Could Quigs be a closet Donkeys fan?

[Frenzy.]

Watch this space

 

[Frenzy.]

Hint 1.

It all started with Quigs having a whinge about the infraction committee and referring to a certain Donksters ad he sees. No one else has complained of this.

 

[Quigs]

Plait your sh!t you powerhungry old cretin.

Everyone in here knows that I am only focussed on two things in life at the moment.

1. the holy grail. Seeing Gal, Toddy and Harold raise the trophy in October.

2. seeing the return of the Gillard Guv'ment in 2013 with a healthy majority. Go Girl Go.

There are some distractions along the freedom highway, I have Rupes Murdocracy to contend with, The Donkeys, the Stinking Stains, and the Hartleys of Brookvale.

I have to allow munch of my precious time dealing with intellectual giants such as Spide, Ads and Surely re the course our great democracy is heading.

I won't be diverted from my focussed attention by barbs from you, our very own Kenny Arthurson of the Sharks Forum.. head honcho of the Sharks LU Infraction Review Committee.

I wont mention the strong rumour that I have heard lately that a certain Trolls Representative has been spending more then enough time inside the barrell at the Infraction Review Committee Nights and all behind closed locked doors.

My reliable informants told me they heard loud pirate type voices drunkardly yelling.

"Bring me a cabin boy, where's me cabin boy" "Cabin boy, have ye seen me cocky"

My reliable informants have also told me that the Braindead Moronic Troll Advisor has sought undisclosed medical treatment after such Committee Nights.

I've heard Phil and Bec are onto it.

 

[Frenzy.]

Exhibit 1

If the bloody Sharks Infraction Review Committee has any pull in this bloody forum room you'd thunk they'd get up off their fat useless arses and get rid of all the farkennnnn Donkeys Membership Ads that keep appearing every 2nd time I open a bloody page.

Here

 

[Frenzy.]

So you deny you are a closet Donksfan Quigs?

 

[Frenzy.]

Would the judge please direct Mr Quigs to answer the question?

 

[Quigs]

I stand on my unblemished record Artho.

The LU Forums should have nothing but honest and reputable advertising. Something that when you see it, you can immediately relate to it as being fact.

 

[JemimaPuddleduck]

wwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkk

Judge Jemima instructs Mr Quigs, an old prop forward from yesteryear, to answer the Questions of Prosecutor Frenzy.

The duck thinks this has legs. And a tailfeather.

wwwwwaaaaaaaakk

 

[Frenzy.]

Thankyou Judge Puddleduck.

So Mr Quigs,

Is it your contention that the good folk of the LU forum have somehow polluted your browser with images of the famed Brisbane donksters?

Was this image the one that has caused you to make aspersions of the Sharks Infraction Review Committee?

I give you Exhibit A

 

[Frenzy.]

Mr Quigs?

Judge?

 

[JemimaPuddleduck]

wwwaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkk

What? I may be presiding here Pros. Frenzy but not only am I a mere duck I am also an old front rower from the Windybanks Girls School Rugby League team.

So, as true as I waddle from here to there I'm slower than a drunken snail.

 

[Since 73]

Re: Could Quigs be a closet Donkeys fan?

Hang on - that's not the same closet Cechin was in is it?

How many are there?

 

[Frenzy.]

It may be. I have compelling evidence though that Quigs has been "getting around"

It's no surprise that he has gone to ground. Might be looking for a lawyer. Someone like redders.

 

[Quigs]

Jemima, perhaps someone should tell the Sharks LU Infraction Review Committee's own Kenny Arthurson, that the courts don't sit on saturday afternoons.

A learned legal representative informed me about his unreliable behaviour, that is one of the reasons that I voted for Redders, Jemima.

And Redders treats his subordinates with respect, not like lowly cabin boys.

My legal team is waiting for instructions about the next hearing date. Barrister Dave Q is in touch on a regular basis.

 

[Frenzy.]

Objection!!

The witness can not make representations to the judge!

I demand that Mr Quigs answer the question at hand!

 

[JemimaPuddleduck]

Wak-a-doo, wak-a-doo

Prosecutor Frenzy is correct. You'll need a lawyer to approach the duck. To get some luck. To clear the muck.

Wwwaaaakkkkkkkk, me tailfeathers all a quiver.

Back to business. You're gonna have to answer the question Mr Quigs.

Refer to post 65 pul-leeeze

Over

And

Out

Duck is gone

 

[Frenzy.]

OK then. We'll leave that question for now.

Mr Quigs,

In the offending ad if you look carefully you will see a symbol in the upper right corner of said ad.

My underlings have taken the time to have this enlarged for you.

I give you exhibit B

Do you see this symbol in the upper right corner of the Donksters ad you claim is polluting your browser.

The court would, I'm sure, appreciate your alacrity in responding.

 

[Quigs]

Objection!!

The witness can not make representations to the judge!

I demand that Mr Quigs answer the question at hand!

All questions during non sitting times must be addressed through the legal representations of all parties.

It is unconstitutional to direct such action during outside of sitting times especially in the low courts. This ruling was passed by an absolute majority of all sitting judges in the High Court of Australia. (see Sept 1978 ruling Sharks -v- Hartleys )

Basic summarising of that ruling was that Hartley through unlawful action by known/unknown people/peoples placed in a position of power was allowed to exceeds such powers and make a - although totally unlawful and incorrect demand - upon a party at the time of claim. Which under simple examination was found to be unlawful and unjustifiable.

The High Court Judges were of the opinion that any person found to be unlawfully placed in such a position was legally entitled to tell parties Under the Hartley law to Go and get farkkkkedd.

 

[Frenzy.]

Judge Jemima

I refer you to the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38 which states that a witness was “hostile” if the witness deliberately withheld material evidence. This could be established by the demeanour of the witness. Alternatively, it could be established by the circumstances in which a prior statement inconsistent with the witness’s evidence was made if the circumstances were such as to lead strongly to the conclusion that the subsequent departure from that statement could have proceeded only from hostility: McLellan v Bowyer (1961) 106 CLR 95 at 103–104.

At this juncture I request that I be allowed to consider Mr Quigs a hostile witness.

 

[azzah72]

Hahaha you're all idiots, funny as though...