The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:52:28 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:52:28 GMT
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
> Steve wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > > Steve wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> It woudl have been politiclaly more smart. But it is stillnto clear
> > >>> that the quesiton was phrased with the precison required, or the
> > >>> materiality demanded of a perjury conviction. He would have in fact
> > >>> been better off refusing to answer on the groudns of immateriality
> > >>> and I believe he would have been upheld.
> > >>>
> > >>> Vince Brannigan
> > He would have had to answer the question. With the objection noted.
> > attorney could have ask for clarification.
> he can flat refuse to answer the question. the issue then is whether a
> would insist.
> It's a deposition.
> > >> The law gives the prosecutor the discretion on how he handles a
> > >> case. There are lots of reasons not to take a case to trial, and
> > >> guilt and innocence are not always the issue. I can assure you in
> > >> the criminals courts of this country deals are made every day where
> > >> charges are dropped solely based on the finally agreement, not on
> > >> guilt or innonace.
> > >
> > > Sure, not an issue
> > It was in your earlier post. You said it would unethical for a
> > not to proceed on a case. But now its Ok?
> no and what I said was
> "If the prosecution has the evidence to convict a person of a crime, they
> go forward with a case and get a conviction or they don't .
> it is unethical for a prosecutor to make a unilateral declaration that a
> has committed a crime when there has been no plea or conviction."
> typos corrected"
> It is not unethical not to proceed on a case. but because an attorney's
> of the value of a case is not evidence it is unethical to refuse to
> then claim that you could have proved the case so the defendant is guilty
> despite the failure to go forward
> > >
> > > because in a lawsuit about non-consensual sex, consensual sex may not
> > > be material.
> > MAY NOT...BE MAY BE and in the context of this lawsuit, not just
> > non-consensual but the manner of obtaining consent was easily an issue.
> > Build on top of that, Did you have sexual relations with that woman,
> > followed by was it with consent. Then you question her to set up the
> > impeachment or rebuttal of his statement. It was material in this case.
> OFCS if the manner of obtaining consent is "unlawful" its non consensual.
> was a sexual harassment case. If its so clear, the special prosecutor
> have made the case. he did not.
> > >
> > Not when it goes to establish a pattern his past conduct, state of mind
> > all relevant issues. The Rape Shield laws of most states only make
> > vic.s) past conduct off limits.
> he refuses and makes the case to the judge. unfortunately they did not
> right questions, so the special prosecutor had no case.
> > I have looked at the Cannon of Ethics. Misleading is not grounds for
> > disbarment. He was not testifying as an officer of the court, he was
> > there in any capacity other than a defendant answering a deposition.
> > disbarment was not based on the actions of an Attorney engaged in the
> > practice of law, but on an illegal act. Convicted or not.
> do some research
> Arkansas Supreme Court Committee Wants Clinton Disbarred
> Saturday, July 01, 2000
> By JAMES JEFFERSON Associated Press Writer
> LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court sued
> President Clinton on Friday, seeking to strip him of his
> law license in an unprecedented disciplinary action against a sitting
> The court's Committee on Professional Conduct voted May 19 to sue
> over ``serious misconduct'' in the Paula Jones sexual
> harassment case. The panel said that, in a sworn deposition, Clinton
> misleading answers about his relationship with White
> House intern Monica Lewinsky. Friday's brief filing in Pulaski County
> Court asked a judge to find that Clinton ``has conducted himself in a
> violates the model rules of professional conduct as adopted by the
> Supreme Court.''
> Arkansas Supreme Court Panel Files
> Disbar Clinton
> By Steve Barnes
> LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - A committee of the Arkansas Supreme
> filed suit on Friday to have President Clinton disbarred as a lawyer
> denying his sexual contact with former White House intern Monica
> Responding to complaint filed by a federal judge and a conservative
> interest law firm, the committee last month said Clinton had violated
> rules for
> attorneys by denying trysts with Lewinsky while under oath in the Paula
> sexual harassment case. The five-page lawsuit charged that Clinton's
> ''damages the legal profession and demonstrates a lack of overall
> hold a license to practice law''. It also accused Clinton of ``serious
> misconduct and
> defines the term as involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud and
> misrepresentation.'' The lawsuit was accompanied by dozens of pages of
> exhibits, including a partial transcript of Clinton's deposition in the
> Note that the word "perjury" is not used
> > Oh...just because you don't receive a ticket, go to court, be found
> > and pay a fine does not change the fact that you ran a red light.
> ok, but it also does ntochange the fact hat you are not a criminal
> > Running said red light is a crime.
> no it is not. for example if youwere orderd to do so byu a apolice
ofiicer , or
> even id dnot see the red light due to a tree. that is why we have trials.
> > It is a crime whether anyone sees it, whether an action is every taken
> > not. The act is a violation of a prohibited act.That is a crime.
> Give a cite for thsi propostion
> > You can play on words all day long, but when I mislead my mother, the
> > I got was the same as the one for laying too her. She's not a
> > lawyer, but she understands a lie but any other name is still a lie.
> > said all that, I am no longer sure why this thread is even in this
> > newsgroup or what the point is. He is no longer President, he had his
> > terms he can't come back, we have enough real issues to deal with, so
> > night.
> becasue being precise ont he law is important. no one is an unlawful
> until someone proves it.
Against my better Judgment one more last comment...based on your last
statement no one should be in jail until they are convicted and logically
even arrested since they have not committed a crime until they are convicted
of it. They are accused of being unlawful combatants just like people are
accused of crimes in this country every day.
You can twist words any way you want so that you can believe anything you
want to be the truth. It does not make it the truth. And the criminal
justice system in this country does not work any where near the way you
imply in your descriptions of the law.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of