mr. Felix Manalo, in retribution against him for expelling us from the Church." Was the agreement followed??? A BIG NO!!! What was done by the rest of her co-respondents??? Trillanes" affidavit states: "7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction."] Reply: What you wrote above have no legal value! The case of libel charged by Felix Manalo against Rosita Trillanes et al was decided already in 1942 before Rosita Trillanes signed a fabricated letter of retraction in 1952. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Aside from being shown to the brethren of the Church, the letter was published instead in a newspaper!!!] Reply: Whether the letter was shown to her brethren or not has no bearing of the case. I believe more on Rosita Trillanes and her conspirators because if it was not true they should have been convicted of libel. According to Rosita Trillanes she witnessed women members of the church that were sexually abused and harrassed by Felix Manalo, that some were single women. Basilia Santos of Paco pointed a finger at Felix Manalo as the father of her two children. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Was Trillanes a co-conspirator in the publication of the letter???] Reply: She was a part of the conspiracy because she signed the letter that was published in Ing Cawal newspaper. The editor Salvador Tumang was part because he published the letter. Felix Manalo filed a case of libel against Rosita Trillanes, Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales. These 3 people have the same case of libel. They can go to jail together or be freed together. Na-intindihan mo ba? That is the characteristic in a conspiracy to libel case. Elias Ibarra wrote: A BIG NO if you could understand English!!! Try to take some more English sunjects!!! Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #143)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [Your problem is in English comprehension!!!] Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Elias Ibarra wrote: [Trillanes' Affidavit states "only that she was acquitted"!!! She could not be a party to the conspiracy because:] Reply: You are too stubborn! You cannot understand because I believe of the intense brainwashing done to you by INM cult. Your brain is full of chicken dunks! This case is already decided by the court in 1942 and Rosita Trillanes and her conspirators were already acquitted. Her affidavit of retraction was signed by her in 1952. Mag-isip ka naman! Elias Ibarra wrote: ["7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction... ".] Reply: Item 7 of her retraction has no more legal value because the case was decided in 1942 and she signed her retraction in 1952. Count the years in gap... 10 years. And still you want to force the issue! Elias Ibarra wrote: [The agreement was to "show the fabricated letter only to the brethren in the Church"!!! Instead, the letter was published in a newspapper!!! Was she a co-conspirator in the publication??? A BIG NO!!!] Her letter published in Ing Cawal was not fabricated because the court believed it. Her second letter which was purportedly a retraction was the one fabricated by the lawyer of Felix "the rapist" Manalo. When she agreed to published her letter in a newspaper then that was a "conspiracy ". She conspired with the editor of the newspaper and Cirilo Gonzales. It is not possible for the court to free only Trillanes when they were charged of the same crime. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Admit now that you cannot understand English!!!] Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #142)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [The retraction made by Trillanes was made part of the evidence that was presented to the Court of Appeals!!! There is a court doctrine about "the proximate cause but not the remotest cause" (proxima causa non remota spectatur)!!! This was the basis why Trillanes was acquitted!!! She was not the cause of the libel but only was subtly involved by some of her relative co-respondents!!! Through negotiation with the complaining party and with help and consent from the same, Trillanes was acquitted!!!] Reply: Liar! Liar! Liar! Liar! You are really an INC! Grasping at straws to defend an angel/rapist. The retraction letter was never made or written by Trillanes but by the lawyer of Felix Manalo... nor it was presented in court as evidence. The judgment upholding the letter of Rosita Trillanes published by Ing Cawal put Felix Manalo's complaint of libel in the garbage bin. The case of libel was decided by the Court of Appeals on April 21, 1942. The letter of retraction purportedly from Rosita Trillanes was signed by her on the 21st of November 1952. Therefore there is a gap of 10 years. How can that be used as evidence? Hehehe... Below is the affidavit of Rosita Trillanes signed November 21, 1952; Republic of the Philippines City of Manila S.S. AFFIDAVIT I, ROSTIA TRILLANES, Filipino, of legal age, married a resident of and with a postal address at 639 Piy Margal, Manila, upon being duly sworn according to law depose and say: ...deleted.... IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit, and affixed my right hand thumb mark below that of my signature at the left margin of the first pageand at the bottom hereof, to remove any doubt about the authenticity of this instrument, this 21st day of November 1952, in the City of Manila, Philippines. (signature) Rosita Trillanes Right hand_________Thumb mark Signed in the presence of: (Signature of witness) (signature of 2nd witness) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of November, 1952, at Manila, Philippines; affiant exhibited to me her Residence Certificate No. A0385178 issued at Maila, on November 7, 1952. (signature) (Notary Seal) Frolian Tafalla Notary Public Until December 31, 1952 Doc. No. 118 Page No. 97 Book No. II Series of 1952  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #141)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [Brother Felix Y. Manalo was already exposed as: Last 2007, the birthsite of Brother Felix Y. Manalo in Tipas, Taguig was formally inaugurated as a Philippine National Historical Landmark. At that event, the officials of the National Historical Institute unveiled the historical marker, together with the Deputy Execitive Minister of the Church of Christ, Brother Eduardo Manalo. In an interview, NHI Executive Director Ludovico Badoy had this to say: "The National Historical Institute recognizes Brother Felix Manalo's contribution to the enrichment of the spiritual lives of Filipinos and the history of our nation. His works, his teaching, and the Church he started have changed the lives and the faith of many Filipinos. He deserves the pride and the recognition of the people of Taguig."] Reply: Your leader, last messenger and angel named Felix Manalo is exposed as a rapist. That is already a disgrace to his name as leader of a cult.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #140)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [Improve your understanding of the English language for this is the content of the Trillanes affidavit:] Reply: Are you already bankrupt of reasons! You keep on repeating issues that are fully answered! Elias Ibarra wrote: [4. That concerning that libelous letter I wrote and for which I accused by Mr. Felix Manalo, I hereby state and so declare, that all matters therein stated and written are all false and pure fabrications without any truth whatsoever; 5. That the letter and all those matters stated therein was fabricated by Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales who induced me to sign the same upon their representation that it would be shown only to the brethren of the Church of Christ (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) to convince them to revolt against the administration of Mr. Felix Manalo, in retribution against him for expelling us from the Church;] Reply: I pointed out that said RETRACTION DOES NOT SERVE ANY FATHOMABLE LEGAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. A recantation, retraction or desistance should be executed and filed before the prosecution files a criminal information in court. In the Trillanes case, however, that cannot be legally possible, for the following reasons: 1.Manalo was the private complainant. He should have been the one who executed and filed an affidavit of desistance or retraction. 2.The case was already filed in court. In fact, the case reached the Court of appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals” (“un hombre de baja moral’). 3.The retraction was executed by Trillanes many years after the dismissal of the case. Elias Ibarra wrote: [There was no rape!!! Some of the respondents were relatives of Trillanes and that was why she went along with them!!!] Reply: The Court of Appeals confirmed that there was! Elias Ibarra wrote: [If there was a rape case, then, why not give me the criminal case number??? You are a liar!!!] Reply: I'm not lying! There was a rape but there was no rape case. There was a case of libel against Rosita Trillanes et al.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #139)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: That is your opinion!!! Reply: My opinion is based from the decision of the court. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Just take notice that Trillanes never filed a rape case against Brother Felix Y. Manalo from 1942 to 1952 and people are mentioning the rape without really a rape case being filed but instead only the libel case existed!!!] Reply: She did not file because according to her she is a poor girl who ran away from her parents in Batangas who disowned her for converting to the INM cult. Which is why I told you that; if her case happen today Felix your angel will be jailed for life because today a rape victim's testimony is acceptable in court and the semen of Manalo can easily be detected through his DNA. Elias Ibarra wrote: [It only proves that the fabrication was false and could not be substantiated in court!!!] Reply: Of course... use your common sense! A fabrication is false! Which is why the Trillanes retraction is a fabrication and it was only done in a lawyer's office. The retraction letter did not go through a hearing in a court of law. Her letter in Ing Cawal newspaper was proven in court that it's true! Elias Ibarra wrote: [For you information, no one is admitted back to the fold without undergoing a process of probation which would take months and even years!!!] Reply: Your leader and angel Felix Manalo was accused of rape by Rosita Trillanes and found true by the court. Yet there is no ex-communication handed to him. If an ordinary inc member committed that kind of crime against another inc member he will undergo a process or right away ex-communicated. Elias Ibarra wrote: [And no one becomes an officer in the Iglesia ni Cristo unless he/she has been in the fold for at least 3 yesrs!!!] Reply: I agree! Calling your INC heirarchy as officers prove that you are not the church in the bible. The church in the bible called their leaders as father, bishop, priest, shepherd or presbyter. Elias Ibarra wrote: [How could there be a stigma when at the onset there was no rape at all...] Reply: There was a stigma that disgraced Felix Manalo's name. The libel case that he did not win in court brought Felix Manalo to shame. That is the stigma! The INC followers believe that he is an angel and yet accused by a member of his church of rape and was confirmed by a court of law. This is the reason I truly believe, why Felix Manalo persuaded Rosita Trillanes to sign a retraction letter. Elias Ibarra wrote: [...but a desire to rebel because of expulsion from the Iglesia ni Crist as stated by Trillanes herself:] Reply: This is a shallow reasoning! Felix Manalo sued Rosita Trillanes et al for libel. In the letter of Rosita Trillanes published in Ing Cawal it was not stated that they rebelled against the church. Elias Ibarra wrote: [4. That concerning that libelous letter I wrote and for which I accused by Mr. Felix Manalo, I hereby state and so declare, that all matters therein stated and written are all false and pure fabrications without any truth whatsoever; 7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction,] Reply: This is a fabrication! A retraction composed by a lawyer to save the name of Felix Manalo a rapist and let a poor girl signed with a price to become a deaconess. Elias Ibarra wrote: [You cannot understand English and the law!!!] HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!!!!!  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #138)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [The Affidavit of Trillanes shows that she was duped by her co-respondents:] Reply: Whether you think she's duped or not but one thing is clear here. Her affidavit of retraction does not carry any weight of legal value. Elias Ibarra wrote: [4. That concerning that libelous letter I wrote and for which I accused by Mr. Felix Manalo, I hereby state and so declare, that all matters therein stated and written are all false and pure fabrications without any truth whatsoever; 5. That the letter and all those matters stated therein was fabricated by Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales who induced me to sign the same upon their representation that it would be shown only to the brethren of the Church of Christ (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) to convince them to revolt against the administration of Mr. Felix Manalo, in retribution against him for expelling us from the Church; 6. That together with Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales, we were expelled from the Church for Acts and behaviors contrary to the doctrines of the Church; 7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction,] Reply: Items 4 to 7 are part of her retraction which carry no legal value. Elias Ibarra wrote: [According to Trillanes, the letter she made was actually a fabrication of her co-respondents!!! Therefore, she could be acquitted by virtue of the fact that she was not a willing paticipant in the publication of the fabrication which was the cause of action for the libel case!!!] Reply: The letter she wrote to Ing Cawal is believed by the court to be true. Her retraction is not believable as it is already a second opinion after the case. She was persuaded to retract after 10 years by people of the INM cult. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Take notice that Trillanes never mentioned in her affidavit that she was raped but everything was pure fabrication!!!] Reply: Of course! And you know why? Because she did not compose her retraction. It was composed by the lawyer of Felix Manalo.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #137)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [Trillanes was not a deaconess at the onset!!! She was new to the Iglesia ni Cristo when the attempt to defame Brother Felix Y. Manalo took place!!!] Reply: Correct! She was a runaway girl from Batangas because her parents disowned her when she converted to the Iglesia ni Manalo cult. She sought refuge in INM Central and according to her; she treated Felix Manalo as her father. But her adopted father raped her. Elias Ibarra wrote: [She became a deaconess only after she returned to the Iglesia ni Cristo as a prodigal daughter and many years after she was acquitted!!!] Reply: She returned to your cult after 10 years of persuading her to recant. When she recanted she was given a price as a deaconess. The point that Trillanes remained a deaconess until her death give doubt. And why should she be a deaconess when Felix Manalo accused her as a liar? Why should she be allowed to serve? Elias Ibarra wrote: [We have no disagreement with you with regards to the qualities of a deacon or deaconess as portrayed in the verse!!! But take notice also of these verses commanding Iglesia ni Cristo members to:] Reply: In 1 Timothy 3:10, Apostle Paul provides the qualifications for the office of deacon: “And let these also be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderer, sober, faithful in all things.” Does Rosita Trillanes qualify as deaconess? Elias Ibarra wrote: [If your religion does not give a chance to a repentant person then you have to get out from your cult!!! Brother Felix Y. Manalo was correct in forgiving Sister Rosita Trillanes!!! For the Iglesia ni Cristo is the true brotherhood!!!] Reply: The Catholic Church teaches the forgiveness of sins unlike your cult it does not forgive sinners but iglesia ni Manalo excommunicate them. But when Felix Manalo committed a scandal against women members of his cult he was not excommunicated. It proved that he is the owner of his church and not God.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #128)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [The Court of Appeals quotes both the oipinions of the defense and the complainant when deciding cases!!! You are therefore very ignorant of the workings of the law!!!] Reply: In the Trillanes case it was the majority opinion that is important. If there was any dissenting opinion then cite to me that opinion. Elias Ibarra wrote: [It is not because the opinion of Trillanes was not libelous but her "good intentions" why she got the acquittal!!! Of the multiple persons being accused, only Trillanes was able to show remorse!!!] Reply: Her letter to the Ing Cawal newspaper was believed by the court to be true and not libelous. There is no mention of "good intention" in her letter which is the subject of libel. You are inventing again your reasoning. Elias Ibarra wrote: [At this time, the side of the complainant (Brother Felix Y. Manalo) was already trying to help her from her conviction!!!] Reply: Look at this illogical reasoning again! Felix Manalo trying to help from her conviction? What? Felix Manalo went to court to convict her and her companions. Elias Ibarra wrote: [She was pardoned by Brother Felix Y. Manalo for that is the practice of the true Christians not to tear each other apart!!! You call that "true Brotherhood and sisterhood".] Reply: You are a hypocrite! You keep on defending a rapist leader of your cultic religion. You leader Felix Manalo is at par with David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith and Muhammad... they are sexually abusing members of their cult in the name of religion.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #127)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [A perjured statement can always be retracted!!!] Reply: I agree! But the retraction of Rosita Trillanes happened after the decision of the Court of Appeals therefore it has no legal value. Sa abogado lang siya ni FYM nag-retract at hindi sa korte! THE RETRACTION DOES NOT SERVE ANY FATHOMABLE LEGAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. A recantation, retraction or desistance should be executed and filed before the prosecution files a criminal information in court. In the Trillanes case, however, that cannot be legally possible, for the following reasons: 1.Manalo was the private complainant. He should have been the one who executed and filed an affidavit of desistance or retraction. 2.The case was already filed in court. In fact, the case reached the Court of appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals” (“un hombre de baja moral’). 3.The retraction was executed by Trillanes many years after the dismissal of the case. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Take notice that the libel case against Trillanes, et. al. was a fabrication according to Trillanes herself!!! Therefore, she has a duty to retract out of remorse:] Reply: It's not a fabrication! You know why? It's because her case went under a legal process. First in the CFI where she and her companions were convicted and in the higher court where they were acquitted and found your leader Felix Manalo "a man with low moral". Elias Ibarra wrote: ["9. That I have therefore executed the foregoing affidavit to confirm the truth of all I have stated above and for such other purposes for which the same could be availed of to right the wrong and injustice I have committed against Mr. Felix Manalo about whose integrity and character I have the highest of regard and respect. Furthermore, I have executed the same without any consideration whatsoever, without having been induced by any one, except for the reasons I have stated, and without mental reservation whatsoever."] Reply: This is item 9 and part of the retraction of Rosita Trillanes but I'm sorry for you... but you are grasping at straws with your reasoning. Here listen to this; "THE RETRACTION DOES NOT SERVE ANY FATHOMABLE LEGAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. A recantation, retraction or desistance should be executed and filed before the prosecution files a criminal information in court." Elias Ibarra wrote: [You have never been working in a law office but I did before I came to America!!!] Reply: Which is why your reasoning is illogical because you were working in a law office not as a lawyer but maybe a janitor. Elias Ibarra wrote: [There are lots of cases all over the world wherein the ones executing sworn statements have recanted!!!] Reply: But the recantation of Rosita Trillanes happened in 1952 10 years after the Court of Appeals acquitted her of libel upholding her letter in Ing Cawal as true. Elias Ibarra wrote: [Don't be ignorant of the ins and outs of the justice system!!!] Reply: So tell me please what are the "ins and outs of the justice system" that made Felix Manalo a rapist and a man with low moral according to the court. Elias Ibarra wrote: [And there is no reason for Brother Felix Y. Manalo to recant for he was defamed and demeaned!!!] Reply: When Felix Manalo did not recant the more his lewd design was exposed to the public. He wrongly believed that he can defend his name by suing Rosita Trillanes with libel. The court by using the opinion of the defense said that; "Felix Manalo is a man "de baja moral" (man of low moral) and that he took advantage of his position in the Iglesia to attack and sully the virtue of some of his female followers."  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #126)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [It seems to me that you cannot understand English!!!] Reply: HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Elias Ibarra wrote: [Trillanes in her affidavit did not mention that the rest of the respondents were acquitted but only her!!!] Reply: It means that the lawyer of Felix Manalo is stupid! Elias Ibarra wrote: [So, they were convicted!!! Why are you using the pronoun "they" when Trillanes herself said that only her was acquitted:] Reply: I'm very sorry for your INC mental incapacity to think. I'm going to repeat this for you! They were convicted in the lower court. When she elevated the case to the higher court she did not bring her name alone but the names of her conspirators were included in the information of her case also. When she was acquitted by the court her conspirators were included in the acquittal because in a conspiracy the crime of one is the crime of all. Elias Ibarra wrote: ["8. That after my conviction I appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and by claiming that I was motivated by good intentions I was able to acquit myself (see Official Gazette Vol. 1, July 1942 – No. 8180, April 21, 1942), although, since then and up to the present time, I have been bothered continuously by remorse and a guilty conscience;." ] Reply: Which is why item 8 in the retraction of Rosita Trillanes is an invention of the lawyer of Felix Manalo and it is not a part of any legal proceedings. Ang hina ng utak mo parekoy-koy!  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #125)

Iglesia Ni Cristo-Her Truth Shall Set You Free

Elias Ibarra wrote: [The affidavit of Trillanes states that only she was able to acquit herself:] Reply: You are wrong! She cannot acquit herself because she conspired with the editor of Ing Cawal Salvador Tumang and another person Cirilo Gonzales. Her crime is also the crime of her conspirator! Elias Ibarra wrote: [Just take note that the wordings that you posted is not that of the Solicitor General but of another person!!! If that is the actual word of the Solicitor General then he would not be using the pronoun "he" but "I"!!! That is a part of their fabrication!!!] Reply: I'm going reprint the quote for the benefit of Elias Ibarra who has the difficulty of comprehension. "And the Solicitor concludes that he found out through proofs presented that Manalo is a man "de baja moral" (man of low moral) and that he took advantage of his position in the Iglesia to attack and sully the virtue of some of his female followers." Where is the word "Solicitor General" Mr. Ibarra? Solicitor General is the official lawyer of the Philippine government and why should he be involved in a case of private persons? The word "solicitor " mentioned is the lawyer of Rosita Trillanes.  (Sep 24, 2012 | post #124)