A bigger fish from Cohen tapes

RB 60 said:
Years ago before the company closed, a friend and co-worker was laid off just after he went through a messy and costly divorce. He started to date a coke dealer and went on a coke bender. He was a good guy, never in any trouble. After a few months, he dumped her, quit doing coke and got a good job. Shortly thereafter, she got busted. His phone no. was on her phone records and prosecutors "thought" he was involved in distribution (he just partied, never sold to anyone). Using her lies and the lies of a few others (they never searched his car or home, never found a shred of evidence he did anything at all), the prosecution took this case to a Grand Jury, they handed down an indictment recommending 5 or 6 felony charges. Over a year and a half after he Quit partying and became re-employed, he was arrested. The arrest cost him his job and he couldn't afford to fight the charges, so he pled to 2 of them and spent 3 or 4 months in jail. He got out and has been gainfully employed ever since and has never done any drugs since the time he spent with that whore.
Now, tell me this was right. (BTW, we're still friends).
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
"a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich"
 
Nordberg said:
Well, he did save the auto industry. Was that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Do you see those two things as equivalent? What did Wall Street do with their bailout $? Did Wall Street give anything up for being bailed out? Stay tuned for the next crash and socialist bailout of the aristocracy; just a matter of time.
 
RB 60 said:
Years ago before the company closed, a friend and co-worker was laid off just after he went through a messy and costly divorce. He started to date a coke dealer and went on a coke bender. He was a good guy, never in any trouble. After a few months, he dumped her, quit doing coke and got a good job. Shortly thereafter, she got busted. His phone no. was on her phone records and prosecutors "thought" he was involved in distribution (he just partied, never sold to anyone). Using her lies and the lies of a few others (they never searched his car or home, never found a shred of evidence he did anything at all), the prosecution took this case to a Grand Jury, they handed down an indictment recommending 5 or 6 felony charges. Over a year and a half after he Quit partying and became re-employed, he was arrested. The arrest cost him his job and he couldn't afford to fight the charges, so he pled to 2 of them and spent 3 or 4 months in jail. He got out and has been gainfully employed ever since and has never done any drugs since the time he spent with that whore.
Now, tell me this was right. (BTW, we're still friends).
Click to expand...

Prosecutorial misconduct is never right and has resulted in prosecution and convicted people released from prison. But that is true regardless of grand juries.

The federal government must use grand juries but states do not because that federal constitutional right has never been extended to the states. But even in states without grand juries prosecutors can bring charges against defendants like your friend.

My main point was simply that (federal) grand juries cannot be unconstitutional regardless of whether they are a good thing. Those states that do not use them usually have judges determine the legitimacy of the charges since they are more knowledgeable of the law than grand jurors. Studies show grand jury cases only average a few minutes in length with many cases being indicted per day.
 
evince said:
bullshit


they are terrorists idiot
Click to expand...

If you attack me in the street to get my money are you a terrorist? That is not terrorism under U. S. law. Were the demonstrators who committed violence on either side of the Charlottesville protests also terrorists?

You anger disappeared for a few minutes. Give us a smile.
 
Flash said:
Prosecutorial misconduct is never right and has resulted in prosecution and convicted people released from prison. But that is true regardless of grand juries.

The federal government must use grand juries but states do not because that federal constitutional right has never been extended to the states. But even in states without grand juries prosecutors can bring charges against defendants like your friend.

My main point was simply that (federal) grand juries cannot be unconstitutional regardless of whether they are a good thing. Those states that do not use them usually have judges determine the legitimacy of the charges since they are more knowledgeable of the law than grand jurors. Studies show grand jury cases only average a few minutes in length with many cases being indicted per day.
Click to expand...

And when judges cannot find enough evidence to recommend charges, prosecutors rely on grand juries to hand down an indictment. There was no evidence of any kind to take this case to a trial, the prosecutors told him to his face they just "thought" he was involved in the distribution of cocaine.
 
Flash said:
If you attack me in the street to get my money are you a terrorist? That is not terrorism under U. S. law. Were the demonstrators who committed violence on either side of the Charlottesville protests also terrorists?

You anger disappeared for a few minutes. Give us a smile.
Click to expand...

quit pretending I said something I didn't asshole
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Do you see those two things as equivalent? What did Wall Street do with their bailout $? Did Wall Street give anything up for being bailed out? Stay tuned for the next crash and socialist bailout of the aristocracy; just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

that was Bush asshole
 
RB 60 said:
And when judges cannot find enough evidence to recommend charges, prosecutors rely on grand juries to hand down an indictment. There was no evidence of any kind to take this case to a trial, the prosecutors told him to his face they just "thought" he was involved in the distribution of cocaine.
Click to expand...

I don't follow. Where grand juries exist (usually for felonies) the case does not normally go to a judge first. Your friend should have plead "not guilty." In many instances his case would have never gone to trial because prosecutors know they did not have a case, but they didn't have to worry about that if they got a guilty plea (I realize he had no money).
 
Flash said:
I don't follow. Where grand juries exist (usually for felonies) the case does not normally go to a judge first. Your friend should have plead "not guilty." In many instances his case would have never gone to trial because prosecutors know they did not have a case, but they didn't have to worry about that if they got a guilty plea (I realize he had no money).
Click to expand...

Pleading not guilty would have cost him (I think he said) $8000 to retain a legitimate lawyer. He plead "no contest," he said he would not plead guilty to something he didn't do.
I can ask him tonight, I'll see him at our pool match.
 
Flash said:
I don't follow. Where grand juries exist (usually for felonies) the case does not normally go to a judge first. Your friend should have plead "not guilty." In many instances his case would have never gone to trial because prosecutors know they did not have a case, but they didn't have to worry about that if they got a guilty plea (I realize he had no money).
Click to expand...

it was a bullshit story

hes a liar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top