Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The judge already made a finding that it was "willful"!
And addressed the inactions/actions openly in court to the parties and attorneys.
Ohh, the judge declared it willfull.. SO BLOODY WHAT. Is that DA still licensed? YES. Is he still trying cases, YES.. ERGO no punishment's come his way FOR BEING willful in his misleading of judges/defenses..
Do you little goofballs have raw "grazable" land in any Western states?
"Rent"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
Damn you're entertaining LL.
But, in fact, when created, it all belonged to god.
Getting back to punishing attys, being disbarred is a definitive punishment. Happens more frequently than folks realize
I posted my ENTIRE POST since you in your fraudulent BS style omitted the critical part of my statement as you feebly attempt to appear correct again ... by editing what someone else posts!
Again, the "issue" is not whether "disbarment" is a punishment, and a case can be made that it's not a "punishment." As is most often the case it "depends" on the facts.
In the instant case an ass chewing by the Judge in the context of the mistrial along with the "willful" finding and a future determination as to what would happen to the case, as in be dismissed with prejudice, was and is PUNISHMENT to the U.S. Attorney's Office and AUSA's involved with the case.
And I'll repeat about the "ass chewing" by a Federal Judge.
It's punishment particularly when in public in the courtroom with the other attorneys, bystanders, court staff, and clients present.
Ohh, the judge declared it willfull.. SO BLOODY WHAT. Is that DA still licensed? YES. Is he still trying cases, YES.. ERGO no punishment's come his way FOR BEING willful in his misleading of judges/defenses..
You don't believe in "Due Process"?
Or just when it's your ass on the chopping block?
I'll be surprised anyway if he is "disbarred" over it, but it will depend on any prior reprimands and other incidents similar to this one. They probably won't chop his nuts off either! So I can see how you would be upset.
I hope you don't interpret (or perceive and/or otherwise "get the impression") by my suggestion that one is entitled to "Due Process" as being a "defense" to the behavior of the Temporary USA and AUSAs handling the case like some other knuckleheads on here .... because it's not a "defense" unless Due Process denied....which is what they did to the Defendants. So, if it's wrong for the Defendants, it's wrong for the prosecutors. That's called "Equal Protection," which is another Constitutional right.
Yes i do. BUT when he supposedly has OTHER charges against him for doing exactly the same thing, as cops say, it shows a propensity AND a track history of lying in court. ANd that he's YET TO get disciplind, shows there IS no due process, cause if there was, he should have already been smacked by it by now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
I'll be surprised anyway if he is "disbarred" over it, but it will depend on any prior reprimands and other incidents similar to this one. They probably won't chop his nuts off either! So I can see how you would be upset.
And how many times before, is he to do it, before they finally take action??
Yes i do. BUT when he supposedly has OTHER charges against him for doing exactly the same thing, as cops say, it shows a propensity AND a track history of lying in court. ANd that he's YET TO get disciplind, shows there IS no due process, cause if there was, he should have already been smacked by it by now...
And how many times before, is he to do it, before they finally take action??
I don't know, and neither do you, if any of these prosecutors had not been previously "disciplined," for prior behavior. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they weren't.
People on both sides of the political spectrum FIND PEOPLE GUILTY AND RECOMMEND PUNISHMENT based on news media reports ....
and how many times have they been WRONG!
It all makes good Blog and Tweet material, but not good sense.
So you "think" Trump should be impeached and thrown out of office based on "collusion" as described by the news media pundits? (Like: "We all know he did it!") See Baltimore-Freddie Gray and Ferguson-Brown!!!!
I don't know, and neither do you, if any of these prosecutors had not been previously "disciplined," for prior behavior. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean they weren't.
People on both sides of the political spectrum FIND PEOPLE GUILTY AND RECOMMEND PUNISHMENT based on news media reports ....
and how many times have they been WRONG!
It all makes good Blog and Tweet material, but not good sense.
So you "think" Trump should be impeached and thrown out of office based on "collusion" as described by the news media pundits? (Like: "We all know he did it!") See Baltimore-Freddie Gray and Ferguson-Brown!!!!
well, tell that to the innocent victims who spent 15 years or more in the pokey for some crimes they didn't commit all. and its because the DA hid evidence that would clear them.
most of those issues are at the state level. lots of examples of prosecutorial misconduct.
there's a guy who finally got out after 20 years after hidden evidence was found clearing him. this louisiana prosecutor who prosecuted him retired some years ago denied he did anything wrong.
was he ever punshied after the fact?? NO!
Here's another one.
there's this FL female prosecutor put this guy away for a good number of years after hiding evidence that would clear him. he got out after it was found. when asked about it, she claimed it was a staffing error. she's now the county district attorney with an eye on being the state district attorney. I think she was reprimanded in other cases, but the reprimand appears not to have affected her career. was she ever seriously punished and disbarred? NO!
well, tell that to the innocent victims who spent 15 years or more in the pokey for some crimes they didn't commit all. and its because the DA hid evidence that would clear them.
most of those issues are at the state level. lots of examples of prosecutorial misconduct.
Tell what to them?
The reason why "most of those issues are at the state level" is there are a lot more contested trials in the "state level," which results in those issues being an "issue" in the first place. BTW: That's one reason state's attorneys on the average have more trial experience than Federal prosecutors. But what you may be overlooking is a lot of Federal cases are worked by local LE agencies under the "supervision" of Federal agent who is supposed to be looking after what's going on with the gathering and safeguarding of evidence.
For some "reason" you keep posting like you believe I am defending prosecutors. Is that an effort to discredit me or marginalize what I'm posting?
Do you believe OJ Simpson killed his wife and her boy pet?
For some "reason" you also believe the system can be perfect. It's not and won't be, because of the human factor. Like going to work in the morning you don't plan on becoming involved in a collision, but you do, because of someone else's carelessness and inattention. As hard as you try to avoid the collision ("defensive driving") you get caught in it. It is a tragedy to say the least when someone is incarcerated for a crime they did not commit. It's also a tragedy when someone is acquitted of a crime they did commit. It is also a tragedy when someone is accused of something they did not do and they successfully defend themselves, which costs them their job, the family (marriage), and all their property that they do not recover..... and did I mention an election to the United States Senate~! After the not guilty verdict the chatter continues: "he got off" ... "it was a legal technicality" .... and "he had a good lawyer"! No one "assumes" he is INNOCENT, but he IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, BECAUSE the government/state didn't overcome the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. Is that "defending" anyone? Nope! It's recognizing REALITY!
Yes i do. BUT when he supposedly has OTHER charges against him for doing exactly the same thing, as cops say, it shows a propensity AND a track history of lying in court. ANd that he's YET TO get disciplind, shows there IS no due process, cause if there was, he should have already been smacked by it by now...
And how many times before, is he to do it, before they finally take action??
Again, you don't know that no action has been taken in the past.
I'm being consistent, and I suspect some on here aren't. Perhaps not you, I'm not going to waste my time doing the "research." I do not believe anyone should have "assumed" that Judge Moore committed the alleged "inappropriate" behavior with females that cost him the election. It was wrong to do so. And by the same token it's wrong to "assume" what has taken place in the past with these prosecutors. You are basing it ALL on media reports.
Look what happened in Ferguson and Baltimore! Just to name two in recent history.
