Casey Anthony

[oldsalt]

That will not make it past summary judgement.

You bet your ass it will.

Do you even know what summary judgement is?
They have no case. No one made a contract with them.
WELL DUH!

"they have no case', says the housebound message board atty. LOL

 

[Gadawg73]

So if someone testifies in their own defense, claim they didn't do it, but is found guilty, do you charge them with perjury too?

We need a loser pay system but in civil, not criminal court

In civil court who would take on big corporations with a loser pay system?

 

[Gadawg73]

You bet your ass it will.

Do you even know what summary judgement is?
They have no case. No one made a contract with them.
WELL DUH!

"they have no case', says the housebound message board atty. LOL

Okay Clarence, tell us HOW you can go do work on something and expect to get paid when NO ONE HIRED YOU.
This ought to be rich.
I am all ears Clarence. Ready, set GO.
Or are you willing to admit you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

 

[oldsalt]

Do you even know what summary judgement is?
They have no case. No one made a contract with them.
WELL DUH!

"they have no case', says the housebound message board atty. LOL

Okay Clarence, tell us HOW you can go do work on something and expect to get paid when NO ONE HIRED YOU.
This ought to be rich.
I am all ears Clarence. Ready, set GO.
Or are you willing to admit you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

Try and make sense, will ya? Then we can talk. You make a blanket statement previously, that had no merit. I called you on it, and you start crying. stop being a pussy.

 

[Gadawg73]

Really? So they should be considered as your homies.

A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments.

.

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You are dumb as a box of rocks.
Grand Juries LISTEN to evidence and give a bill of indictment or not.
They can issue subpoenas for what they want but the police and prosecution have the power to gather the evidence. The grand jury has freedom to do request that.
The police and the DA's office only gather the evidence with force which many times that is what it takes.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, grand juries are free to seek to collect THEIR OWN evidence with the subpoena power. But how does an ordinary citizen collect it? Police.
Grand Juries are WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, police and prosecution.
Abuses are done but no other system is better. Primary purpose of them is to prevent the government from cooking up charges to prosecute for profit or punish their opposition.
Civics 101 is available at your local grade school.

 

[Contumacious]

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You are dumb as a box of rocks.
Grand Juries LISTEN to evidence and give a bill of indictment or not.
They can issue subpoenas for what they want but the police and prosecution have the power to gather the evidence. The grand jury has freedom to do request that.
The police and the DA's office only gather the evidence with force which many times that is what it takes.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, grand juries are free to seek to collect THEIR OWN evidence with the subpoena power. But how does an ordinary citizen collect it? Police.
Grand Juries are WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, police and prosecution.
Abuses are done but no other system is better. Primary purpose of them is to prevent the government from cooking up charges to prosecute for profit or punish their opposition.
Civics 101 is available at your local grade school.

Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Do a little research FIRST, then , repost.

Try to differentiate fact from theory.

Explain, clearly and succintly, why everyone, except you, understands that

A corrupt prosecutor can Indict a Ham Sandwich

John Edwards, and How to Indict the Ham Sandwich « Warm Southern Breeze

.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

"they have no case', says the housebound message board atty. LOL

Okay Clarence, tell us HOW you can go do work on something and expect to get paid when NO ONE HIRED YOU.
This ought to be rich.
I am all ears Clarence. Ready, set GO.
Or are you willing to admit you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

Try and make sense, will ya? Then we can talk. You make a blanket statement previously, that had no merit. I called you on it, and you start crying. stop being a pussy.

They have no case was my statement.
Explain how that has "no merit".

 

[oldsalt]

As a licensed private investigator for 30 years with an agency license I know what a grand jury is and does.
I have testified before grand juries dozens of times.
I have served on grand juries.
I have provided evidence to grand juries.
And again, grand juries are not police.

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You are dumb as a box of rocks.
Grand Juries LISTEN to evidence and give a bill of indictment or not.
They can issue subpoenas for what they want but the police and prosecution have the power to gather the evidence. The grand jury has freedom to do request that.
The police and the DA's office only gather the evidence with force which many times that is what it takes.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, grand juries are free to seek to collect THEIR OWN evidence with the subpoena power. But how does an ordinary citizen collect it? Police.
Grand Juries are WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, police and prosecution.
Abuses are done but no other system is better. Primary purpose of them is to prevent the government from cooking up charges to prosecute for profit or punish their opposition.
Civics 101 is available at your local grade school.

Then I suggest you take it. You're blathering again.

 

[oldsalt]

Okay Clarence, tell us HOW you can go do work on something and expect to get paid when NO ONE HIRED YOU.
This ought to be rich.
I am all ears Clarence. Ready, set GO.
Or are you willing to admit you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

Try and make sense, will ya? Then we can talk. You make a blanket statement previously, that had no merit. I called you on it, and you start crying. stop being a pussy.

They have no case was my statement.
Explain how that has "no merit".

They DO have a case. That's why your statement has no merit. Get it? Not that hard. answer your beeping watch, then come back and debate.

 

[R.D.]

Oh, she's guilty, don't let that pretty face fool you...

She belongs in fucking prison for the rest of her life.... The prosecutions case was just weak.

I don't agree and f you listen to the jurors who are now speaking they did not even follow the case. They think George did it

One thinks ICA should have reported Caylee missing when she came home and couldn't find her. They believe the whole family covered up "something", there was garbage in the trunk, they questioned who was Caylee's primary caregiver, they believe (as many here do as well) incorrectly that State must prove motive, they don't know when she died

 

[Gadawg73]

OK Vern, quit being dense.

both the police and the Grand Jury gather evidence to assist the prosecution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You are dumb as a box of rocks.
Grand Juries LISTEN to evidence and give a bill of indictment or not.
They can issue subpoenas for what they want but the police and prosecution have the power to gather the evidence. The grand jury has freedom to do request that.
The police and the DA's office only gather the evidence with force which many times that is what it takes.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, grand juries are free to seek to collect THEIR OWN evidence with the subpoena power. But how does an ordinary citizen collect it? Police.
Grand Juries are WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, police and prosecution.
Abuses are done but no other system is better. Primary purpose of them is to prevent the government from cooking up charges to prosecute for profit or punish their opposition.
Civics 101 is available at your local grade school.

Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Do a little research FIRST, then , repost.

Try to differentiate fact from theory.

Explain, clearly and succintly, why everyone, except you, understands that

A corrupt prosecutor can Indict a Ham Sandwich

John Edwards, and How to Indict the Ham Sandwich « Warm Southern Breeze

.

.

On the ham sandwich argument I agree 100% and they do not have to be corrupt.
The grand juries rubber stamp pretty much what prosecutors want as the POLICE AND PROSECUTION bring them the evidence, NOT the grand jury.
That pretty much proves what I have been saying all along.
Grand juries are not police. They are citizens like YOU AND I.
Comprende?

 

[American Horse]

You are dumb as a box of rocks.
Grand Juries LISTEN to evidence and give a bill of indictment or not.
They can issue subpoenas for what they want but the police and prosecution have the power to gather the evidence. The grand jury has freedom to do request that.
The police and the DA's office only gather the evidence with force which many times that is what it takes.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, grand juries are free to seek to collect THEIR OWN evidence with the subpoena power. But how does an ordinary citizen collect it? Police.
Grand Juries are WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, police and prosecution.
Abuses are done but no other system is better. Primary purpose of them is to prevent the government from cooking up charges to prosecute for profit or punish their opposition.
Civics 101 is available at your local grade school.

Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Do a little research FIRST, then , repost.

Try to differentiate fact from theory.

Explain, clearly and succintly, why everyone, except you, understands that

A corrupt prosecutor can Indict a Ham Sandwich

John Edwards, and How to Indict the Ham Sandwich « Warm Southern Breeze

.

.

On the ham sandwich argument I agree 100% and they do not have to be corrupt.
The grand juries rubber stamp pretty much what prosecutors want as the POLICE AND PROSECUTION bring them the evidence, NOT the grand jury.
That pretty much proves what I have been saying all along.
Grand juries are not police. They are citizens like YOU AND I.
Comprende?

And they have all the strengths and weaknesses of "you and" me. If a witness refuses to answer during a deposition he or she can be locked up until they do answer. And upon answering, if they mislead the Grand Jury in their testimony, once again they can be locked up (sometimes for years), if false testimony is discovered because it at a variance with some other more credible testimony.

 

[Gadawg73]

Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Do a little research FIRST, then , repost.

Try to differentiate fact from theory.

Explain, clearly and succintly, why everyone, except you, understands that

A corrupt prosecutor can Indict a Ham Sandwich

John Edwards, and How to Indict the Ham Sandwich « Warm Southern Breeze

.

.

On the ham sandwich argument I agree 100% and they do not have to be corrupt.
The grand juries rubber stamp pretty much what prosecutors want as the POLICE AND PROSECUTION bring them the evidence, NOT the grand jury.
That pretty much proves what I have been saying all along.
Grand juries are not police. They are citizens like YOU AND I.
Comprende?

And they have all the strengths and weaknesses of "you and" me. If a witness refuses to answer during a deposition he or she can be locked up until they do answer. And upon answering, if they mislead the Grand Jury in their testimony, once again they can be locked up (sometimes for years), if false testimony is discovered because it at a variance with some other more credible testimony.

Correct but proving the credibility of a grand jury witness when the defense is not allowed to cross examine or even be in those proceedings is almost impossible. I have seen many cases where grand jury witnesses lied and lied and lied, the case plead out and nothing was ever done. That is the norm, not the exception. And how many prosecutors want a kink in their case with a hostile witness when they pretty much get a rubber stamp true bill almost all the time anyway?
Very rarely is a witness ever compelled to testify but that is the law.

 

[oldsalt]

On the ham sandwich argument I agree 100% and they do not have to be corrupt.
The grand juries rubber stamp pretty much what prosecutors want as the POLICE AND PROSECUTION bring them the evidence, NOT the grand jury.
That pretty much proves what I have been saying all along.
Grand juries are not police. They are citizens like YOU AND I.
Comprende?

And they have all the strengths and weaknesses of "you and" me. If a witness refuses to answer during a deposition he or she can be locked up until they do answer. And upon answering, if they mislead the Grand Jury in their testimony, once again they can be locked up (sometimes for years), if false testimony is discovered because it at a variance with some other more credible testimony.

Correct but proving the credibility of a grand jury witness when the defense is not allowed to cross examine or even be in those proceedings is almost impossible. I have seen many cases where grand jury witnesses lied and lied and lied, the case plead out and nothing was ever done. That is the norm, not the exception. And how many prosecutors want a kink in their case with a hostile witness when they pretty much get a rubber stamp true bill almost all the time anyway?
Very rarely is a witness ever compelled to testify but that is the law.

Once again, you're fitting this case to your mindset. didn't take your meds, did you?

 

[Zona]

And they have all the strengths and weaknesses of "you and" me. If a witness refuses to answer during a deposition he or she can be locked up until they do answer. And upon answering, if they mislead the Grand Jury in their testimony, once again they can be locked up (sometimes for years), if false testimony is discovered because it at a variance with some other more credible testimony.

Correct but proving the credibility of a grand jury witness when the defense is not allowed to cross examine or even be in those proceedings is almost impossible. I have seen many cases where grand jury witnesses lied and lied and lied, the case plead out and nothing was ever done. That is the norm, not the exception. And how many prosecutors want a kink in their case with a hostile witness when they pretty much get a rubber stamp true bill almost all the time anyway?
Very rarely is a witness ever compelled to testify but that is the law.

Once again, you're fitting this case to your mindset. didn't take your meds, did you?

How is the ol ferrarri running?

 

[FA_Q2]

During the grand jury, [Susan] McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and subjected to "diesel therapy," the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way.

Susan McDougal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

I would like to see more on that case and why this was allowed. Can a lawyer here shed more light on what happened and why she was imprisoned for this action?

I still contend that you *should* have the right not to talk to the cops but you should NOT have the right to DELIBERATELY mislead an investigation. The latter is dishonest and ACTIVELY disrupting legal operations.

You have a right not to speak when it might implicate you in a crime. The Fifth Amendment guarantee is powerful and real.

But if the matter is beyond the reach of a criminal prosecution, like say if you have been given a grant of immunity, then there is no threat of criminal prosecution. Under those circumstances, with very few exceptions (like attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, priest-penitent privilege and a few along those very rigorous lines), since there is no threat of a criminal prosecution and your words cannot be used against you at a trial which cannot be undertaken, you lose the the 5th Amendment privilege. So, if you get a subpoena, you are obliged to answer lawful questions put to you.

NOW you are obliged to answer the questions put to you before a Court of law or before a Grand Jury (or even before Congress). And you are obliged to do so honestly on pain of criminal prosecution for perjury (if you lie) or contempt if you still refuse to answer.

The contempt is generally pretty interesting since the idea is to compel you to do your duty: i.e., answer the questions. Therefore, you essentially are given the keys to your own jail cell. Answer the questions and you get to go home.

Thanks for the perspective. I see what you are saying. It is unfortunate that the system works that way. I don't think you should ever be in a position where the state is FORCING you to say anything at all but, as you said, the fifth only applied to SELF incrimination.

 

[Liability]

I would like to see more on that case and why this was allowed. Can a lawyer here shed more light on what happened and why she was imprisoned for this action?

I still contend that you *should* have the right not to talk to the cops but you should NOT have the right to DELIBERATELY mislead an investigation. The latter is dishonest and ACTIVELY disrupting legal operations.

You have a right not to speak when it might implicate you in a crime. The Fifth Amendment guarantee is powerful and real.

But if the matter is beyond the reach of a criminal prosecution, like say if you have been given a grant of immunity, then there is no threat of criminal prosecution. Under those circumstances, with very few exceptions (like attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, priest-penitent privilege and a few along those very rigorous lines), since there is no threat of a criminal prosecution and your words cannot be used against you at a trial which cannot be undertaken, you lose the the 5th Amendment privilege. So, if you get a subpoena, you are obliged to answer lawful questions put to you.

NOW you are obliged to answer the questions put to you before a Court of law or before a Grand Jury (or even before Congress). And you are obliged to do so honestly on pain of criminal prosecution for perjury (if you lie) or contempt if you still refuse to answer.

The contempt is generally pretty interesting since the idea is to compel you to do your duty: i.e., answer the questions. Therefore, you essentially are given the keys to your own jail cell. Answer the questions and you get to go home.

Thanks for the perspective. I see what you are saying. It is unfortunate that the system works that way. I don't think you should ever be in a position where the state is FORCING you to say anything at all but, as you said, the fifth only applied to SELF incrimination.

the legal principle which underlies the ability of the state to compel you to answer (IF the State has no ability to prosecute you for any crime related to your testimony) is actually pretty fair and reasonable.

The principle holds that EVERY man (i.e., every person) is ENTITLED to the testimony of every other man.

Let's say you are charged with a crime. Let's say you didn't do it. Let's say you would like to call Joe Blow to testify on your behalf to establish that you were at the strip club across town on the date and at the very moment of the crime you're getting charged with. Joe Blow, however, happened to have robbed the strip joint right around that time (unbeknownst to you). So, rather than come in to testify about your alibi (which is not a dirty word. All "alibi means is that you couldn't have been the bad guy because you were elsewhere at the crucial time), Joe Blow elects to TAKE the 5th. Joe blow may be a crook, but he aint stupid.

But YOU should be able to get his testimony to establish your own alibi, right?

The State COULD at that point agree to give Joe Blow immunity from prosecution if he testifies. (The state may not want to do so, but let's say they are trying to be fair and agree to it). Cool. Now the ONLY way Joe Blow stays silent is if he doesn't want his wife to know that he was at a strip club.... But he can't invoke the Fifth Amendment for THAT reason (just ask President Clinton). But he refuses to testify. IF he sticks to that, you're screwed.

So, the Court ORDERS him to testify. He can't get prosecuted for his petty larceny at the strip club since he is given immunity. He has no legal right not to testify but YOU have a need for him TO testify. If he lies: perjury. If he still refuses to testify: contempt.

good for you in that case. Some leverage for YOU to GET OUT the very testimony YOU need to help derail the prosecution's mistaken case against you.

 

[Contumacious]

The principle holds that EVERY man (i.e., every person) is ENTITLED to the testimony of every other man.

Of course, the referenced principle does not apply in a free country where there are no slaves.

The "principle" is of course a slippery slope; the communists will , subsequently, argue that the poor, the state, society are ENTITLED to your property, intellect, body.......ad nauseam.

.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have seen cases where the criminal case hinged totally on a medical opinion of doctors. The doctors come and testify before the grand jury and one of the doctors' testimony was not exactly what the prosecution believed it would be! It was totally opposite of what the other 2 doctors had testified to.
So which doctor is "lying"?
Perjury is rarely, if ever, indicted and prosecuted. In almost every trial I have seen someone will take the stand, swear to tell the truth "so help me God", sit down and then violate that oath.
Real world is not like TV drama.

 

[Liability]

The principle holds that EVERY man (i.e., every person) is ENTITLED to the testimony of every other man.

Of course, the referenced principle does not apply in a free country where there are no slaves.

The "principle" is of course a slippery slope; the communists will , subsequently, argue that the poor, the state, society are ENTITLED to your property, intellect, body.......ad nauseam.

.

Very sadly but predictably stupid shit you just posted Confusedatious.

Of course it applies in a free country.

It applies here and we area free country.

And the principle is designed for the benefit of all of us.

The concern which the 5th Amendment was designed to address was the prospect of a government compelling people to say things which could then be used BY the government to prosecute and imprison them. Once that threat is removed, it is perfectly fair and reasonable in a free society to expect people to step up to the plate and provide testimony when needed for the system to function.

Morons like you just don't "get it" because your juvenile notion is that "free" means entirely free without bounds or restrictions. But in a civil society there ARE bounds whether a childish idiot like you can accept that or not.