Timmy84 said:

he's on Okayplayer talkin MAJOR shit

here's a piece. He and another poster got into it REEEAL bad
http://board.okayplayer.c...8706&page=

bboy87 said:

Poor Maxxx. He's lucky he don't get conflict with MJ fans at MJJC.

Timmy84 said:

MJ fans are pissed....especially since today is the 3rd anniversary of Michael's aquittal

They did that shit on purpose!

bboy87 said:

I can just imagine.

And hell yeah they did it on purpose.

Timmy84 said:

Maxx just clowned dude on OKP!

Dynamiks-You're so insane, it's awesome.

Maxx-so is your mamma. but love that chick and where is my father's day card and Hugh Hefner Smoker's jacket at Son??

Dynamiks-N*gga you still owe us child support!

Maxx-true and I had to crash at Superhead's house and that b*tch is Broke but we love each other and hopefully we can pay you back with Green stamps

bboy87 said:

That guy should be a comic, yo!!!! Why his 40-year-old ass don't get on Comic View, I'm telling you he'll be a hit!

Timmy84 said:

he says he's 37

OMG this thread! *dead* I don't know where to begin. Utterly disgusted at the verdict- this is NO MJ case- I don't care what anyone says.

More like OJ- they had "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit"

And in the R.Kelly trial they used the "No mole" defense.

What a load of shit. And what the fuck is this? completely contradictory- How can they believe that's him on the tape but not have enough evidence? This shit makes me completely mad.

bboy87 said:

Exactly. MJ trial even had the accuser & the entire family testify, but they were obviously lying. That's why MJ was acquitted.

The R. Kelly trial actually had evidence that he was a child molester and had child porn. And it's fucking hard (almost impossible) to get evidence in a child molestation-related trial, yet they got it and fucking IGNORED it!!?? what the fuck? (I know it was child porn he was on trial for- but he was on a TAPE!! Is that not child molestation and child porn?)

When you're done, pass that shit to me- I hope it's Jack Daniels. I need something strong over here.

[Edited 6/13/08 22:41pm]

bboy87 said:

Yeah I think he'll be 38 in December.

marnifrances said:

Exactly. MJ trial even had the accuser & the entire family testify, but they were obviously lying. That's why MJ was acquitted.

The R. Kelly trial actually had evidence that he was a child molester and had child porn. And it's fucking hard (almost impossible) to get evidence in a child molestation-related trial, yet they got it and fucking IGNORED it!!?? what the fuck? (I know it was child porn he was on trial for- but he was on a TAPE!! Is that not child molestation and child porn?)

When you're done, pass that shit to me- I hope it's Jack Daniels. I need something strong over here.

[Edited 6/13/08 22:41pm]
[/quote]
It's some hard cognac

bboy87 said:

*goes to watch "Pee on You" and "Pee On You remix" by Dave Chappelle until someone passes me something other than 'gnac.*

carlcranshaw said:

If you think about it for a minute it's not about hate. It's about love.....of the truth.




[/quote]


Oh snap! I just rewatched the Boondocks episode "Trial of R.Kelly" the other day!

the scary part is that that episode was almost like watching Aaron Mcgruder tell the future .I NEVER would have thought in a million years that he would have hit the nail so dead on the head with how this mess would be played out

...now if they keep giving this sommamabitch image and lifetime achievement awards I will seriously HURL....

Interesting. When MJ gets acquited, it's because he's "obviously innocent", yet when R. Kelly gets acquited it's because the courts are hopeless. LOL, talk about double standards.

midnightmover said:

It's not the same thing, though. Here, there was actual evidence that R. Kelly is a pedophile, there shouldn't have been any doubt, and in the Michael Jackson case, there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was a child molester. Both cases are different.

shipoffools said:

In this case they said there was "insufficient evidence" too, just like they did with MJ. Difference is you guys like MJ and hate R. Kelly.

midnightmover said:

How can you have a double standard for two utterly different cases? You can think one is guilty and the other is innocent without any contradiction whatsoever. All you have to do is read the individual cases (when one reporting on Kelly's comes out, of course) and make up you mind based on that.

I've read the MJ case and formed my opinion, but I have no desire to read the R Kelly case, so no comment.

Annika said:

MJ fans frequently argue that the court's verdict means MJ is totally innocent. Others argue that the courts frequently let guilty men (particularly rich ones) go free. It seems some MJ fans want to have it both ways. The courts are infallible when they like the verdict, and a total joke when they dislike the verdict.

midnightmover said:

The courts (in any country and at all levels) unfortunately frequently make mistakes when it comes to sex cases. Given their nature, it's unavoidable; often only the accuser and the accused truly know what happened, and even then, their personal perceptions may differ dramatically.

As far as the courts are concerned, I'm personally in favour of the old common law idea that it's better for ten guilty men to walk free than for one innocent man to be deprived of his liberty.

That doesn't mean that people can't read the evidence for themselves and view it differently, without seeing the courts as either infallible or a total joke. You can believe that a right or a wrong result was reached in any given case without idolising or losing respect for the system behind it.

How can there be a double standard?
First of all this case has nothing to do with Michael Jackson.
Why can't people (fans or not) think someone's guilty when they are acquitted? Loads of people think MJ is guilty, yet we MJ fans aren't allowed to think someone else is guilty? I don't get it.

R.Kelly- Child Porn case: Hard evidence, with jurors even saying they believed that was Kelly in the tape (translation: guilty) yet they had no choice but to acquit because the victim didn't testify.

Michael Jackson- Child molestation case: No evidence (even though that's almost impossible to get in such cases), "victims" testify yet keep changing their stories, are known liars and admit to lying on the stand. I wonder why he was acquitted. lmao.

Completely different cases and scenarios.

Timmy84 said:

You stay trying to clown maxx. While you claim to be what 24, 25 but look like you every bit of 40 in your myspace pics. You need to stop.

marnifrances said:

Because he's a celebrity and bought off the jurors, isn't it obvious? .



I agree with what you everything you said though. It's annoying when some claim that some of us are being hypocrtical about R. Kelly and MJ because some of us like the latter. It has nothing to do with that.

In MJ's case, there was no dna, no child pornography found anywhere, there was no evidence there basically. I really don't care what anyone says tho, people can feel however they want about Michael but at least there aint a damn tape of Michael pissing on little boys!!! Could you imagine if there was a tape like that of MIke? His ass would be under the jail right now (which would be the appropriate punishment), but still it is CLEAR that it's R. Kelly on that tape.

I'm not suprised that R. Kelly was acquitted though. How can you have a case where the alleged victim claims that it's not even her on the tape? R. Kelly is still a dirty azz mofo though. He will get his one day.
[Edited 6/14/08 8:20am]

Cinnamon234 said:

Of course, I forgot about the celebrity paying off jurors thing!

Thanks Cinnamon!

You're right- it's got nothing to do with liking more than the other. It's got to do with evidence. I can tell you right now if I believed that kid or there was a TAPE of Michael doing something illegal with children, I would have stopped supporting his ass a long time ago.

Yeah I guess so. Still, if the tape is clear that he's with an underage girl, wouldn't that still be enough to find him guilty? Then again, I guess you'd need the girl to step forward and say 'I was 13 when that happened'.
Makes me mad as hell.

Okay...maybe I am a little late with my response....but, even Ray Charles can see that it was Kelly on that tape!!! I just can't understand it!!
[Edited 6/14/08 18:02pm]

What a crock of shit!

shorttrini said:

Stevie Wonder agrees

LaCienega said:

Nobody clowin Maxx. Me and Maxx are friends and worked on a MJ book together

and Timmy and Maxx are cool from MJJC

the NWO has mad love for Mistermaxx

shorttrini said:

The five jurors interviewed afterwards said that they had no choice but to find him not guilty because the prosecution didn't produce the girl - who also denied it was her (paid off by Kelly, no doubt). That's reasonable doubt.

Knowing someone's guilty and proving it are two completely different matters. Without a victim, the prosecution couldn't prove its case.

Okay, I might get my ass kicked by many for what I am about to say, but here it goes....How many of you all believe that both cases were looked at differently due to the color of their "victims", and the type of image these two men project? It seems to me that alot more people supported R. and were behind him than they were for MJ. The evidence against R. was overwhelming yet, people were willing to for lack of a better word, "let it go". Where MJ is concerned, there was no real evidence just allot of he say, she say. Yet, people were willing to hang this man due to the fact that he was, is and always will be a little off and does not sing about sex as much as R. does. Isn't this more of a double standard?

Cinnamon234 said:

Good to see the two of you are maintaining the org tradition of totally missing a point. I'm referring to a SPECIFIC ARGUMENT MJ fans often use, which is "He's not a paedophile because the courts say so". It's a dumb argument, and since all of you agree that R. Kelly is guilty yet he was set free, I hope I won't hear any of you making this argument in the future. That was the point. Typically, you missed it.

midnightmover said:

It's quite interesting and very telling!