Vegas Free-for-All - FERGUSON, MISSOURI

FERGUSON, MISSOURI

malibber2

Nov 26, 2014
11:59pm

I am both dumb and stupid. I attended law school and practiced law for five years. People like you is why I primarily quit practicing. They would come in with a problem and I would tell them what the law was regarding their particular problem. They would refuse to accept it. I can still recall a massive number of people that couldn't accept things as basic as child support guidelines. They couldn't grasp that the amount of child support they paid was based upon a simple mathematical formula and they insisted on going to court because their buddy Clem or Cletis told them something else. We would go to court and the Judge would apply the child support guidelines just like I told them he would and they would be pissed off at me and often tried not to pay me because the law didn't live up to what their seat of the pants interpretation of it was.

I will say it for the third time now. I am offering no opinion on the facts of the case. However, the Grand Jury Proceeding was conducted differently than every other Grand Jury Proceeding in the State. It was wrong to conduct a Grand Jury Proceeding in this fashion and it forever taints the whole process with a stench of corruption that cannot be removed. Large civil judgments/settlements will more than likely have to be paid out because of it and the local taxpayers will feel the pain for years to come.

Quote

Originally posted by: albeadle33
Mal claims to have attended some kind of law school, yet he comes across as either dumb or stupid when the facts show up.

Obama: "I would like everyone concerned to listen to and abide by the words of Michael Brown's stepfather when he said, no matter what the Grand Jury's decision is, we must remain calm in order to show respect for young Michael's tragic death".

Immediately upon hearing the decision not to indict, Michael Brown's wonderful step dad updates his statement as such: "BURN THIS BITCH DOWN!!"

Just how much more a fool can Obama's own kind make him look? It is going to be ENORMOUS fun watching history mocking & chopping this racist liar apart!

jatki

Nov 27, 2014
7:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am both dumb and stupid. I attended law school and practiced law for five years. People like you is why I primarily quit practicing. They would come in with a problem and I would tell them what the law was regarding their particular problem. They would refuse to accept it. I can still recall a massive number of people that couldn't accept things as basic as child support guidelines. They couldn't grasp that the amount of child support they paid was based upon a simple mathematical formula and they insisted on going to court because their buddy Clem or Cletis told them something else. We would go to court and the Judge would apply the child support guidelines just like I told them he would and they would be pissed off at me and often tried not to pay me because the law didn't live up to what their seat of the pants interpretation of it was.

I will say it for the third time now. I am offering no opinion on the facts of the case. However, the Grand Jury Proceeding was conducted differently than every other Grand Jury Proceeding in the State. It was wrong to conduct a Grand Jury Proceeding in this fashion and it forever taints the whole process with a stench of corruption that cannot be removed. Large civil judgments/settlements will more than likely have to be paid out because of it and the local taxpayers will feel the pain for years to come.

Quote
Originally posted by: albeadle33
Mal claims to have attended some kind of law school, yet he comes across as either dumb or stupid when the facts show up.

Obama: "I would like everyone concerned to listen to and abide by the words of Michael Brown's stepfather when he said, no matter what the Grand Jury's decision is, we must remain calm in order to show respect for young Michael's tragic death".

Immediately upon hearing the decision not to indict, Michael Brown's wonderful step dad updates his statement as such: "BURN THIS BITCH DOWN!!"

Just how much more a fool can Obama's own kind make him look? It is going to be ENORMOUS fun watching history mocking & chopping this racist liar apart!

Are you still saying the prosecutor basically "walked "wilson through his testimony(or whatever) in front of the grand jury?

Or are you saying the prosecutor was wrong when he had to correct blatanly incorrect "eyewitness accounts" such as these...?

"...The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied."

or the likes of this..

"...Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head." But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said."

Are you saying the prosecutor should've allowed statements like "shooting him in the back of the head" go to the grand jury with no clarificatio at all? is that your beef 'cause I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from mal, how exactly was this different than any others, other than it seems the prosecutor bent over backwards to appease all details.

malibber2

Nov 27, 2014
8:28am

Block User

I am saying the whole damn thing was a farce. The role of the prosecutor in the grand jury is to present evidence the supports the reasons to indict the suspect and nothing more. He isn't there to challenge statements made by witnesses that support the indictment or allow the accused to give a statement in his or her defense. The prosecutor's role is to prosecute the accused not play defense attorney for the accused. By flipping the whole proceeding upside down the prosecutor made this look exactly like Mississippi in 1967 and he ought to be disbarred.

Here is Justice Scalia describing the role of a Grand Jury in a 1992 Supreme Court case.

Quote

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

jatki

Nov 27, 2014
10:17am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am saying the whole damn thing was a farce. The role of the prosecutor in the grand jury is to present evidence the supports the reasons to indict the suspect and nothing more. He isn't there to challenge statements made by witnesses that support the indictment or allow the accused to give a statement in his or her defense. The prosecutor's role is to prosecute the accused not play defense attorney for the accused. By flipping the whole proceeding upside down the prosecutor made this look exactly like Mississippi in 1967 and he ought to be disbarred.

Here is Justice Scalia describing the role of a Grand Jury in a 1992 Supreme Court case.

Quote
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

So you're saying the statement about brown being on his kneees and shot in the back of the head should've been given to the grand jury with nothing further added, is that your whole point? Because the prosecutor knew it was impossible and told the witness as much, this is your big hangup?

Of course I'm just singling out this one instance for simplicity sake.

malibber2

Nov 27, 2014
11:04am

Block User

I am trying to explain it from a legal point of view of what the law requires in terms of procedure and you don't want to understand that aspect of the case. Read the quote from Justice Scalia I posted focus on the part near the end where is says the accused has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding. Focus on the part where it says the accused has no right to testify. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to enquire on the foundation of why the charges may be denied. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to try the suspect’s defenses.

Every rule laid down by Justice Scalia himself in describing the role of a Grand Jury proceeding was not followed. The question you need to be asking is why were these rules not followed? It is the question everyone should be asking. If the facts are such a lay down for the police as many of you suggest why break all the rules to make sure the thing never goes to trial?

Boilerman

Nov 27, 2014
6:12pm

Block User

I find it interesting that Malibber gives Scalia's statement such credibility. Do all of Scalia's statements hold equal merit in Malibber's opinion?

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I am trying to explain it from a legal point of view of what the law requires in terms of procedure and you don't want to understand that aspect of the case. Read the quote from Justice Scalia I posted focus on the part near the end where is says the accused has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding. Focus on the part where it says the accused has no right to testify. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to enquire on the foundation of why the charges may be denied. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to try the suspect’s defenses.

Every rule laid down by Justice Scalia himself in describing the role of a Grand Jury proceeding was not followed. The question you need to be asking is why were these rules not followed? It is the question everyone should be asking. If the facts are such a lay down for the police as many of you suggest why break all the rules to make sure the thing never goes to trial?

jatki

Nov 28, 2014
12:53am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
I find it interesting that Malibber gives Scalia's statement such credibility. Do all of Scalia's statements hold equal merit in Malibber's opinion?

Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
I am trying to explain it from a legal point of view of what the law requires in terms of procedure and you don't want to understand that aspect of the case. Read the quote from Justice Scalia I posted focus on the part near the end where is says the accused has no right to have exculpatory evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding. Focus on the part where it says the accused has no right to testify. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to enquire on the foundation of why the charges may be denied. Focus on the part where is says the grand jury is not to try the suspect’s defenses.

Every rule laid down by Justice Scalia himself in describing the role of a Grand Jury proceeding was not followed. The question you need to be asking is why were these rules not followed? It is the question everyone should be asking. If the facts are such a lay down for the police as many of you suggest why break all the rules to make sure the thing never goes to trial?

UH..supreme court judge is kinda the final word.

jatki

Nov 28, 2014
12:56am

Block User

Quote

You're still not answering my question ie the example I gave(shooting in the back of the head). Better yet, why don't you single out something in particular, a single thing, and I'll really try and see where you're coming from because I still think the pros bent over backwards.