us.legal

Where did you get that erroneous idea? In the U.S., any person who is a party to a lawsuit or other legal proceeding before a court may be cited for contempt by that court. Furthermore, a witness who refuses to testify may be jailed for contempt un

In message <KIydnU6ZVJ24FUndRVn-hg@comcast.com>, Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> writes >"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote >> "Real Crime". Programme on ITV. > >That's British? Yes. >I haven't seen it. You should.

On 19 Jun 2004 05:14:53 -0700, talciere@yahoo.co.uk (Tim Alciere) ejaculated: >Of Cops and Courts, by Mumia Abu-Jamal The assistant district attorney who tried the case, Joseph McGill, points out, "This is not a situation where someone was arrest

In article <10d7muu471vl05d@news.supernews.com>, informant says... > > >"Barstool Lawyer" <Barstool_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:cb0jfu02370@drn.newsguy.com... >> In article <40d3583d.87410870@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob from Texas

>From: spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) >What I would like to know is whether opening statements tend to favor >the prosecution. > Only the ones made by the DAs. I don't believe that the opening statements made by defense counsels favor the pro

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:21:03 -0700, Z <z@no.spam> wrote: >> A study was conducted in the US which determined that 80% of jurors on >> average had made up their mind right after opening arguments. For them >> jury deliberations were largely a waste of

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:38:35 -0600, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote: >> The evidence looked pretty convincing to me. On what basis do *you* >> claim that Patsy wrote the ransom note? >Working for the lawyer/handwriting analyst that ma

In message <-4SdnXzti8tRqUndRVn-sw@comcast.com>, Chas <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> writes >"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote >> The Boulder, Colorado police just decided that JonBenet Ramsay's parents >> were guilty of her ki

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:17:45 +0100, Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Programme on ITV. LOL Is that the same ITV that ran the picture of the poor wretched POW in Bosnia? Oops, he was on the outside looking in? Picky,

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:01:41 +0100, Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: >The Boulder, Colorado police just decided that JonBenet Ramsay's parents >were guilty of her killing. It now appears that there was conclusive >proof that

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:54:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >> There are people who wear the uniform who are individuals first, cops >> second. They come to the aid of citizens not because they are cops but >> because they are decent human

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:47:45 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >Some places are worse than other places, but I'd bet that even in Texas >the times when you are allowed to defend yourself are very limited. There are specific conditions. And

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:09:38 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) wrote: >Can any one offer the legal meaning of the so-called "Reasonable >Person". How about "Reasonable Doubt". > >I am debating my wife about these concepts (we watch too many >cou

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:13:39 +0100, Paul Robson <autismuk@autismuk.freeserve.muralichucks.co.uk> wrote: >but the good ones do >nothing about the dishonest ones, which I believe is collusion. I second that. Please do not trim NGs. You cut out pe

On 19 Jun 2004 00:18:03 -0700, talciere@yahoo.co.uk (Tim Alciere) wrote: >> An associate was in Moscow on business and someone snatched his laptop >> computer from under his arm and ran off. He reported it to the police >> and was told that if he ga

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:02:37 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >The gun thugs offered in their defense that they >have NO OBLIGATION to protect anyone, and in fact their job is to arrest >criminals, not to protect citizens. That's beca

On 18 Jun 2004 22:12:26 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au (Linda) wrote: >The world would be a terrible place without police. Please back that claim with valid reasoning. >Police are sourced >from the general population and therefore there will alway

"Bob from Texas" <spam@spam.com> wrote > That would seem to imply you have first-hand information. Third-hand; I know the people who know the Ramseys. > >Judith Phillips, the family's photographer, is another friend of mine- in > >terms of the 'fl

On 18 Jun 2004 22:38:06 -0700, Barstool Lawyer <Barstool_member@newsguy.com> wrote: >>There is always something to doubt in a trial, so the jurors must >>always acquit the defendant, because there is no way to declare that >>to be "reasonable" doubt

On 19 Jun 2004 00:27:21 -0700, talciere@yahoo.co.uk (Tim Alciere) wrote: >A citizen is a LAYMAN and must be appointed an attorney to advise him >before you may cite him for contempt. If a judge does not follow the >law he looses his judicial immunit

Bob from Texas wrote: > A study was conducted in the US which determined that 80% of jurors on > average had made up their mind right after opening arguments. For them > jury deliberations were largely a waste of time. That can mean a lot of things

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote > "Real Crime". Programme on ITV. That's British? I haven't seen it. > The evidence looked pretty convincing to me. On what basis do *you* > claim that Patsy wrote the ransom note? Workin

Linda wrote: > Hi Bob, > As the wife of a policeman, I can tell you that the statistics you are > quoting are incorrect. You seem to be anti police because of their > stance on domestic violence. Please remember that they "uphold" the > law, they d

On 18 Jun 2004 14:51:34 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au (Linda) wrote: >Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40D2FCDA.1020608@hotmail.com>... >> Krack Whore wrote: >> > Cops are alright. They stifle more serious crimes without laying >> >

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:30:45 -0400, <hinojo_b@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> > > >> > >There are three powers exclusive to the Queen. Name at least one. >> > > >From: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Royal%20Prerogative > >Most powers execised

--------------030702080305060100090108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob wrote: > Tim Alciere wrote: > >> Friday, June 18, 2004. Page 3. >> Policeman Charged in Fatal Metro Beati

--------------080103060801010705060609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Roger J. P. Jones wrote: > In message <fb8d65d.0406180005.56f6673d@posting.google.com>, Tim > Alciere <talcier

Bob from Texas wrote: > There are people who wear the uniform who are individuals first, cops > second. They come to the aid of citizens not because they are cops but > because they are decent human beings. I knew a man like that once. He had qui

Bob from Texas wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 08:02:37 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>The gun thugs offered in their defense that they >>have NO OBLIGATION to protect anyone, and in fact their job is to arrest >>criminals, not to prot

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:E4ENz8DVT+0AFwZr@seasalter0.demon.co.uk... > In message <cb0clj02sq8@news1.newsguy.com>, Richard <Anonymous@127.001> > writes > >Here in the states, the prosecutor MUST prove gu

a poor misguided soul wrote: > > > Roger J. P. Jones wrote: > >> In message <fb8d65d.0406180005.56f6673d@posting.google.com>, Tim >> Alciere <talciere@yahoo.co.uk> writes >> >>> Friday, June 18, 2004. Page 3. >>> >>> Policeman Charged in Fat

Linda wrote: > .> > >>>Hi Bob, >>>As the wife of a policeman, I can tell you that the statistics you are >>>quoting are incorrect. >> >>Cow#@($. You're mired down in gun thug propaganda. >> >> >> > You seem to be anti police because of their

In message <40D3B0DB.4070300@starmail.com>, Paul Gravano <BadaBing@starmail.com> writes >Seems to me that he who has the most money wins. If you can't do it >with the mouthpiece alone, you reach out. If not to a judge, then to a >juror. One thing

In message <cb0clj02sq8@news1.newsguy.com>, Richard <Anonymous@127.001> writes >Here in the states, the prosecutor MUST prove guilt. Unlike in the UK >where "Guilty until proven innocent" rules, if the prosecutor fails to >prove his case, there is

"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote > The Boulder, Colorado police just decided that JonBenet Ramsay's parents > were guilty of her killing. It now appears that there was conclusive > proof that two local paedophiles were guilty, ye

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 04:33:56 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob from Texas) wrote: >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:42:20 -0500, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> >wrote: > >>Unlike in the UK where "Guilty until proven innocent" rules, > >Sorry but Britain still pretend

Of Cops and Courts, by Mumia Abu-Jamal Several of the cops convicted in connection with the vicious, brutal, terrorist assault of Abner Louima in a Brooklyn police precinct, have been graciously granted their freedom by a U.S. appeals court r

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:42:20 -0500, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote: >Unlike in the UK where "Guilty until proven innocent" rules, Sorry but Britain still pretends to be under Common Law. You are thinking of Civil Law which is practiced in Eur

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:31:02 -0500, "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote: >The prosecutor has the burden of removing ALL doubt. Not all doubt - only reasonable doubt. -- Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Barstool Lawyer" <Barstool_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:cb0jfu02370@drn.newsguy.com... > In article <40d3583d.87410870@news-server.houston.rr.com>, Bob from Texas > says... > > > > > >There is always something to doubt in a trial, so

On 18 Jun 2004 19:57:06 -0700, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote: >I don't think that quite captures the notion of "reasonable doubt". A >better description I've heard is that it is the sort of doubt that >would give the proverbial

Seems to me that he who has the most money wins. If you can't do it with the mouthpiece alone, you reach out. If not to a judge, then to a juror. One thing is for sure though, there is ALWAYS someone with their hand out. The legal system is a sha

Makes sense, some of the best crooks I know carry badges. Bob from Texas wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:25:28 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>"Protection" is one of the oldest forms of organized crime. > > > Cops were origin

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:25:28 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Protection" is one of the oldest forms of organized crime. Cops were originally recruited from the ranks of criminals. The idea was who would know more about crime. --

On 18 Jun 2004 14:51:34 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au (Linda) wrote: >He was slashing himself at the time my >husband was trying to use Capsicum spray to subdue him. Your cop husband took on an armed drug addict with pepper spray? Sorry, lady, bu

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:28:18 +0100, Fenris Wolf <Fenris@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote: >For "reasonable person" insert the trial judge. >For "reasonable doubt" insert the politics of the trial judge. You are referring to the British system of inju

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:15:24 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm@not.known> wrote: Was there supposed to be a reply somewhere in this post? >On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:36:01 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) > >>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:17:04 -0700, Mike Z. Helm <mhelm

In article <OIjAc.48523$Ds.37500@clgrps12>, Harry Ballsac. <Harry Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote: >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message >news:carc8v$pd7$1@panix5.panix.com... > >> The issue is you claimed

A citizen is a LAYMAN and must be appointed an attorney to advise him before you may cite him for contempt. If a judge does not follow the law he looses his judicial immunity and may be sued for violation of civil rights.