Re: active practice in America

In <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>, on 09/28/96
   at 08:33 PM, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> said:


A Person going by the name Attila said:


>         to put it another way: in criminal procedings: I would rather

>be considered guilty, until proven innocent; than I would be

>presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


     If you were the person being _tried_ for a crime, you would rather have

to prove that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have commited the crime as opposed to

having to have the government PROVE that you DID DO it?



        you bet --the objective of the defense is to cast aspersions
    on the government prosecuters --in other words, create that
    doubt.  you do not need to prove your innocence unconditionally,
    just "taint" the prosecuter a bit.  however, in many cases you are
    guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers.

        as for peers --look at OJ, and the reverse weighting of the
    Santa Monica jury v. downtown.


>    a nation whch can base a conviction on conspiracy to commit a

>crime, or permits circumstantial evidence to close the gap towards

>'beyond a reasonable doubt,'  has lost any pretense of understand-

> ing the heritage of common law: the Magna Carta.


      Of that, there is no denying.

        the example I have always used:

            three men were drinking in a bar across the street from a
        ripe looking bank.  they sit there and plot a knockoff.  one
        gets stinking drunk and passes out on the floor.  the other
        two go across the street to be arrested for the attempted
        heist.
            the police arrest the drunk on the floor. why?
            "conspiracy to commit the crime!"  and the penalty is the
        same: 7-20 years in the federal slam.

            --unless you are socially disadvantaged and claim heroin
        addiction; then you make it to the street in as little as 18
        months and wipe the tail within 7 years, not 20.  the rule was
        the offender must be less than 25, it may have been raised.

            or, you could hire an expensive member of the boys' club
        and might trade someone elses body for your freedom....

        that's justice in Amerika, folks!   you like it, right?

attila wrote:
> In <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>, on 09/28/96
>    at 08:33 PM, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> said:
> > A Person going by the name Attila said:
> > to put it another way: in criminal procedings: I would rather
> > be considered guilty, until proven innocent; than I would be
> > presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

> =If you were the person being _tried_ for a crime, you would rather
> =have to prove that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have commited the crime as
> =opposed to having to have the government PROVE that you DID DO it?

>         you bet --the objective of the defense is to cast aspersions
>     on the government prosecuters --in other words, create that
>     doubt.  you do not need to prove your innocence unconditionally,
>     just "taint" the prosecuter a bit.  however, in many cases you are
>     guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers.
>         as for peers --look at OJ, and the reverse weighting of the
>     Santa Monica jury v. downtown.

Speaking of peers, what would the founding fathers have said about the 
trial of the officers in the Rodney King case?  Would they, as police 
officers, have a right to a jury of their peers?  Would their peers be 
the people in Simi Valley, where many or most of them live?  Or would it 
be more appropriate to have a jury of the victims' peers?  Or both?

At 11:32 PM -0700 9/29/96, Dale Thorn wrote:

>Speaking of peers, what would the founding fathers have said about the
>trial of the officers in the Rodney King case?  Would they, as police
>officers, have a right to a jury of their peers?  Would their peers be
>the people in Simi Valley, where many or most of them live?  Or would it
>be more appropriate to have a jury of the victims' peers?  Or both?

More importantly, what's happened to "double jeapardy"? The four cops were
found "Not Guilty" in their criminal trial (or at least three of them
were...I forget the details--one may have been a mistrial).

So, as some people then proceeded to burn down their neighborhoods, loot,
and run amok in the streets for several days, a _second_ trial was held.
This time the verdicts were more in line with what the street wanted, plus,
all the good electronics stores had already been looted or had moved out of
South Central, so no riots.

(Legal purists will point out that the second trial was for "Federal civil
rights violations." Harummphh. What would the Founders think of this logic:
"First we try them on ordinary criminal charges. If they are found Not
Guilty, we charge them in the next higher court with more abstract charges.
If they are still found found Not Guilty, we hit them with "civil rights"
and "being disrespectful to women" charges. And if that doesn't work, we
charge them in the World Court. We've only had one guilty party get past
them, and for that guy we appealed to the Pope and he put a Papal Hex on
the guy and ordered him burned in oil.")

Double jeapardy means the system gets one shot at proving charges, not two
or three.

(And, yes, even though I am sure O.J. Simpson killed those two people, I am
not happy with what appears to be a _second_ trial. For sure, it's a
_civil_ trial, for damages, but to this layman it looks like a second trial
on the main charges. I suppose I always thought that being found "Not
Guilty" on the act itself made it essentially impossible for a civil trial
to redecide the same issue. Boy, was I wrong.)

--Tim May



We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Re: Below text.  One of the most fascinating aspects of the Simpson case
(to me, anyway) is how persons who know about conspiracies, mafia hits,
etc., are still willing to believe OJ is guilty (fer sure), looking only
at the "evidence" presented by the same folks who (send for list).

I spent many days at the house, talked to a lot of people, read a lot of
material, in short, I researched the case, and here's what I found:

Remember the pictures of Nicole that got so much coverage?  Edited on a
computer by National Enquirer, as they have done on so many other jobs.
Interesting that Enquirer used the same company which "verified" the
Oswald photos for the Bruno Magli shoe photos of OJ.  This company's
main business is propaganda and disinformation for govt. agencies.

Funny OJ would wear sneakers to McDonalds, change to Brunos for the hit,
then change again after showering.  Work clothes and dress shoes, hmmm.

Is Simpson an abuser?  Get a video of Joel Steinberg's wife's testimony;
see an abused person, for real.
Challenge: Find one instance in OJ's life where he hit someone (for
real), and caused:  1) a broken bone, dislodged or chipped tooth.
                    2) a cut requiring at least one stitch.
                    3) any other real injury.
The point is *not* that OJ didn't inflict mental cruelty and a certain
level of "yuppie violence", but don't insult me with the notion that OJ
somehow compares to real domestically-violent men, some of whom I know.

The idea that the police found a few drops of Simpson's blood in the
middle of two gallons (500,000 drops?) of victim blood is about as
likely as "Oswald" shooting Tippit with a revolver and leaving empty
cartridges at the scene, near the body.  And remember, "Oswald" left a
plethora of other "evidence", too.

So where would they get OJ's blood?  Try Cedars-Sinai.  OJ left blood
there more than once, and plenty of it.

Did you know that Al Cowlings (drove the bronco) was a/the driver for
alleged mobster Joey Ippolito?  Joey disappeared just before the hit on
Ron and Nicole.  OJ's alleged coke partner from Buffalo was iced with a
couple of girls days after.  Denise Brown (battered women foundation)
sits in open court with her date Tony "The Animal" Fiato, another
mobster on the Witness Protection program.  Ron's psychiatrist's office
is broken into a la Daniel Ellsberg, and Ron's file is stolen.

Do you see anything fishy about any of this?  I, like many other people, 
was glued to the TV when they led "Oswald" out to the car.  I saw Ruby 
do the hit.  If you've seen one Untouchables (circa 1959) melodrama, 
you've seen them all, and with Ruby, the glove did indeed fit.  Please 
don't be another sucker for the govt. on this one.

Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 11:32 PM -0700 9/29/96, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >Speaking of peers, what would the founding fathers have said about the
> >trial of the officers in the Rodney King case?  Would they, as police
> >officers, have a right to a jury of their peers?  Would their peers be
> >the people in Simi Valley, where many or most of them live?  Or would it
> >be more appropriate to have a jury of the victims' peers?  Or both?
>
> More importantly, what's happened to "double jeapardy"? The four cops were
> found "Not Guilty" in their criminal trial (or at least three of them
> were...I forget the details--one may have been a mistrial).

> So, as some people then proceeded to burn down their neighborhoods, loot,
> and run amok in the streets for several days, a _second_ trial was held.
> This time the verdicts were more in line with what the street wanted, plus,
> all the good electronics stores had already been looted or had moved out of
> South Central, so no riots.
>
> (Legal purists will point out that the second trial was for "Federal civil
> rights violations." Harummphh. What would the Founders think of this logic:
> "First we try them on ordinary criminal charges. If they are found Not
> Guilty, we charge them in the next higher court with more abstract charges.
> If they are still found found Not Guilty, we hit them with "civil rights"
> and "being disrespectful to women" charges. And if that doesn't work, we
> charge them in the World Court. We've only had one guilty party get past
> them, and for that guy we appealed to the Pope and he put a Papal Hex on
> the guy and ordered him burned in oil.")
>
> Double jeapardy means the system gets one shot at proving charges, not two
> or three.
>
> (And, yes, even though I am sure O.J. Simpson killed those two people, I am
> not happy with what appears to be a _second_ trial. For sure, it's a
> _civil_ trial, for damages, but to this layman it looks like a second trial
> on the main charges. I suppose I always thought that being found "Not
> Guilty" on the act itself made it essentially impossible for a civil trial
> to redecide the same issue. Boy, was I wrong.)