Friendly Fan = Trader Jorge ??? I suspect FF is correct in that this will turn into a battle of wits between the lawyers. I hope that through this circus, justice is served. For both Kobe and the girl. Rape -- even 'date rape' -- is a serious matter.
First, if FF is a lawyer, then the legal profession is in serious trouble. Read his posts for clarity of argument and/or facts -- they are non-existent and downright infantile. Would you want somebody like this defending you? Now, it is true I was making light of his "bad actor" nonsense and laughter was my intent. You see, in all the criminal trials I have attended I have never heard the term "bad actor" used by an attorney whereas I have seen it in reports by police officers quite often. (Attorney: "Mr. Smith, can you identify the bad actor?" Witness: "Oh, yeah, that's him. That Clooney guy over there." Somehow, when you think of legal terminology, which of these does not fit: "nolo contendere," "pro bono," "bad actor," "habeas corpus." Please cite the section of Texas jurisprudence that defines "bad actor" as official "legal terminology" and I will recant.
I don't do criminal work. I do civil work. The term bad actor has many uses. Criminal law types use it to identify one who is either a criminal or helping a criminal. However, in civil law it is used to denote a person who may merely be guilty of behaving badly on an occasion. For instance, a man who is cheating on his wife is a bad actor. The woman who knowingly sleeps with said man is also a bad actor, and that is the context which I used. Anyone who has consensual sexual contact (if she did) with someone they know is married - that person is a bad actor. As for definitions, I'm sure they can be found in Black's Law Dictionary, although I haven't used one in years.
In every case there is a battle unseen to the jury over evidence. It begins early in the case as each side sets up their lines of attack and defense. Then in pretrial the judge makes key decisions, typically at a conference designed to create an ORDER IN LIMINE. This order will limit each side, tell them specifically what they cannot talk about or mention to the jury. Violating that order can result in the judge ordering a mistrial, or sanctioning an attorney, or sanctioning a party, or all of the above. Once the structure of the case has been defined by the judge's pretrial rulings, the trial begins. A jury is picked, and the attorneys may or may not get to give the jury pool a speech about the case. Good lawyers start selling the instant the jury pool walks in the room. It is the job of lawyers to use their skills to gain utmost advantage for their client. If I have an opposing witness on the ropes, and I gut him, I'm doing the best job for my client. If that keeps the other side from prevailing, I did my job. Is that winning by hook or crook? I don't know. It's winning and it's doing it the way we do it. The lawyers may manipulate the show, but the jury decides who to believe, and no amount of lawyering in the world can save a bad witness.
Where was this Friendly Fan hiding? In this post, FF, you make sense. In your past posts, well...I am not sure we have the same FF doing the response.
it depends on how much time I have to respond, and whether I'm in the mood to do so I'm a b*stard a couple of times a day.
I run a business. I surround myself with independent thinkers of highly divergent viewpoints because I want to make decisions with perspective. Yes men annoy me. My friends and associates know they must be able to support their positions just as they expect me to support mine when and where we disagree. I actually have no position on the Kobe Bryant case. There is another board that considers me a die-hard Kobe fan. Sometimes I take an opposing view just to make the other person sharpen and define his or her perceptions because, in so doing, I sharpen and define mine. What was getting me crazy is that the "original" FF refused to make anything other than ungrounded statements as if they were fact. I even tried to take them to the extreme to draw the "original" FF out into the open. Anyway, I am due at my attorney's office this p.m. so I will tap his legal library for the "bad actor" legalese.
Compare part of an earlier response of mine in this thread to HillBoy and tell me if there isn't a similarity of thought here. Using leaks judiciously (pardon the pun) and setting up their own propaganda (formal definition -- please ignore the negative connotation) machine, Law Team Kobe can and does "orchestrate" events. That's why and how they get the big bucks -- to lay the groundwork so they have every advantage they can get for their client in the courtroom....[
similar btw, I'm an old fart with little patience for explaining things when I don't feel like doing so as a prerequisite to posting. on the other hand, if I have the time, I can drone on for hours about dang near nothing
Monday, September 25, 2000 Sunset Commission Makes Decisions on TNRCC Some Good First Steps, But Not Enough for Real Reform The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission met in Austin on September 20 and reviewed a wide range of recommendations for proposed changes in the operations and policies of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The suggested changes came from the Sunset Commission staff, the TNRCC itself, the regulated community, the public interest community, and individual citizens and community groups around the state. When the dust settled after about four hours of deliberations, the Sunset Commission had produced a decidedly mixed bag of decisions on the agency. The Sunset Commission actions could lead to some significant improvements in the agency's work but fall far short of the comprehensive changes that environmental and other citizen groups feel are necessary to make TNRCC a strong and effective pollution control agency. Citizen Victories The Sunset Commission adopted a number of recommendations put forward by the Commission's staff and/or by citizens that, if finally approved by the Legislature or (in the case of management recommendations to TNRCC) if pursued by the agency, will lead to a more citizen-friendly, less polluter-oriented environmental regulatory agency. Among the recommendations made in this regard are the following: Requiring TNRCC to develop a common definition of “compliance history,” to track and report the compliance history of all regulated entities, and to develop a performance assessment for regulated entities to determine eligibility for innovative programs and to establish permit and enforcement guidelines. Any company that produces pollution needs to be held accountable for violations of the law or the company's permit, not only through enforcement actions but also through a review of the company's compliance record when TNRCC is deciding whether to renew that company's permit or grant it a new permit for a different operation. The ability to do this has been hampered by inconsistent definitions of compliance history from one pollution control program to another and by poor tracking of compliance history. This Sunset recommendation aims to change that. A further modification made by the Sunset Commission is to ensure that TNRCC has a means to consider changes in ownership when tracking the compliance history of regulated entities. Requiring TNRCC to use compliance performance when determining eligibility for participation in its “innovative” regulatory programs, prohibiting entities with unacceptable compliance history from participating in innovative regulatory programs, requiring entities participating in the regulatory flexibility program to demonstrate that they would exceed current environmental performance standards to participate, and prohibiting TNRCC from authorizing “supplemental environmental projects” (SEPs) by a polluter where the polluter has already agreed to do that SEP under a preexisting agreement with a governmental agency. This set of recommendations aims to put some reasonable restrictions on TNRCC’s use of what is sometimes but perhaps mistakenly termed “innovative” regulatory programs. One example of an “innovative” regulatory program is the “regulatory flexibility” program authorized by the Texas Legislature in 1997. Currently this program allows a polluter to propose a different pollution control approach from what is standard practice if the polluter is able to convince the TNRCC that the new pollution control approach will be just as protective of the environment as the standard approach. This program is currently available to all polluters, regardless of past track records on compliance. If adopted by the Legislature this new set of recommendations would prohibit the agency from providing such a program to a “bad actor” and would further require a participant in the regulatory flexibility program to exceed, not just match current environmental performance standards. This is a major victory for environmental protection. These recommendations would also properly restrict TNRCC from allowing a polluter to do a SEP (such as donating parkland to a county government) in lieu of paying a fine for a pollution violation if that polluter had already agreed with another government entity to do this SEP anyway for some other purpose.
Dear Friendly: I guess I kind of started this s***-storm of rhetoric about actors and actresses by pointing out that you were quoting accusations not in evidence. You said you didn't care, you chose to believe it. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that you have modified your stance by adding (if she did) to your post. That is a big improvement and a good start at fairness, especially for a lawyer. Guilty by rumor or inuendo isn't even justification for a lynch mob. I am not a lawyer, but I do have twin 19 year old girls. I asked them if it were possible that certain girls would attempt to play the Game with Kobe on a moments notice. They agreed that they both knew girls that indeed would jump in the rack with Kobe in a second. However; and this is pure opinion on their part, that particular girl's (Katie's) profile did not seem to fit the girls that would. As I understand it , and this is hearsay, she was an honor student, cheerleader, and popular with lots of friends. The type girl that would perform such an act as you describe would normally be a loner with low feeling of self worth. As far as Katie's "unstable" acts (attempting to harm herself), described by others, lots of young girls and boys have problems learrning how to be adults. Taking some sort of medicinal overdose and then calling her ex-boyfriend and informing him you did so is not generally considered a genuine attempt at suicide, but could earn her some counseling probably. IMHO it doesn't constitue grounds for running to Kobe's bed side either. Anyway, based on my knowledge of the facts I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt, until I find out differently. Thank you.
I recant and apologize for my derision and attempted levity regarding your "bad actor" scenario. Thank God I learn something new every day. It is now encumbent upon you, as I requested and krocket just alluded, to present your case with a more factual and "erudite" exposition so that we may share the insight of your legal perspective.
Not trying to beat a dead horse here but here's yet ANOTHER example of why I have no faith in the so-called "fairness" of the criminal justice system. From today's CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/26/dna.inmate.freed.ap/index.html DNA frees man after 17 years in prison ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) --A man who served 17 years in prison for three rapes was freed Monday after DNA tests proved he didn't do it. Circuit Judge Jimmie Edwards apologized to Lonnie Erby for the wrongful conviction, noting that the science of criminal investigation has improved since 1986. Erby said of the apology: "That was the one thing I was waiting for." Erby, 49, was sentenced to 115 years for the 1985 attacks on three girls. He was released after genetic testing found that the semen taken from the victims was not his. Immediately after being freed, Erby hugged the son he had seen just once since his incarceration. Erby was the second inmate convicted of a St. Louis rape to be freed after DNA testing sought by the Innocence Project, headed by Barry Scheck, who gained fame as part of the O.J. Simpson defense team. In July 2002, Larry Johnson was released after spending 18 years in prison for the 1984 rape of a Saint Louis University student. Nationally, more than 300 men and women have been exonerated of crimes and released from prison as the result of DNA testing, the Innocence Project said. Testing has confirmed the guilt of some other inmates. All I have to say is thank God for science!
hey guys, we're just havin' fun here that's why I leave caps and punctuation out I'm crazy-insane, insane-crazy like that tomorrow, I'm drinking milk with an expiration date that is passed crazy-insane I'm jaywalkin'. I'm tearing my pillow tag off. I'm getting wild! Thumbs, I hate having to be reasonable. I love having opinions with little factual or legal basis. Bush has shown me the way of the prevaricator. Now all I need is an aviator suit and a giant cup to make it look like I have a package the size of a bowling ball. I declare hostilities ended.
As opposed to that defender of the truth, that paragon of honesty ... Bill Clinton (and the Democratic Party). But this topic belongs in the Debate & Discussion Hangout.
