Equal protection at prelim to have the accuser arrested for perjury

[Mike]

I understand that many cases that go to court are the result of one person accusing a defendent of a crime such as assault.

It occurs to me that at the preliminary exam the defendant actually sees and hears the witness accuse him. Can the defendant also take the stand at the prelim and denounce the accuser and demand equal protection of law by having the accuser charged with perjury based on, now, his word for it?

It seems to me that the court would have no option but to apply the standards of evidence equally and immediately arrest the accuser on the basis of the defendants word for it. After all, exactly the same principles apply - one person's word for a crime that they claim to have witnessed.

I know the prosecutor has discression as to who to charge. But what about the court itself? Can't the judge order a bench warrant?

If the court refuses to immediately arrest the original accuser, what can the defendant do? Can he move that the Judge recuse himself since he as decided who is credible and who is not and has thus discriminated against him? Can the defendant file a claim or appeal against the court for not upholding his equal protection rights?

I would not think this is without merit since the court will immediately process a counter suit if one is suing him.

[Greegor]

You're stuck on the theoretical versus the reality.

Aspergers much?

[Mike]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:30:19 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

> You're stuck on the theoretical versus the reality.
>
>
>
> Aspergers much?

That's a rather glib answer. Could you kindly address the
issues with opinion about legalities, please?

If one person's word for it should not be considered
sufficient, then the issue of this thread would not be
relevant. If one person's word is sufficient, then it
should be applied equally, don't you think? After all,
whether a witness is telling the truth is for a jury to
decide, not the judge on the bench, right?

I'm convinced that one person's word is not sufficient,
since the jury would have to see an example of the
witness' perjury before they could claim to know the
different between the demeanor of lying and the demeanor
of truth-telling. That call it establishing a basis of
comparison. Every hear of it? They do this all the time
in polygraph examinations - ask the subject to knowingly
lie so they can see the responses of lying for future
reference with other questions.

Or, where else would the jury get experience with perjury?
Does prosecution think members of the jury are liars
themselves that they should know perjury when they see it?
Does the prosecutor think jurors associate with liars that
they should know perjury when they see it? Since when is
the demeanor of perjury common to every one in society?
And if it were, a witness could know that and fake it. How
you communicate and the idiosyncrasies of your speech are
the very thing that makes you a unique person. So the
witness would have to commit perjury on the stand in order
for any jury to claim they know the difference between his
lying and telling the truth.

I could go on about this (and will if you'd like). But I'm
looking for an answer about applying equal protection in
such cases.

[Greegor]

G > You're stuck on the theoretical versus the reality.

G > Aspergers much?

Mike > That's a rather glib answer.

Short, concise and to the point.
Part of it was a question.
Do you have Aspergers?

[Mike]

Does your answering depend on whether I have a disorder or not? Do people with Aspergers have a different demeanor when lying than normal people?

[Greegor]

G > You're stuck on the theoretical versus the reality.
G > Aspergers much?

Mike > That's a rather glib answer.

G > Short, concise and to the point.
G > Part of it was a question.
G > Do you have Aspergers?

Mike > Does your answering depend on
Mike > whether I have a disorder or not?

The type of answers good for neurotypicals and
the type of answers good for Aspies are not
interchangeable.

Mike > Do people with Aspergers have a different
Mike > demeanor when lying than normal people?

Actually, yes. It's called flat affectation,
lack of empathy or sociopathy.

Your questions/arguments reflect lack of
understanding of the real world.

For any serious answer to get through to you, it
would have to overcome that dysfunction.

Did you get your nipple in a wringer
(criminal charge) or was this entire
inquiry just another Aspie "thought experiment"
to satisfy your academic curiosity?

[deadrat]

On 5/18/13 10:13 AM, Mike wrote:
> I understand that many cases that go to court are the result of one person accusing a defendent of a crime such as assault.

How do you come to understand such a thing? Cases "go to court" when
the state finds probable cause that a crime has been committed. That
may include one person making a police report accusing the accused (note
the spelling) of an illegal act. But that's neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition for an arrest.

> It occurs to me that at the preliminary exam the defendant actually sees and hears the witness accuse him.

How is it possible that this occurs to you? Some jurisdictions don't
have preliminary hearings. In US federal courts, if probable cause is
determined by grand jury, there is no preliminary hearing. Rules differ
by jurisdiction, and in some, the accused does not have the right to
testify before a grand jury. In convincing a court that probable cause
exists to arraign the defendant, the prosecution is not required to
produce the victim.

If there is a preliminary hearing, the accused may cross-examine witnesses.

> Can the defendant also take the stand at the prelim and denounce the accuser

Yes..

> and demand equal protection of law

I don't think you understand what "equal protection" means.

> by having the accuser charged with perjury based on, now, his word for it?

Of course not. Private individuals may not have anyone charged with a
crime. That's for the state. The accused may claim that a witness is
lying.

> It seems to me that the court would have no option but to apply the standards of evidence equally

Lots of strange things seem to you, don't they? Did you know that
hearsay may be admissible during a preliminary hearing?

> and immediately arrest the accuser on the basis of the defendants word for it.

Of course not. Courts may not arrest people for crimes. That's the job
of the executive in the person of the prosecutor.

> After all, exactly the same principles apply - one person's word for a crime that they claim to have witnessed.

Which is why it's unlikely that the prosecution would bring a case with
no evidence other than the victim's word.

> I know the prosecutor has discression as to who to charge.

It's "discretion." And it's virtually impossible to challenge.

> But what about the court itself? Can't the judge order a bench warrant?

Of course not. What don't you understand about the separation of powers?

> If the court refuses to immediately arrest the original accuser, what can the defendant do?

The court is not empowered to arrest anybody on a criminal charge.

> Can he move that the Judge recuse himself since he as decided who is credible and who is not and has thus discriminated against him?

He can move for recusal, but he has no grounds. Discrimination is not
necessarily illegal. Judges are allowed to discriminate against people
based on their credibility.

> Can the defendant file a claim or appeal against the court for not upholding his equal protection rights?

If the accused (who's not really a defendant until he's arraigned after
probable cause has been shown) is treated the same as any other accused
in the same situation, then there's no equal protection issue

> I would not think this is without merit

Why would you think that? You're abyssally ignorant about US law.

> since the court will immediately process a counter suit if one is suing him.

No, witnesses in court proceedings have absolute immunity from civil
suits for their testimony even if it's perjured.

[deadrat]

On 5/18/13 11:10 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:30:19 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:
>
>> You're stuck on the theoretical versus the reality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aspergers much?
>
> That's a rather glib answer. Could you kindly address the
> issues with opinion about legalities, please?
>
> If one person's word for it should not be considered
> sufficient,

Why do you assume that's the case?

> then the issue of this thread would not be
> relevant. If one person's word is sufficient, then it
> should be applied equally, don't you think? After all,
> whether a witness is telling the truth is for a jury to
> decide, not the judge on the bench, right?

During a trial, sure. But during a preliminary hearing, the judge
decides the sufficiency of the evidence, including the credibility of
the witnesses.

> I'm convinced that one person's word is not sufficient,
> since the jury would have to see an example of the
> witness' perjury before they could claim to know the
> different between the demeanor of lying and the demeanor
> of truth-telling. That call it establishing a basis of
> comparison. Every hear of it? They do this all the time
> in polygraph examinations - ask the subject to knowingly
> lie so they can see the responses of lying for future
> reference with other questions.

It's unlikely that one person's unsupported word would convince a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. But the jury is empowered to determine the
weight of evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, on its own.

>
> Or, where else would the jury get experience with perjury?
> Does prosecution think members of the jury are liars
> themselves that they should know perjury when they see it?
> Does the prosecutor think jurors associate with liars that
> they should know perjury when they see it? Since when is
> the demeanor of perjury common to every one in society?
> And if it were, a witness could know that and fake it. How
> you communicate and the idiosyncrasies of your speech are
> the very thing that makes you a unique person. So the
> witness would have to commit perjury on the stand in order
> for any jury to claim they know the difference between his
> lying and telling the truth.

Be that as it may, the jury decides on whatever basis it chooses.

> I could go on about this (and will if you'd like).

Please don't. You're so ignorant about the law that the only way to
describe your claims is ganz falsch.

> But I'm looking for an answer about applying equal protection in
> such cases.

The answer is that you don't understand what equal protection means. It
a legal term of art in the US and must be understood in context.

[Mike]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:11:27 PM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

>
> Your questions/arguments reflect lack of
> understanding of the real world.

Yea, yea. That's the knee jerk response, "You don't know
the subject well enough." But that is just a diversion.
It's not an anwer.

I think it is you who don't understand the real world. You
can't seem to see when to apply the rules equally to all
people. If one person's word of it is good enough to invoke
charges, then it should be good enough for any crime,
including perjury.

The defendant can not claim the accuser is lying before he
sees them take the stand and lie, only afterwards. And if he
sees that one person commit the crime of perjury, then he is
morally obligated to file a complaint. And although I know
it's not common practice to allow such counter charges, it is
absolutely obvious that the same principles should be used
against the accuser as well as against the accused.

>
> Did you get your nipple in a wringer
>
> (criminal charge) or was this entire
>
> inquiry just another Aspie "thought experiment"
>
> to satisfy your academic curiosity?

This is yet another diversion from someone who is too
incompetent to give a straight anwswer. I'm not going to
help you make this about some personal matter involving me.
But it would seem many jurys have to consider one person's
word for it in many cases. How many times am I going to have
to listen to the news where some person is being accused by
one other person without recourse. President Clinton, Bill
Cosby, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Koby Brian, bla, bla, bla,
bla, bla. And now the latest victims, the military commanders
in charge of sex assault cases. Shouldn't prosecution tell the
accusers, "Sure I can arrest him on just your word, but if he
claims you are committing perjury, then I'll have to arrest you
too based on his word for it." That seem only fair.

So let me refocus your attention. What possible recourse does a
defendant have if the court will not apply the same rules when
he accuses someone of a crime, perjury?

[Mike]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:36:34 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

> How is it possible that this occurs to you? Some jurisdictions don't
> have preliminary hearings. In US federal courts, if probable cause is
> determined by grand jury, there is no preliminary hearing. Rules differ
> by jurisdiction, and in some, the accused does not have the right to
> testify before a grand jury. In convincing a court that probable cause
> exists to arraign the defendant, the prosecution is not required to
> produce the victim.
>

I assume he can make a motion that the accuser has committed perjury and
demand equal protection.

How could you not understand that this is equal protection? It seem the
quint essential example of equal protection. He has the right to be protected
from harm caused by someone's crime (of perjury)

>
> I don't think you understand what "equal protection" means.
>

And I don't think you understand what equal protection means.
It means what rules apply to one should apply to all.

>
> Of course not. Courts may not arrest people for crimes. That's the job
>
> of the executive in the person of the prosecutor.
>

Is the prosecutor required by law to apply equal protection and to apply the
the rules equally?

> He can move for recusal, but he has no grounds. Discrimination is not
>
> necessarily illegal. Judges are allowed to discriminate against people
>
> based on their credibility.
>

There is no science to indicate that credibility is anything more than an
excuse to apply prejudice. "credibility" is a word so poorly defined, it could mean anything.

[deadrat]

On 5/18/13 6:19 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:36:34 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>> How is it possible that this occurs to you? Some jurisdictions don't
>> have preliminary hearings. In US federal courts, if probable cause is
>> determined by grand jury, there is no preliminary hearing. Rules differ
>> by jurisdiction, and in some, the accused does not have the right to
>> testify before a grand jury. In convincing a court that probable cause
>> exists to arraign the defendant, the prosecution is not required to
>> produce the victim.
>>
>
> I assume he can make a motion that the accuser has committed perjury and
> demand equal protection.

There is no such motion. Perjury is a criminal offense, and such a
charge must be brought by the state in the person of the executive. The
defendant may impeach the witness or rebut him.

> How could you not understand that this is equal protection?

Because I understand equal protection jurisprudence. Which you don't.
Equal protection does not demand that the law must treat everyone the
same. A moment's thought will yield several examples.

> It seem the quint essential example of equal protection.

"Quintessential" is one word. And this example has nothing to do with

equal protection.

> He has the right to be protected
> from harm caused by someone's crime (of perjury)

In fact, the opposite is true. No one has any private remedy for
perjury. All statements made under oath at trial are immune from civil
action. Even perjurious statements. The state has the right to exact a
criminal penalty for perjury, but that's different.

>> I don't think you understand what "equal protection" means.

> And I don't think you understand what equal protection means.
> It means what rules apply to one should apply to all.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. Equal protection means that when
the state treats different classes of people differently under the law,
the law in question must withstand various levels of scrutiny, depending
on the definition of the classes. Equal protection most certainly
doesn't mean that rules must apply universally. If that were true, I'd
be eligible for veterans benefits even though I never served in the
armed forces.

You don't know what you're talking about.

>> Of course not. Courts may not arrest people for crimes. That's the job
>>
>> of the executive in the person of the prosecutor.
>>
>
> Is the prosecutor required by law to apply equal protection and to apply the
> the rules equally?

No, of course not. The prosecutor operates under different rules for
questioning some witnesses from others, for instance.

>> He can move for recusal, but he has no grounds. Discrimination is not
>>
>> necessarily illegal. Judges are allowed to discriminate against people
>>
>> based on their credibility.
>>
>
> There is no science to indicate that credibility is anything more than an
> excuse to apply prejudice. "credibility" is a word so poorly defined, it could mean anything.

Thanks for sharing. Regardless, the trier of fact is also the
determiner of believability.

[deadrat]

You seem to laboring under the mistaken idea that one person's
uncorroborated word is sufficient cause for conviction. In fact, it
probably wouldn't be grounds for indictment.

> How many times am I going to have
> to listen to the news where some person is being accused by
> one other person without recourse. President Clinton, Bill
> Cosby, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, Koby Brian, bla, bla, bla,
> bla, bla. And now the latest victims, the military commanders
> in charge of sex assault cases. Shouldn't prosecution tell the
> accusers, "Sure I can arrest him on just your word,

But no prosecutor arrests people on someone's word one. The prosecutor
has to convince a court (or a grand jury) that there's probable cause to
believe that the accused committed the crime.

> but if he
> claims you are committing perjury, then I'll have to arrest you
> too based on his word for it." That seem only fair.

Prosecutors would no more arrest someone for perjury because of an
interested party's claim than they would for any other crime.

> So let me refocus your attention. What possible recourse does a
> defendant have if the court will not apply the same rules when
> he accuses someone of a crime, perjury?

The rules are different. A state accusation is grounds for a trial, or
at least grounds to determine whether a trial is warranted. A private
accusation is, well, nothing.

[Moses]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike <maj...@charter.net> wrote:

> I understand that many cases that go to court are the result of one person accusing a defendent of a crime such as assault.

I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss the law with him. You don't
understand how criminal law works.

[Mike]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:14:37 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> But no prosecutor arrests people on someone's word one. The prosecutor
>
> has to convince a court (or a grand jury) that there's probable cause to
>
> believe that the accused committed the crime.
>
>

I remember one lawyer here saying that about 1/3 of all court cases were
one person's word for it. I'd be amazed if some of them did not chime in
to confirm this.

I imagine that a lot of cases are built around the word of the arresting
police officer alone. Is the officer automatically more credible if the
accused were to turn around and accuse the officer of perjury?

Perhaps it's because the accused does not demand equal protection when
accusing the accuser of perjury. Is that a tacid admission of guilt?

[Mike]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:13:28 PM UTC-4, Moses wrote:
>
> I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss the law with him. You don't
>
> understand how criminal law works.

If your advice is any indication, they would only tell me how the law
is commonly practiced, and not on what options are available if the
court(or prosecutor) does not grant equal protection of law by arresting
the accuser for perjury based on the defendant's word for it.

[deadrat]

On 5/18/13 10:19 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:14:37 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> But no prosecutor arrests people on someone's word one. The prosecutor
>>
>> has to convince a court (or a grand jury) that there's probable cause to
>>
>> believe that the accused committed the crime.
>>
>>
>
> I remember one lawyer here

Here? misc.legal? How did you know he was a lawyer? How did you eveb
know he was a he?

> saying that about 1/3 of all court cases were
> one person's word for it.

And this guy who claimed in cyberspace to be a lawyer gave you stats you
could check?

> I'd be amazed if some of them did not chime in to confirm this.

Who are these chimers?

> I imagine that a lot of cases are built around the word of the arresting
> police officer alone.

You imagine a lot of things. Cops may arrest someone if they witness
the person committing a crime; otherwise they need a warrant. In the
latter case, anything the cop knows about the crime is hearsay, which he
may not provide as testimony. So how many is "a lot"?

> Is the officer automatically more credible if the
> accused were to turn around and accuse the officer of perjury?

No.

> Perhaps it's because the accused does not demand equal protection when
> accusing the accuser of perjury. Is that a tacid admission of guilt?

It's tacit. And equal protection has nothing to do with it. The
accused may impeach or rebut any witness. Merely making an accusation
is not admissible evidence.

[deadrat]

On 5/18/13 10:27 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:13:28 PM UTC-4, Moses wrote:
>>
>> I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss the law with him. You don't
>>
>> understand how criminal law works.
>
> If your advice is any indication, they would only tell me how the law
> is commonly practiced,

At least the lawyer might know something about the law. You seem to
know nothing.

> and not on what options are available if the
> court(or prosecutor) does not grant equal protection of law by arresting
> the accuser for perjury based on the defendant's word for it.

The defendant may testify that the accuser is lying, but that's not
probable cause to arrest the accuser for perjury. Likewise, the
accusers' testimony alone probably wasn't the sole grounds for the
defendant's arrest.

You are a very confused person. Why not learn something about the law
instead of making a fool of yourself on a newsgroup?

[Greegor]

Mike > I understand that many cases that
Mike > go to court are the result of one
Mike > person accusing a defendent of a
Mike > crime such as assault.

Moses > I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss
Moses > the law with him. You don't
Moses > understand how criminal law works.

He's not wrong, per se, that a person can
be charged and convicted in criminal court
merely on another person's testimony.

Most assaults and domestic abuse cases
are very much one person's word against
another.

Even injuries do not indicate which
person initiated any violence, so they
don't really corroborate either person's
"word".

It's not unusual for the initator to end up
hurt worse than the defender.

Police typically GUESS which way any
fight went, and their decision about who
to blame is usually undertaken by the
prosecutor.

A vast number of men have learned
that all a woman has to do is accuse
a man of domestic abuse and he is toast.

Even if a woman initiates violence,
and the man does nothing, the man
is commonly prosecuted.

In order for a woman to be prosecuted
for domestic violence, she basically has
to attack him in public, on camera or
in front of a crowd of witnesses.

My complaint was not about the
idea that a person can be charged and
convicted based only on one accuser.
That is actually quite common.

Mike's idea ( that a person in criminal court
could counter a false accuser by launching
a perjury charge ) was just as naive' as
you'd expect from an Aspie.

[Gordon Burditt]

> I assume he can make a motion that the accuser has committed perjury and
> demand equal protection.

Are you sure the accuser has committed perjury *YET*? He hasn't
testified at a trial (yet). There may not have been a preliminary
hearing at all.

If you want a cop convicted for lying his ass off about dropping
his gun, which went off, and killed an innocent bystander, you may
have to wait until the trial to let him lie his ass off first.

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:14:05 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> And this guy who claimed in cyberspace to be a lawyer gave you stats you
>
> could check?

I wonder if there is a means of gathering such stats? Is there a website that keeps track of the kinds of evidence in court cases, whether one person's word, DNA evidence, video evidence, etc?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:17:06 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
> On 5/18/13 10:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:13:28 PM UTC-4, Moses wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss the law with him. You don't
>
> >>
>
> >> understand how criminal law works.
>
> >
>
> > If your advice is any indication, they would only tell me how the law
>
> > is commonly practiced,
>
>
>
> At least the lawyer might know something about the law. You seem to
>
> know nothing.
>
>

I find your responses disingenuous. I remember coming here 10 years ago and arguing these matters. Back then I was told, "One person's word is sufficient if belived", and, "It's up to the trier of fact to determine what is credible", etc. But now it is claimed that prosecutors never accept only one person's accusation to have someone arrested. What changed? Was there a Supreme Court ruling I'm not aware of?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:52:25 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:

> Mike's idea ( that a person in criminal court
>
> could counter a false accuser by launching
>
> a perjury charge ) was just as naive' as
>
> you'd expect from an Aspie.

Th, th, tha, thank you.

I guess the question is what means are available to force the prosecutor
to apply the law equally. One crime is as good as another, and before any
trial, one person's word for it is as good as another. So if one can
initiate charges by making an accusation, then that should work just as
well for the accused when charging the original accuser with perjury.
I don't see why that's so hard to understand or impliment.

Can the defense attourney tell his client to get up on the stand and
denouce her testimony as a lie and demand equal protection of law. And
then the defense attourney can demand that the prosecuter impliment
equal protection by arresting the accuser. And if he doesn't then
threaten to sue the prosecutor for not upholding the constitution, for
example?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:56:22 AM UTC-4, Gordon Burditt wrote:
> > I assume he can make a motion that the accuser has committed perjury and
>
> > demand equal protection.
>
>
>
> Are you sure the accuser has committed perjury *YET*? He hasn't
>
> testified at a trial (yet). There may not have been a preliminary
>
> hearing at all.
>
>
>

So can the defendant demand the right of a preliminary examination or
grand jury, to preserve testimony?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:50:45 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT), Mike
>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I understand that many cases that go to court are the result of one person
>
> >accusing a defendent of a crime such as assault.
>
>
>

> No, an investigation by law enforcement starts when one person
>
> accuses another of committing a crime. Only if there is evidence will
>
> the matter go to court.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >It occurs to me that at the preliminary exam the defendant actually sees
>
> >and hears the witness accuse him.
>
>
>

> What do you mean by preliminary exam? Do you mean the preliminary
>
> hearing?
>
> If you do mean the hearing, this is where a decision is made
>
> regarding the evidence and testimony to be presented at trial. A judge
>
> will decide if said evidence and testimony should be presented.
>
> Witnesses aren't under oath at this time, so no charge of perjury
>
> can be made.
>
> If they have been put under oath, as odd as that would be, and
>
> there is actual evidence of perjury, then a charge of it could be
>
> made. The defendant simply saying the witness lied isn't going to be
>
> enough.

>
>
>
> >Can the defendant also take the stand at the prelim and denounce the accuser and demand equal
>
> >protection of law by having the accuser charged with perjury based on,
>
> >now, his word for it?
>
>
>

> The defendant can't. No one can, since perjury isn't possible
>
> during the preliminary hearing.
>

I find this hard to believe, that a witness can ever take the stand to
testify, whether in prelim or not, and not be sworn in. That sounds like
a contradiction.

IIRC, just filing a false police report is perjury.

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:52:39 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Mike

>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:36:34 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> How is it possible that this occurs to you? Some jurisdictions don't
>
> >> have preliminary hearings. In US federal courts, if probable cause is
>
> >> determined by grand jury, there is no preliminary hearing. Rules differ
>
> >> by jurisdiction, and in some, the accused does not have the right to
>
> >> testify before a grand jury. In convincing a court that probable cause
>
> >> exists to arraign the defendant, the prosecution is not required to
>
> >> produce the victim.
>
> >
>
> >I assume he can make a motion that the accuser has committed perjury and
>
> >demand equal protection.
>
> >
>
>
>

> In the sense that he has the ability to make such a motion, yes.
>
> But he's not going to enjoy any success.
>
>

You're tellimg me how it is. I'm asking how can it be changed.

>
> >How could you not understand that this is equal protection? It seem the
>
> >quint essential example of equal protection. He has the right to be protected
>
> >from harm caused by someone's crime (of perjury)
>
> >
>
>
>

> At the stage you mention, there can be no perjury. But even if
>
> the witness is under oath, more than the claim of the defendant is
>
> needed to get the witness arrested.
>
> The claim may get an investigation started, which could lead to
>
> an arrest, but not an arrest itself.
>

I don't know what planet you're from. I'm talking about US law.
How many times are we going to have to
hear of someone convicted on one person's word being released from prison
many years later because DNA evidence has proved him innocent?

[deadrat]

On 5/19/13 9:01 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:17:06 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/18/13 10:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:13:28 PM UTC-4, Moses wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I suggest you hire a lawyer and discuss the law with him. You don't
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> understand how criminal law works.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If your advice is any indication, they would only tell me how the law
>>
>>> is commonly practiced,
>>
>>
>>
>> At least the lawyer might know something about the law. You seem to
>>
>> know nothing.
>>
>>
>
> I find your responses disingenuous.

I assure you that I'm entirely sincere when I call you an ignoramus.

> I remember coming here 10 years ago and arguing these matters.

A decade has passed and you haven't learned a thing? Sad, that.

> Back then I was told, "One person's word is sufficient if belived",

Certainly, in the sense that a credible witness can lead to a conviction
while the absence of that witness will lead to an acquittal.

> and, "It's up to the trier of fact to determine what is credible", etc.

Yes.

> But now it is claimed that prosecutors never accept only one person's accusation to have someone arrested.

Prosecutors won't accept one person's accusation as the sole evidence
because that doesn't reach the level of probable cause.

What changed? Was there a Supreme Court ruling I'm not aware of?

Nothing has changed. You're still as ignorant now as you were then.

[deadrat]

On 5/19/13 9:12 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:52:25 AM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:
>
>> Mike's idea ( that a person in criminal court
>>
>> could counter a false accuser by launching
>>
>> a perjury charge ) was just as naive' as
>>
>> you'd expect from an Aspie.
>
> Th, th, tha, thank you.
>
> I guess the question is what means are available to force the prosecutor
> to apply the law equally.

It's called a law suit. Prosecutors used to be able to use their jury
challenges to exclude jurors based on race. That's not allowed any more.

> One crime is as good as another, and before any
> trial, one person's word for it is as good as another.

So your word is as good as Bernie Madoff's?

> So if one can initiate charges by making an accusation,

One can't do that. One must be a prosecutor to bring charges.

> then that should work just as
> well for the accused when charging the original accuser with perjury.

What don't you understand about no private action in criminal matters?

> I don't see why that's so hard to understand or impliment.

Of course you don't.

> Can the defense attourney tell his client to get up on the stand and
> denouce her testimony as a lie and demand equal protection of law.

The client may only testify as to facts known directly to the client.
If the client knows a witness is lying, the client may testify to that
effect. Witnesses don't get to demand anything on the stand.

> And
> then the defense attourney can demand that the prosecuter impliment
> equal protection by arresting the accuser.

Generally, no one has authority to order a prosecutor to choose his
cases differently.

Look up "equal protection." It doesn't mean what you think it does.

> And if he doesn't then
> threaten to sue the prosecutor for not upholding the constitution, for
> example?

Not for damages. But you can sue a prosecutor (or more likely, his
boss) for violations of Constitutional rights. But your scenarios don't
constitute such violations.

[deadrat]

The potential defendant may demand due process. Depending on the
jurisdiction that may be a preliminary hearing or a grand jury. For the
latter, depending on the jurisdiction, the accused may or may not have
the right to appear. Certainly, in no procedure to determine probable
cause may the accused dictate or dispute what evidence the prosecution
presents.

[Greegor]

Now you've switched from asking how it is
to how you would like it to be, as if this
was all purely academic.

How many readers would see through that
smokescreen to realize that you already got
your nipple in the wringer, Mike?

You would not be the first Aspie who hoped that
some technical detail or academic argument
would leverage their Asperger strengths into
a victory even though they were guilty as hell.

Many people sympathetic to Aspies don't
realize that an Aspie is by definition a
sociopath, and what that really means.

Your buddy Kent got caught red handed
in a garage burglary in 2003, his second
felony in 4 years, and the case against
him was air tight so Kent tried arguing
about a sentencing detail as if winning on
that detail would have gotten the entire
case thrown out. But the sentencing
detail he argued about had been explicitly
covered by the text of black letter law.
(Hence it was seen as an idiotic appeal.)
(So idiotic the attorney Kent conned into
filing the appeal should have been disbarred
for wasting the appeal court's time.)

For an Aspie to take a position about how
they wish the courts worked is a classic.

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:42:01 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

> > One crime is as good as another, and before any
>
> > trial, one person's word for it is as good as another.
>
>
>
> So your word is as good as Bernie Madoff's?

before his credibility was established by trial, yes!

>
> > Can the defense attourney tell his client to get up on the stand and
>
> > denouce her testimony as a lie and demand equal protection of law.
>
>
>
> The client may only testify as to facts known directly to the client.
>
> If the client knows a witness is lying, the client may testify to that
>
> effect. Witnesses don't get to demand anything on the stand.
>
>

Is it only the defendant's attourney that can make motions? Or
can the defendant make a motion on his own, objecting to certain
questions while he is on the stand, moving that prosecution
apply equal protection.

>
>
> Not for damages. But you can sue a prosecutor (or more likely, his
>
> boss) for violations of Constitutional rights. But your scenarios don't
>
> constitute such violations.

by law, or by convention? What law allows prosecution to discrminate between
who is more credible than another before that has been established by trial,
and thus negating the defendants constitutional rights to have the same
standards used for him as well as for the original accuser?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:45:20 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
> The potential defendant may demand due process. Depending on the
>
> jurisdiction that may be a preliminary hearing or a grand jury. For the
>
> latter, depending on the jurisdiction, the accused may or may not have
>
> the right to appear. Certainly, in no procedure to determine probable
>
> cause may the accused dictate or dispute what evidence the prosecution
>
> presents.

What reason would there be for the defendant to appear at all if he is not
allowed to make motions, motion which necessarily grant him constitutional
rights, such as equal protection?

The defendant does not actually need to make any motion in court. But if
he witnesses the accuser committing perjury, he is morally responsible
and legally obligated to report that crime. And I would think that the
prosecutor should also be legally obligate to process that complaint like
any other. And I would think it obvious, that if the prosecutor does not,
then this is evidence of misconduct, not applying the law equally to all
people. Would this give cause for appeal on conviction, that the prosecutor
was not seeking the truth, but showing discrimination against the defendant?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:19:30 PM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:
> Now you've switched from asking how it is
>
> to how you would like it to be, as if this
>
> was all purely academic.
>
>
>
> How many readers would see through that
>
> smokescreen to realize that you already got
>
> your nipple in the wringer, Mike?
>
>
>
> You would not be the first Aspie who hoped that
>
> some technical detail or academic argument
>
> would leverage their Asperger strengths into
>
> a victory even though they were guilty as hell.
>

That's pathetic! Your response is to accuse anyone
concerned about the standards of judgment used on
people? What's the matter, don't you know how to
reason?

Maybe all that's necessary to get involved is to
see an inconsistency that is causing injustice.

It is really disturbing that you think nobody really
cares, that you think most people are so inept and
corrupt that they just as soon apply some prejudice
as look at you. I think it is you who are the
sociopath.

[deadrat]

On 5/19/13 12:54 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:42:01 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>> One crime is as good as another, and before any
>>
>>> trial, one person's word for it is as good as another.
>>
>>
>>
>> So your word is as good as Bernie Madoff's?
>
>
> before his credibility was established by trial, yes!

Then you're a fool as well as an ignoramus. Only greed and a willing
suspension of disbelief would allow anyone to say that. Many did, but
that doesn't reflect on his credibility but rather their credulousness.

>
>>
>>> Can the defense attourney tell his client to get up on the stand and
>>
>>> denouce her testimony as a lie and demand equal protection of law.
>>
>>
>>
>> The client may only testify as to facts known directly to the client.
>>
>> If the client knows a witness is lying, the client may testify to that
>>
>> effect. Witnesses don't get to demand anything on the stand.
>>
>>
>
> Is it only the defendant's attourney that can make motions?

Yes, but remember that the defendant may act as his own attorney. In
any case, motions are not made from the stand.

> Or
> can the defendant make a motion on his own, objecting to certain
> questions while he is on the stand, moving that prosecution
> apply equal protection.

Not unless the court has recognized the defendant as his own legal
representative.

>> Not for damages. But you can sue a prosecutor (or more likely, his
>>
>> boss) for violations of Constitutional rights. But your scenarios don't
>>
>> constitute such violations.
>
> by law, or by convention?

By law. The Supreme Court has defined what "equal protection" means

> What law allows prosecution to discrminate between
> who is more credible than another before that has been established by trial,

Do you understand how little sense this makes? Before the prosecutor
goes to trial how can credibility of witnesses be decided by that trial?
The ethical rules of the bar and probably the relevant rules of
criminal procedure forbid prosecutors from putting on the stand
witnesses who will be known to lie. But a prosecutor is free to risk
using witnesses who have credibility problems.

> and thus negating the defendants constitutional rights to have the same
> standards used for him as well as for the original accuser?

You are claiming that a defendant's sworn word should be enough to
prosecute any witness for perjury. Because the only thing keeping the
defendant in the dock is the word of a witness. Or something.

Ganz falsch.

[Greegor]

> > Now you've switched from asking how it is
> > to how you would like it to be, as if this
> > was all purely academic.
>
> > How many readers would see through that
> > smokescreen to realize that you already got
> > your nipple in the wringer, Mike?
>
> > You would not be the first Aspie who hoped that
> > some technical detail or academic argument
> > would leverage their Asperger strengths into
> > a victory even though they were guilty as hell.

> That's pathetic! Your response is to accuse anyone
> concerned about the standards of judgment used on
> people?

Oh right, now you want to pretend it was all
a purely academic exercise. Nice try.

> What's the matter, don't you know how to reason?

I would have been more interested in "reasoning"
if you had admitted your Aspergers when I spotted it.

> Maybe all that's necessary to get involved is to
> see an inconsistency that is causing injustice.

What did you get charged with?

> It is really disturbing that you think nobody really
> cares, that you think most people are so inept and
> corrupt that they just as soon apply some prejudice
> as look at you.

If your accuser was in ongoing counseling
for rage and anger problems and your own
attorney said that was not relevant, how
would you feel?

First offence?

> I think it is you who are the sociopath.

How nice for you.
Are you representing yourself in court?
What was your relationship with your accuser?
Public defender or SELF PAID attorney?
Domestic or general assault?
Any red marks or injuries?
Any other evidence of the violence?
No baseball bat or weapons involved?

Do you intend to conceal your brain disorder
from the court, or bring it up to get more
therapeutic sentencing rather than jail/prison?

What kind of plea bargain do you think you will
be offered?

Have you asked your attorney to
accuse your accuser of perjury?

How eager were they to try that? LOL

Pack 4 pairs of tighty whities
4 pairs of white cotton socks (no stripes or colors)
4 pairs of t-shirts
$20 for commissary items like candy bars or better shampoo

Please be honest and let us know how it works out.

[deadrat]

On 5/19/13 1:03 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:45:20 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>>
>> The potential defendant may demand due process. Depending on the
>>
>> jurisdiction that may be a preliminary hearing or a grand jury. For the
>>
>> latter, depending on the jurisdiction, the accused may or may not have
>>
>> the right to appear. Certainly, in no procedure to determine probable
>>
>> cause may the accused dictate or dispute what evidence the prosecution
>>
>> presents.
>
> What reason would there be for the defendant to appear at all

Some people think that their testimony can persuade a grand jury not to
hand up a true bill.

> if he is not
> allowed to make motions, motion which necessarily grant him constitutional
> rights, such as equal protection?

Yes, of course. I'm not a lawyer so realize that there are others more
qualified than I am, but you may make motions based on equal protection
law. These generally go to the discriminatory nature of the grand jury
selection process. You can also challenge the qualifications of
individual jurors.

> The defendant does not actually need to make any motion in court. But if
> he witnesses the accuser committing perjury, he is morally responsible
> and legally obligated to report that crime.

OK.

> And I would think that the
> prosecutor should also be legally obligate to process that complaint like
> any other.

The prosecutor will process it like any other crank complaint.

> And I would think it obvious, that if the prosecutor does not,
> then this is evidence of misconduct,

No, it isn't. Even if what the witness says is untrue, there may be no
perjury. The defendant would need evidence that the witness isn't
merely mistaken, for instance.

> not applying the law equally to all people.

The law is not required to be applied equally to all people.

> Would this give cause for appeal on conviction, that the prosecutor
> was not seeking the truth, but showing discrimination against the defendant?

No. In the first place, the prosecutor is not charged with seeking the
truth. He's charged with convicting the defendant within the judicial
rules. Secondly, equal protection law does not require the prosecutor
to treat defendants identically to witnesses. You'd know that if you'd
found out what equal protection means.

[Gordon Burditt]

>> And this guy who claimed in cyberspace to be a lawyer gave you stats you
>>
>> could check?
>
> I wonder if there is a means of gathering such stats? Is there a
website that keeps track of the kinds of evidence in court cases,
whether one person's word, DNA evidence, video evidence, etc?

*ALL* evidence comes down to taking the word of one or more people.
That includes DNA, fingerprints, footprints, trace blood samples,
tire tracks, bite marks, video evidence, bullets left in bodies,
guns found in the possession of the defendant, eyewitness testimony,
forged signatures on documents, etc. There's no such thing as
"self-proving" evidence. If you have a video of the defendant
committing the crime, you still need testimony that the crime happened
within the jurisdiction of the court, and within the lifetime of the
defendant. Also people can't be uniquely identified on videos.

And usually no one person provides testimony for enough elements
of the crime to convict alone. (e.g. one person testifies about
collecting DNA from an alleged rape victim, one person testifies
about collecting a reference sample from the defendant, and another
person testifies that the two samples match, plus the victim testifies
that the act was not voluntary but she can't identify the rapist
as he put a bag over her head from behind). That's *worse* than
convicting on one person's word. (There are some common exceptions:
domestic violence situations, alleged date rape, a cop pulling you
over for holding your cell phone while driving with no passengers,
etc.)

With DNA evidence, you have to take the word of:
- The person who collected the sample at the crime scene that this
is where the sample came from.
- The person who collected the reference sample, that this is who
the reference sample came from.
- The person who provided the reference sample (who might have used
fake ID to frame someone).
- The person(s) who processed the sample, that it was done correctly.
- The person(s) who maintain the lab equipment, that contamination did
not happen.
and further, if any *ONE* of those people is lying (or simply mistaken),
your conclusion is toast.

Video evidence requires testimony as to where and when the video
was taken, that timestamps on the video, if any, are accurate, and
that the video was not tampered with afterwards. The best case you
get with video is where someone in the video who survived the crime
testifies that he was there and this is what happened. In the worst
case you have to trust half a dozen people that the videos did not
get mislabelled or mixed up, and you have to trust *ALL* of them
to believe the video evidence. It would be very bad if the same
video could be used to convict someone robbing a local 7-11 last
month *AND* convict Lee Harvey Oswald of killing JFK, and we'll
assume that it's not a multi-year-long video.

Physical evidence like a body with an odd-shaped hole in the skull
and an odd-shaped weapon that matches the hole still needs testimony
that (a) connects the weapon to the defendant, and (b) the body was
killed as a result of *this* crime. Also, matching hole to weapon
may not be as obvious as looking at both. You also have to deal
with the possibility that there are thousands of similarly odd-shaped
weapons like this out there, and a different one was used in the
crime.

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:58:26 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
> On 5/19/13 12:54 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:42:01 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> One crime is as good as another, and before any
>
> >>
>
> >>> trial, one person's word for it is as good as another.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So your word is as good as Bernie Madoff's?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > before his credibility was established by trial, yes!
>
>
>
> Then you're a fool as well as an ignoramus. Only greed and a willing
>
> suspension of disbelief would allow anyone to say that. Many did, but
>
> that doesn't reflect on his credibility but rather their credulousness.

So then, you think your judgment is greater than that of a jury? Have you
seem more evidence that the jury at trial? Or are you going on what you
saw on commercial news outlets?

>
> > Is it only the defendant's attourney that can make motions?
>
> Yes, but remember that the defendant may act as his own attorney. In
>
> any case, motions are not made from the stand.

Can the defendant object to questions on the stand as being irrelevant?
Can the defendant on the stand make a motion that some question be
stricken from the record?

How can a defend act as his own attourney without the right to make
objections and motions as an attourney would while his client is on the
stand?

>
> By law. The Supreme Court has defined what "equal protection" means
>
>

And what would that definition be? One first encounters the law by either
making or receiving an accusation. And the first reaction of the accused
would be to claim the accuser is lying. How is it that the same rules would not
apply to the accused as well as the accuser?

>
> > What law allows prosecution to discrminate between
>
> > who is more credible than another before that has been established by trial,
>
>
>
> Do you understand how little sense this makes? Before the prosecutor
>
> goes to trial how can credibility of witnesses be decided by that trial?

Agreed.

>
> The ethical rules of the bar and probably the relevant rules of
>
> criminal procedure forbid prosecutors from putting on the stand
>
> witnesses who will be known to lie.

When is that ever the case. Prosecution is not supposed to have interviewed
the witness before the stand, are they?

>
> > and thus negating the defendants constitutional rights to have the same
>
> > standards used for him as well as for the original accuser?
>
>
>
> You are claiming that a defendant's sworn word should be enough to
>
> prosecute any witness for perjury.

No, only those witnesses he has actually witnessed committing the crime
of perjury.

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:02:17 PM UTC-4, Greegor wrote:
> > > Now you've switched from asking how it is
>
> > > to how you would like it to be, as if this
>
> > > was all purely academic.
>
> >
>
> > > How many readers would see through that
>
> > > smokescreen to realize that you already got
>
> > > your nipple in the wringer, Mike?
>
> >
>
> > > You would not be the first Aspie who hoped that
>
> > > some technical detail or academic argument
>
> > > would leverage their Asperger strengths into
>
> > > a victory even though they were guilty as hell.
>
>
>
> > That's pathetic! Your response is to accuse anyone
>
> > concerned about the standards of judgment used on
>
> > people?
>
>
>
> Oh right, now you want to pretend it was all
>
> a purely academic exercise. Nice try.
>
>

This is bullshit. There are many issues that I feel passionate about
having to do with religion, physics, reliability about testing. That
doesn't mean I have some personal experience with any of them.

What sparked this lattest round of ranting at the system is that
accusation now against the military personnel about the sex assaults.
Obviously, those kinds of case are most likely done in secret where
there can only be one person's word for it. And every time I hear of
charges pending on such, it disturbs me to think these legal
professional would assume normal people are somehow intimate with
lying that we would know a liar when we see it. They should be
charge with contemp for such assumptions. Since when dose the
average jury get out-of-court experience with in-court only perjury?
It is a contradiction of terms, a violation against the constitution,
and an insult against the jury.

And yet you set her pretending that you don't understand any of this.
What are you, making money off these cases?

[Mike]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:15:41 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> > The defendant does not actually need to make any motion in court. But if
>
> > he witnesses the accuser committing perjury, he is morally responsible
>
> > and legally obligated to report that crime.
>
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> > And I would think that the
>
> > prosecutor should also be legally obligate to process that complaint like
>
> > any other.
>
>
>
> The prosecutor will process it like any other crank complaint.

How would he know which complaints are crank until he sees the witness
on the stand? He can't possibly know that the defendant is lying just
because he filed a complaint. He is showing prejudice at this point.

There seems to be a contradiction. There is no constitutional right
for a prosecutor to show discretion on who to charge. But there is
a constitutional obligation for prosecution to apply the law equally,
without prejudice against legal status.

Hell, they process charges made by convicted prisoners in jail. Why
should they not process a charge made by someone only accused?

This inneptitude has reached the level of negligence until now it has
become corruption, showing blatant discrimination and denying rights and
causing injustice to prevail.

>
>
>
> > And I would think it obvious, that if the prosecutor does not,
>
> > then this is evidence of misconduct,
>
>
>
> No, it isn't. Even if what the witness says is untrue, there may be no
>
> perjury. The defendant would need evidence that the witness isn't
>
> merely mistaken, for instance.

OK. But if he processes the first charge based only on an accusation,
then he should uphold equal protection and grant the second charge
based on only an accusation. That's by definitino, only fair.

>
> The law is not required to be applied equally to all people.

Then what does "equal protection of law" mean?

>
>
>
> > Would this give cause for appeal on conviction, that the prosecutor
>
> > was not seeking the truth, but showing discrimination against the defendant?
>
>
>
> No. In the first place, the prosecutor is not charged with seeking the
>
> truth. He's charged with convicting the defendant within the judicial
>
> rules. Secondly, equal protection law does not require the prosecutor
>
> to treat defendants identically to witnesses. You'd know that if you'd
>
> found out what equal protection means.

Utterly amazing! What could protection mean except that if someone makes a charge of a crime against them, then those charges would be processed by
the state in order to protect the complaintant? What could equal mean except those principles will be applied equally to everyone. Have we really become
so perverted that this meaning is no longer clear?

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:49:28 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:

>
>
> How? If the person is not under oath, they do not risk perjury.
>

I'm curious, in which jurisdictions does someone take the stand in court
without being sworn in? In which jurisdictions do they go directly from
police report to trial without confirming with sworn testimony that it
was actually the complaintant that made the accusation (and not possibly
just a police officer instead)?

> On a separate matter? Why all the double spacing in your replies?
>
> Do you make money each time you press Enter?
>

No, that's a bug with the Google newsgroups interface I'm using. It does not wrap long lines of text to the next line. So I deliberately use an enter to force a text wrap. Maybe I should use a shift+enter for a linebreak instead.

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:

> >
>
> >You're tellimg me how it is. I'm asking how can it be changed.
>

> Lobby for applicable law(s) to be changed.
>

I suspect the higher courts would strike it down. But if the courts
should take a closer look and rule better, then I would think there's
a better change of implementation.


>
> Zero, since one person's word isn't enough to bring the matter to
>
> trial, let alone secure a conviction.
>
>

Well, don't we hear all the time of someone being charged based solely on
one person's word for it? And aren't prosecutors not allowed to file
charges unless they think they have enough evidence for conviction?

What jurisdiction are you from? Maybe there is enough variation in practice
to bring the subject up to the Supreme Court?

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 11:04 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:58:26 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/19/13 12:54 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:42:01 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> One crime is as good as another, and before any
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> trial, one person's word for it is as good as another.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> So your word is as good as Bernie Madoff's?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> before his credibility was established by trial, yes!
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you're a fool as well as an ignoramus. Only greed and a willing
>>
>> suspension of disbelief would allow anyone to say that. Many did, but
>>
>> that doesn't reflect on his credibility but rather their credulousness.
>
> So then, you think your judgment is greater than that of a jury? Have you
> seem more evidence that the jury at trial? Or are you going on what you
> saw on commercial news outlets?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not saying anything about
my judgment compared to that of a jury. I'm saying I wouldn't invest
with someone who guarantees fantastic returns.

>
>>> Is it only the defendant's attourney that can make motions?
>>
>> Yes, but remember that the defendant may act as his own attorney. In
>>
>> any case, motions are not made from the stand.
>
> Can the defendant object to questions on the stand as being irrelevant?

Absolutely. All testimony must be relevant to the matter at hand.

> Can the defendant on the stand make a motion that some question be
> stricken from the record?

Absolutely.

> How can a defend act as his own attourney without the right to make
> objections and motions as an attourney would while his client is on the
> stand?

I suppose he could act pro se and ask the court to recognize an attorney
as a sort of co-counsel.

>> By law. The Supreme Court has defined what "equal protection" means

> And what would that definition be?

Would it kill you to actually look something up? The Supreme Court has
set the rules by which laws may discriminate between different classes
of people. The rules balance the state interest in making the law
against the effect of unequal application.

> One first encounters the law by either
> making or receiving an accusation. And the first reaction of the accused
> would be to claim the accuser is lying. How is it that the same rules would not
> apply to the accused as well as the accuser?

First you have to decide whether a basic right is involved. Something
from the Bill of Rights, for example. That's not the case in your
fantasy scenario. Next you have to define the classes involved. In
your fantasy scenario, you claim that the law treats the class of
defendants differently from the class of witnesses. Let's make the leap
arguendo that not only does this make sense but that it actually happens
in the way you claim. You then find out where in the scale of scrutiny
this classification falls. It falls into the lowest level, which means
that the unequal practice stands if it is reasonably related to a
legitimate government interest.

Do you think you can figure out whether that last is true?

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 11:47 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:15:41 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>>> The defendant does not actually need to make any motion in court. But if
>>
>>> he witnesses the accuser committing perjury, he is morally responsible
>>
>>> and legally obligated to report that crime.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And I would think that the
>>
>>> prosecutor should also be legally obligate to process that complaint like
>>
>>> any other.
>>
>>
>>
>> The prosecutor will process it like any other crank complaint.
>
> How would he know which complaints are crank until he sees the witness
> on the stand?

That's the job of the prosecutor.

> He can't possibly know that the defendant is lying just
> because he filed a complaint. He is showing prejudice at this point.

Prosecutors don't file charges based solely on the unsupported word of
an interested party, in your case, the defendant. The defendant
wouldn't be a defendant if the only evidence the prosecutor had was the
unsupported word of a witness who had a stake in seeing the defendant
convicted.

> There seems to be a contradiction. There is no constitutional right
> for a prosecutor to show discretion on who to charge.

It's called separation of powers. Prosecutors have almost absolute
discretion on whom to charge.

> But there is
> a constitutional obligation for prosecution to apply the law equally,
> without prejudice against legal status.

Legal status admits of only the lowest level of scrutiny. A defendant
may be denied bail and kept incarcerated during the trial. This rarely
happens to witnesses who testify and never after they've testified. So
defendants and witnesses get treated unequally all the time. And guess
what? That doesn't violate the 14th amendment.

> Hell, they process charges made by convicted prisoners in jail. Why
> should they not process a charge made by someone only accused?

Apples and oranges. Prisoners don't file charges; the sue for violation
of their rights. You want a prosecutor to file charges based solely on
the uncorroborated word of an interested party. No judge would find
such a charge supported by probable cause.

> This inneptitude has reached the level of negligence until now it has
> become corruption, showing blatant discrimination and denying rights and
> causing injustice to prevail.

Your abyssal ignorance does not make for the ineptitude, corruption, of
unjust acts of others.

>>> And I would think it obvious, that if the prosecutor does not,
>>
>>> then this is evidence of misconduct,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it isn't. Even if what the witness says is untrue, there may be no
>>
>> perjury. The defendant would need evidence that the witness isn't
>>
>> merely mistaken, for instance.
>
> OK. But if he processes the first charge based only on an accusation,
> then he should uphold equal protection and grant the second charge
> based on only an accusation. That's by definitino, only fair.

I think your basic mistake is that you think that prosecutors routinely
bring cases in which the only evidence against a defendant is the
unsupported word of a witness. That doesn't happen.

>> The law is not required to be applied equally to all people.
>
> Then what does "equal protection of law" mean?

Look. It. Up. "Equal protection of the law" is a term of legal art.
It has a definition based on a set of Supreme Court rulings going back
to the 1940s. It doesn't mean that the law must be applied identically
in all circumstances. If that were true, why can't I apply for
veterans benefits even though I've never served in the military? After
all, the law treats veterans and me unequally.

>>> Would this give cause for appeal on conviction, that the prosecutor
>>
>>> was not seeking the truth, but showing discrimination against the defendant?
>>
>>
>>
>> No. In the first place, the prosecutor is not charged with seeking the
>>
>> truth. He's charged with convicting the defendant within the judicial
>>
>> rules. Secondly, equal protection law does not require the prosecutor
>>
>> to treat defendants identically to witnesses. You'd know that if you'd
>>
>> found out what equal protection means.
>
> Utterly amazing! What could protection mean

Equal protection means what the Supreme Court says is means.

> except that if someone makes a charge of a crime against them, then those charges would be processed by
> the state in order to protect the complaintant?

Sorry, I can't parse that.

> What could equal mean except those principles will be applied equally to everyone. Have we really become
> so perverted that this meaning is no longer clear?

Answer the question about my veterans benefits and we'll talk.

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 12:04 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:50:21 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>> You're tellimg me how it is. I'm asking how can it be changed.
>>
>> Lobby for applicable law(s) to be changed.
>>
>
> I suspect the higher courts would strike it down. But if the courts
> should take a closer look and rule better, then I would think there's
> a better change of implementation.
>
>
>>
>> Zero, since one person's word isn't enough to bring the matter to
>>
>> trial, let alone secure a conviction.
>>
>>
>
> Well, don't we hear all the time of someone being charged based solely on
> one person's word for it?

Only in your fantasy world.

> And aren't prosecutors not allowed to file
> charges unless they think they have enough evidence for conviction?

Prosecutors can't take charges to trial without probable cause.
Conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:57:32 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> First you have to decide whether a basic right is involved. Something
>
> from the Bill of Rights, for example. That's not the case in your
>
> fantasy scenario. Next you have to define the classes involved. In
>
> your fantasy scenario, you claim that the law treats the class of
>
> defendants differently from the class of witnesses. Let's make the leap
>
> arguendo that not only does this make sense but that it actually happens
>
> in the way you claim. You then find out where in the scale of scrutiny
>
> this classification falls. It falls into the lowest level, which means
>
> that the unequal practice stands if it is reasonably related to a
>
> legitimate government interest.
>
>
>
> Do you think you can figure out whether that last is true?
>
>

Have you read the post in this thread by "Moses". There he describes
many cases where one person's word is take as sufficient to file
charges and arrest a person.

Really, I don't know what you are talking about. I've seen it
on a reality show on TV. Some old man was pulled over by a cop for
some traffic violation, and there was an argument that ensued.
The old man beat the cop to the accusation and accused the cop
of assault to a second cop that appeared on the scene a little
later. Maybe the first cop lifted his hand in a threatening way.
The TV program showed the first cop being put in hand-
cuffs and being hauled away under arrest on just the old man's
word for it. I think the first cop should have filed a complaint
against the old man for filing a false report, and have both of
them hauled away.

What cop asks for proof when someone files charges of assault?
Since when can an officer arrest someone without sufficient
evidence for a trial? It seems clear that assaults are common,
and that one person's word for it is most commonly all the
evidence that exists for the crime at trial.

It's beginning to seem like your denial of the situation is just
an attempt to take advantage of the lack of public records of
evidence in order to get me to just go away. But frankly, it's
beginning to sound like bullshit.

The basic civil right is "due process of law" not being exercised by
the state to equally protect the defendant. It is the prosecutor
acting on behalf of the state that has defined due process as
accepting one person's word from a complaintant filing charges that
is sufficient to arrest another person. That some process is not being
given to a defendant who also is a witness to a crime of perjury.

This is as obvious as the sun in the clear blue sky. Are you too
blinded by the light to see straight?

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:17:33 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> Look. It. Up. "Equal protection of the law" is a term of legal art.
>
> It has a definition based on a set of Supreme Court rulings going back
>
> to the 1940s. It doesn't mean that the law must be applied identically
>
> in all circumstances. If that were true, why can't I apply for
>
> veterans benefits even though I've never served in the military? After
>
> all, the law treats veterans and me unequally.
>

Since when is a defendant of different legal status as a complaintant?
When does a defendant loose his right to file charges and have those
charges processes equally? Shouldn't they be considered equal until a
conviction in this regard?

And answer to all this, of course, is to universally declare one person's
word (and their demeanor on stand) insufficient for conviction. That would
solve a lot of troubles.

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 1:33 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:57:32 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> First you have to decide whether a basic right is involved. Something
>>
>> from the Bill of Rights, for example. That's not the case in your
>>
>> fantasy scenario. Next you have to define the classes involved. In
>>
>> your fantasy scenario, you claim that the law treats the class of
>>
>> defendants differently from the class of witnesses. Let's make the leap
>>
>> arguendo that not only does this make sense but that it actually happens
>>
>> in the way you claim. You then find out where in the scale of scrutiny
>>
>> this classification falls. It falls into the lowest level, which means
>>
>> that the unequal practice stands if it is reasonably related to a
>>
>> legitimate government interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think you can figure out whether that last is true?
>>
>>
>
> Have you read the post in this thread by "Moses". There he describes
> many cases where one person's word is take as sufficient to file
> charges and arrest a person.

I only find one post by Moses in this thread. In which he says you

don't understand how criminal law works.

An arrest is different from an indictment.

>
> Really, I don't know what you are talking about. I've seen it
> on a reality show on TV. Some old man was pulled over by a cop for
> some traffic violation, and there was an argument that ensued.
> The old man beat the cop to the accusation and accused the cop
> of assault to a second cop that appeared on the scene a little
> later. Maybe the first cop lifted his hand in a threatening way.
> The TV program showed the first cop being put in hand-
> cuffs and being hauled away under arrest on just the old man's
> word for it. I think the first cop should have filed a complaint
> against the old man for filing a false report, and have both of
> them hauled away.

That's your evidence? Some "reality" show on TV. I doubt your
anecdote. In any argument between cops and old men pulled over for
"some traffic violation," a cop is allowed to use reasonable force to
control the situation. Raising a hand certainly is within the limit.

> What cop asks for proof when someone files charges of assault?

Any cop who wants to keep his job.

> Since when can an officer arrest someone without sufficient
> evidence for a trial?

Since forever. Some arrests are kicked for lack of probable cause.

> It seems clear that assaults are common,
> and that one person's word for it is most commonly all the
> evidence that exists for the crime at trial.

Lots of things seem clear to you. But you're an egregious ignoramus.

> It's beginning to seem like your denial of the situation is just
> an attempt to take advantage of the lack of public records of
> evidence in order to get me to just go away.

I think there's no doubt that in corrupt jurisdictions that innocent
people have been convicted merely on the say-so of the privileged. Say,
the pre-civil-rights south. No one disputes that the word of a witness
may serve as the tipping point that convinces a jury to convict. But in
the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, I don't believe that people
in the US are brought to trial solely on the uncorroborated statement of
a witness. This is your claim, and it is thus your burden of production
and proof. I'm sorry you don't have "public records" to back you up,
but that's not my problem.

I don't care whether you go or stay. It's up to you. In any case, I
have no power to effect either outcome.

> But frankly, it's beginning to sound like bullshit.

Lots of things sound like bullshit to you. But then you're an ignoramus.

> The basic civil right is "due process of law" not being exercised by
> the state to equally protect the defendant.

No, due process of law is different. And the fact that the defendant
has defined procedures available for his defense means that due process
has been granted.

> It is the prosecutor
> acting on behalf of the state that has defined due process

The prosecutor does not define "due process." The courts do.

> as
> accepting one person's word from a complaintant filing charges that
> is sufficient to arrest another person.

A complaint is sufficient to start an investigation. In the absence of
any other evidence that a crime has even been committed, the complaint
standing alone isn't necessarily sufficient to provide grounds for arrest.

> That some process is not being
> given to a defendant who also is a witness to a crime of perjury.

From the court's point of view, the defendant is a witness to nothing
more than sworn testimony. Even from the defendant's point of view,
he's witness to nothing more than false sworn testimony. But false
sworn testimony isn't necessarily perjury.

> This is as obvious as the sun in the clear blue sky. Are you too
> blinded by the light to see straight?

I don't intend to be lectured by someone who has no idea what he's
talking about and refuses to inform himself.

Let me ask again about the denial of my veterans benefits. I'm clearly
being discriminated against: veterans get benefits and I don't. Why is
that legal?

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 1:45 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:17:33 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> Look. It. Up. "Equal protection of the law" is a term of legal art.
>>
>> It has a definition based on a set of Supreme Court rulings going back
>>
>> to the 1940s. It doesn't mean that the law must be applied identically
>>
>> in all circumstances. If that were true, why can't I apply for
>>
>> veterans benefits even though I've never served in the military? After
>>
>> all, the law treats veterans and me unequally.
>>
>
> Since when is a defendant of different legal status as a complaintant?

By definition: he's on trial; the witness isn't. Did you not
understand my comment about bail? Defendants and witnesses are treated
differently.

> When does a defendant loose his right to file charges and have those
> charges processes equally?

He doesn't. The defendants groundless charges will be treated the same
way that any other uncorroborated statement from an interested party.

> Shouldn't they be considered equal until a
> conviction in this regard?
>
> And answer to all this, of course, is to universally declare one person's
> word (and their demeanor on stand) insufficient for conviction. That would
> solve a lot of troubles.

It would be a lot less trouble if you would actually learn something
about the law.

Or not.

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:10:32 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> A complaint is sufficient to start an investigation. In the absence of
>
> any other evidence that a crime has even been committed, the complaint
>
> standing alone isn't necessarily sufficient to provide grounds for arrest.
>

Of course it's not necessarily sufficient, but can be sufficient if believed
by a jury, or so I've been told here some years back.

>
> From the court's point of view, the defendant is a witness to nothing
>
> more than sworn testimony. Even from the defendant's point of view,
>
> he's witness to nothing more than false sworn testimony. But false
>
> sworn testimony isn't necessarily perjury.

It's hard to see how if someone says I swear that person did that thing,
if false, is not perjury. It seems the complaintant either cannot identify
the defendant (it may be his twin brother), or the complaintant is
committing perjury.

But, admittedly, that may be the sticking point. If one cannot say it is
perjury until the jury says so, then the defendant can't file charges for it.

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:29:05 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> It's hard to see how if someone says I swear that person did that thing,
>
> if false, is not perjury. It seems the complaintant either cannot identify
>
> the defendant (it may be his twin brother), or the complaintant is
>
> committing perjury.
>
>
>
> But, admittedly, that may be the sticking point. If one cannot say it is
>
> perjury until the jury says so, then the defendant can't file charges for it.

I've thought about it more. And it seems the counter accusation cannot be
any more mistaken than the first accusation. And until decided by the court,
the prosecutor should treat one accusation as good as another.

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 3:29 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:10:32 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> A complaint is sufficient to start an investigation. In the absence of
>>
>> any other evidence that a crime has even been committed, the complaint
>>
>> standing alone isn't necessarily sufficient to provide grounds for arrest.
>>
>
> Of course it's not necessarily sufficient, but can be sufficient if believed
> by a jury, or so I've been told here some years back.

But you're a credulous, gullible ignoramus. Of course you believe
things you've been told. Some years back and probably today. Absent
corruption, no jury will hear a case against a defendant based solely on
the testimony of a witness. No honest judge will deem that probable cause.

>> From the court's point of view, the defendant is a witness to nothing
>>
>> more than sworn testimony. Even from the defendant's point of view,
>>
>> he's witness to nothing more than false sworn testimony. But false
>>
>> sworn testimony isn't necessarily perjury.
>
> It's hard to see how if someone says I swear that person did that thing,
> if false, is not perjury.

Of course it's hard for you to see. But that's because you're an
incorrigible ignoramus. Did it ever occur to you that the witness could
be mistaken?

> It seems the complaintant either cannot identify
> the defendant (it may be his twin brother), or the complaintant is
> committing perjury.

Or the witness is in error.

> But, admittedly, that may be the sticking point. If one cannot say it is
> perjury until the jury says so, then the defendant can't file charges for it.

The defendant can't file charges at all. Do you still not understand
that there's no private action in criminal matters? The state must file
the charges, and they do that all the time without a jury's say-so. How
else could things work?

[Mike]

[Mike]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:38:38 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>

> But you're a credulous, gullible ignoramus. Of course you believe
>
> things you've been told. Some years back and probably today. Absent
>
> corruption, no jury will hear a case against a defendant based solely on
>
> the testimony of a witness. No honest judge will deem that probable cause.
>

That's completely incredible. How old are you? Don't you remember in the 80's and 90's how many people got covicted of sex crimes based on the word of one child, only to have that child recant the testimony many years later. The prosecutor would still not agree to drop the charges because he thought the conviction was ligitimately arived at. Sorry, I forgot the details. Others here might remember such things.

How many times has a person been convicted of possession of drugs based on the word alone of the arresting officer? Yet how do we know that the drugs weren't dropped at the scene by the cop himself?

In my opinion, you are out of your mind and engaging in deliberate obsfucation by denying that such cases typically happen all the time. I think it is more likely than not that most cases that reach court are one person's word for it. For if there were strong evidence, the defendant would probably plea bargin.

> The defendant can't file charges at all. Do you still not understand
>
> that there's no private action in criminal matters? The state must file
>
> the charges, and they do that all the time without a jury's say-so. How
>
> else could things work?

Now it sounds like you are changing your tune. My entire complaint is that prosecution was being selective in who to prosecute, thus denying the equal application of law to the defendant when he claims the one witness is committing the crime of perjury. What constitutional clause gives him the right to such discriminatory discretion?

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 5:36 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:29:05 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
>> It's hard to see how if someone says I swear that person did that thing,
>>
>> if false, is not perjury. It seems the complaintant either cannot identify
>>
>> the defendant (it may be his twin brother), or the complaintant is
>>
>> committing perjury.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, admittedly, that may be the sticking point. If one cannot say it is
>>
>> perjury until the jury says so, then the defendant can't file charges for it.
>
> I've thought about it more.

You have to think about it first, Sparky, before you can think about it

"more."

> And it seems the counter accusation cannot be
> any more mistaken than the first accusation.

Lots of ignorant things "seem" to you.

> And until decided by the court,
> the prosecutor should treat one accusation as good as another.

Actually, the court treats all sworn testimony as presenting rebuttable
truth. If the testimonies are in conflict, then the trier of fact must
decide.

The prosecutor didn't charge the defendant on one witness'
uncorroborated word.

[Bill Graham]

How about the poor slob who was on Niuteline last night? He spent 16 years
of a 20 to life sentence for killing his wife before the real killer was
caught and confessed to the crime. There was no forensic evidence to convict
the guy at all, but the jury convicted him, "Beyone a reasonable doubt".
These are the same idiots who believe in a supreme being, "beyond a
reasonable doubt". There is no doubt about it. We live in a very dangerous
society, full of idiots who think that government might makes right. If it
wears a suit and was elected, then it can't be wrong..... All logic not
withstanding.....

[Gordon Burditt]

> Now it sounds like you are changing your tune. My entire complaint
> is that prosecution was being selective in who to prosecute, thus

Prosecutors *have* to be selective in who to prosecute, due to a
physics problem: there are only 24 hours in a day. There's also
some pressure to prosecute the important crimes (e.g. murder,
stealing the mayor's cat) Over the unimportant crimes (e.g. jaywalking,
stealing *your* cat).

[deadrat]

On 5/20/13 7:14 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 6:38:38 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> But you're a credulous, gullible ignoramus. Of course you believe
>>
>> things you've been told. Some years back and probably today. Absent
>>
>> corruption, no jury will hear a case against a defendant based solely on
>>
>> the testimony of a witness. No honest judge will deem that probable cause.
>>
>
> That's completely incredible. How old are you?

I'm the oldest whore on the block, Sparky.

> Don't you remember in the 80's and 90's how many people got covicted of sex crimes based on the word of one child,
> only to have that child recant the testimony many years later. The prosecutor would still not agree to drop the
> charges because he thought the conviction was ligitimately arived at. Sorry, I forgot the details.
> Others here might remember such things.

Why not look "such things" up and see how the courts handled them?

Debbie and Alvin McCuan, Scott and Brenda Kniffens. Kern Country, CA
1982. Convictions overturned.

Peggy McMartin and Ray Buckey. Manhattan Beach, CA. 1983. No convictions.

Bernard Baran. Pittsfield, MA. 1984. Conviction set aside; charges
dismissed.

Albert Algarin, Jesus Torres, Franklin Beauchamp (Praca Day Care
Center). Bronx, NY. 1984. Convictions overturned.

Margaret Kelly Michaels (Wee Care Nursery School). Maplewood, NJ. 1984.
Conviction overturned.

Bob Kelly (Little Rascals). Edenton, NC. 1989. Conviction overturned.

Dale Akiki (Faith Chapel Church). Spring Valley, CA. 1991. No conviction.

43 defendants. Wenatchee, WA. All convictions overturned.

This is not to say that lives weren't ruined. And these cases are the
ones in which the defendants refused plea bargains. But not even these
fit your criterion. There was a host of witnesses in each trial --
parents, psychologists, and abuse "specialists -- to testify that the
crimes had been committed, that children's behavior had changed so as to
indicate abuse, that the children were testifying truthfully, and so on.
And none of these people perjured themselves: they were true believers.

> How many times has a person been convicted of possession of drugs based
> on the word alone of the arresting officer?

On the word of the arresting officer alone? Or were there drugs
introduced as evidence?

> Yet how do we know that the drugs weren't dropped at the scene by the cop himself?

OK, how many times? It's your claim. TV shows don't count as evidence.

> In my opinion, you are out of your mind and engaging in deliberate obsfucation
> by denying that such cases typically happen all the time. I think

Ya lost me at "think," Sparky.

> it is more likely than not that most cases that reach court are one person's word for it.

Bold claim. Do you have any evidence?

Do you know what evidence is?

> For if there were strong evidence, the defendant would probably plea bargin.
>
>
>> The defendant can't file charges at all. Do you still not understand
>>
>> that there's no private action in criminal matters? The state must file
>>
>> the charges, and they do that all the time without a jury's say-so. How
>>
>> else could things work?
>
> Now it sounds like you are changing your tune.

You're tone deaf.

> My entire complaint is that prosecution was being selective in who to prosecute,
> thus denying the equal application of law to the defendant when he claims the one
> witness is committing the crime of perjury.

The defendant may claim that witnesses are lying all he wants. The
defendant is unlikely to be in the dock on the uncorroborated testimony
of a single interested witness. In spite of your claims.

> What constitutional clause gives him the right to such discriminatory discretion?

The 14th Amendment under the Supreme Court's interpretation of equal
protection and the doctrine of separation of powers.

[deadrat]

On 5/21/13 2:47 AM, K Wills wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Mike <maj...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 20, 2013 4:49:28 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How? If the person is not under oath, they do not risk perjury.
>>>
>>
>> I'm curious, in which jurisdictions does someone take the stand in court
>> without being sworn in?
>

> Your original concern was regarding the preliminary hearing. No
> one is under oath at a preliminary hearing. As such, no one can commit
> perjury.

Where do you get this? Witnesses testify under oath at preliminary
hearings. Perhaps you're thinking of the admissibility of hearsay at a
preliminary hearing.
<snip/>

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:46:42 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:

> That's a totally different matter held under military courts and
> code. Even so, accusation does not equate to guilt, and more than one
> person's word is required.
>

This statement seems to contradict the next statement...

>
> A witnesses credibility is a matter for the judge to determine at
>
> pre-trial and a jury at trial, or tribunal at a court marshal.
>
>

If one person's testimony is not sufficient (as you assert), then their
credibility is irrelevant.

If fact, I'm told that courts routingly state that, "one witness's testimony
is sufficient for conviction if belived by the trier of fact"...

I, of course, think this is illogical and should not be allowed.

>
> What in-court only perjury? In the hypothetical you originally
>
> presented regarding a prelim there is no perjury.

No, they just take the stand and testify in court without being sworn in. Is
that what you expect me to believe? Would they like some tea and crumpets
while they are there? Or maybe they'd like some cheese with that wine.



>
>
>
> >It is a contradiction of terms, a violation against the constitution,
>
> >and an insult against the jury.
>
>
>
> How? Just because the defendant claims a witness is lying?
>
> What if the witness isn't, but the defendant says s/he is? Isn't
>
> that ain insult to the jury?

Agreed. It sets up an infinite loop about the accusers accusation about his
accusation is being accused of false accusation...

The answer of course is to not allow cases with only one person's word for it.

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:47:23 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:

>
> Your original concern was regarding the preliminary hearing. No
>
> one is under oath at a preliminary hearing. As such, no one can commit
>
> perjury.

That doesn't answer the question as to what jurisdiction this applies. Is it
all of them?

I understand that one reason for a preliminary hearing is to
"preserve testimony". Is testimony actually testimony if it is not
sworn testimony?

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53:23 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:

> I can't comment on Deadrat's motivation, but I can state he's
>
> tried to educate you on this matter, as have I. You were, and are,
>
> wrong regarding perjury at a prelim. If you can't accept this, or are
>
> unable to understand that you're wrong, there isn't much anyone can
>
> do.

Dude! You haven't quoted one statute. You haven't cited one case.
You haven't given any reasons. And you haven't provided one link to
a webpage with infomation. What am I suppose to do, take your
word alone for it? What kind of education is that?

I'm finding it difficult to accept your word for it since it used to
be that I was told here, "one person's word for it is sufficient if
believed by the trier of fact". And was told to get use to that. Now,
however, I'm being told those cases have disappeared into thin air.
What happened?

What crimes are involved in filing a false police report or testifying
falsely at a grand jury or preliminary hearing? And when
can the defendant know exactly who is responsible for it? Can and
should the defendant be able to file his own complaint when he
witnesses this crime since he knows that crime has been committed?

Obviously I'm only concerned in stopping cases with one person's word
for it. I don't care how. I was thinking that it might be stopped if
the defendant was given equal opportunity to file charges against the
first complaintant for the crime of filing falsely or committing perjury.
Can you provide any help with this idea? Or are you too busy making
money off allegations?

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:32:10 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

>
> I'm finding it difficult to accept your word for it since it used to
>
> be that I was told here, "one person's word for it is sufficient if
>
> believed by the trier of fact". And was told to get use to that. Now,
>
> however, I'm being told those cases have disappeared into thin air.
>
> What happened?

Here are some links to what I think are some credible sources telling
of people convicted on one person's word:

http://www.guevaracoloradolaw.com/criminal-law/sex-offenses/can-i-be-convicted-of-a-sex-offense-based-on-one-persons-word/

http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2008/07/the-one-witness-rule.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=32&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjABOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nycourts.gov%2Fjudges%2Fcji%2F1-General%2FCJI2d.Identification-One_Witness.pdf&ei=QuubUe2uFoLhygHrgIGACQ&usg=AFQjCNFrBuzckPugclEGQ9Tix3qKdAD0BA&sig2=SgST0WhikBEDA0kq3ACxzQ&bvm=bv.46751780,d.aWc

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:55:58 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

>
>
> Here are some links to what I think are some credible sources telling
>
> of people convicted on one person's word:
>
>
>
> http://www.guevaracoloradolaw.com/criminal-law/sex-offenses/can-i-be-convicted-of-a-sex-offense-based-on-one-persons-word/
>
>
>
> http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2008/07/the-one-witness-rule.html
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=32&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjABOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nycourts.gov%2Fjudges%2Fcji%2F1-General%2FCJI2d.Identification-One_Witness.pdf&ei=QuubUe2uFoLhygHrgIGACQ&usg=AFQjCNFrBuzckPugclEGQ9Tix3qKdAD0BA&sig2=SgST0WhikBEDA0kq3ACxzQ&bvm=bv.46751780,d.aWc
>
>
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253

Here are some more:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Reevaluating_Lineups_Why_Witnesses_Make_Mistakes_and_How_to_Reduce_the_Chance_of_a_Misidentification.php

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/justice/new-york-conviction-overturned

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/07/man-wrongly-convicted-in-sf-murder-questions-police-lineups/

[deadrat]

On 5/21/13 1:32 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53:23 AM UTC-4, K Wills wrote:
>
>> I can't comment on Deadrat's motivation, but I can state he's
>>
>> tried to educate you on this matter, as have I. You were, and are,
>>
>> wrong regarding perjury at a prelim. If you can't accept this, or are
>>
>> unable to understand that you're wrong, there isn't much anyone can
>>
>> do.
>
> Dude! You haven't quoted one statute. You haven't cited one case.
> You haven't given any reasons. And you haven't provided one link to
> a webpage with infomation.

Here's how this works, Sparky. You make a claim and it becomes your
burden of production and proof to support that claim. No one else is
obligated to disprove your assertions.

> What am I suppose to do, take your
> word alone for it? What kind of education is that?

You're supposed to educate yourself. I've quoted the law for you. If
you want references, I'll provide them. But the google is your friend.

> I'm finding it difficult to accept your word for it

But you accept other unsupported statements. Go figure.

> since it used to
> be that I was told here, "one person's word for it is sufficient if
> believed by the trier of fact".

You were told here? And you didn't check it out? Sworn testimony holds
a rebuttable presumption of truth. Thus the trier of fact may believe
sworn testimony. Nobody says that's sufficient to reach beyond a
reasonable doubt.

> And was told to get use to that. Now,
> however, I'm being told those cases have disappeared into thin air.
> What happened?

What happened is that in ten years you remained ignorant.

> What crimes are involved in filing a false police report or testifying
> falsely at a grand jury or preliminary hearing?

*Knowingly* filing a false police report is a crime in most
jurisdictions. *Knowingly* testifying falsely under oath about material
matters is perjury.

> And when
> can the defendant know exactly who is responsible for it?

When the witness testifies.

> Can and
> should the defendant be able to file his own complaint when he
> witnesses this crime since he knows that crime has been committed?

He. doesn't. know. that. a. crime. has. been. committed. Stop saying
that. It isn't true. At most he knows that the testimony is false.
Giving false testimony isn't necessarily a crime.

> Obviously I'm only concerned in stopping cases with one person's word
> for it.

In this discussion, I've been assuming you mean that one witness' word
is the sole evidence against the defendant. I doubt that happens often.
If you mean, cases in which there's only one witness against the
defendant, then no, that won't be stopped.

> I don't care how. I was thinking that it might be stopped if
> the defendant was given equal opportunity to file charges against the
> first complaintant for the crime of filing falsely or committing perjury.

That will never happen. Private parties do not get to file charges.

> Can you provide any help with this idea?

The idea is foolishness.

> Or are you too busy making money off allegations?

What money?

And yeah, I know you're talking at KW.

[deadrat]

All of the cites go to a different question: Can a jury believe a
single witness' identification beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby
render a guilty verdict with that belief? The answer is yes. In
general, but not for treason.

[Bill Graham]

There is a woman and her, "convicted rapist" who are now touring the country
giving talks to police departments and other groups about the dangers of eye
witness testimony.. He spent 20 years in jail for her rape, until the real
perpetrator confessed to the crime. The only evidence against him was her
testimony. She had the courage to go to his home, knock on the door, and
apologize to him after he was released.

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:24:21 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> Where do you get this? Witnesses testify under oath at preliminary
>
> hearings. Perhaps you're thinking of the admissibility of hearsay at a
>
> preliminary hearing.
>

Here are some links that testimony a preliminary hearing must be sworn,
and that defendant's have a right to a prelim unless they waive that
right:

http://www.romingerlaw.com/news/what-is-a-preliminary-hearing/

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=clj&set=CrRLJ&ruleid=cljcrrlj3.2.1

http://www.rousecolaw.com/2011/12/29/benefits-of-a-preliminary-hearing/

http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/preliminary-hearings.html

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> Here are some links that testimony a preliminary hearing must be sworn,
>
> and that defendant's have a right to a prelim unless they waive that
>
> right:

So the only question left is whether the defendant has a legal right to
equal protection of law to have the same due process of his filing
charges for a crime as the original accuser against him.

Surely everyone would recognise the defendant's right to file charges
of perjury or obstruction charges or assault if those charges were
against another inmate in the jail or against some police officer
not connected to his case. The question is where you draw the line
on how close to his case he can file charges against someone. It seems
totally arbitrary to draw the line at anyone involving his case. Those
people are just as capable of committing crimes as anyone else.

[Mike]

I suppose it would be acceptable to file charges against the accuser for
abusing her own child, if that's what he saw her do. What if the
defendant climed he saw her conspiring with others to falsely accuse him?

[Mike]

What if the defendant filed charges of assault against someone in a
different case of the prosecutor's? What if his charge involved witnessing
conspiracy to commit perjury or obstruction justice or jury tampering in
that other case of the prosecutor not involving him? You see where I'm
going with this.

If charges are appropriate in those cases, then why not a charge of perjury
against the single witness agains him in his case? It seems arbitrary not to
treat this like any others I mentioned above.

[Gordon Burditt]

> So the only question left is whether the defendant has a legal right to
> equal protection of law to have the same due process of his filing
> charges for a crime as the original accuser against him.

Witnesses do not have the right to file charges. The state files charges.

Defendants do not have the right to file charges. The state files charges.

Sounds pretty equal to me.

[Mike]

Obviously, that's what I meant. For if the prosecutor was not involved at all,
one could always file whatever charges he wants. I'm assuming charges have to
go through the prosecutor which would have a problem with filing charges
against the complaintant - his star witness. My claim is that prevention is
arbitrary and denies the defendant his equal protection of due process. See my
last couple of previous posts.

[deadrat]

On 5/21/13 6:44 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
>> Here are some links that testimony a preliminary hearing must be sworn,
>>
>> and that defendant's have a right to a prelim unless they waive that
>>
>> right:
>
> So the only question left is whether the defendant has a legal right to
> equal protection of law

This isn't a question. Everybody within the jurisdiction of the
Constitution has the right to equal protection of the law.

> to have the same due process of his filing
> charges for a crime

This isn't due process, another legal concept you don't understand. No
private person may file criminal charges against anyone.

> as the original accuser against him.

The accuser is the state, not the witness. The witness may provide
evidence against the defendant, but that's different.

> Surely everyone would recognise the defendant's right to file charges
> of perjury or obstruction charges or assault if those charges were
> against another inmate in the jail or against some police officer
> not connected to his case.

Nobody with any sense recognizes a private person's "right to file
charges" because such a right doesn't exist. Of course, anyone may make
a complaint to the police or the prosecutor, but that's different from
filing charges.

> The question is where you draw the line
> on how close to his case he can file charges against someone.

There's no question: he can't file charges.

> It seems
> totally arbitrary to draw the line at anyone involving his case. Those
> people are just as capable of committing crimes as anyone else.

This sentence above no content.

[deadrat]

All he could do is report the abuse. Filing charges is up to the state.

> What if the
> defendant climed he saw her conspiring with others to falsely accuse him?

He wouldn't be allowed to bring it up in court unless he had
particulars. Then he could ask the witness about his actions.

[deadrat]

On 5/21/13 7:03 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:49:39 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:44:40 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:26:04 PM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Here are some links that testimony a preliminary hearing must be sworn,
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> and that defendant's have a right to a prelim unless they waive that
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> right:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So the only question left is whether the defendant has a legal right to
>>
>>>
>>
>>> equal protection of law to have the same due process of his filing
>>
>>>
>>
>>> charges for a crime as the original accuser against him.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Surely everyone would recognise the defendant's right to file charges
>>
>>>
>>
>>> of perjury or obstruction charges or assault if those charges were
>>
>>>
>>
>>> against another inmate in the jail or against some police officer
>>
>>>
>>
>>> not connected to his case. The question is where you draw the line
>>
>>>
>>
>>> on how close to his case he can file charges against someone. It seems
>>
>>>
>>
>>> totally arbitrary to draw the line at anyone involving his case. Those
>>
>>>
>>
>>> people are just as capable of committing crimes as anyone else.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose it would be acceptable to file charges against the accuser for
>>
>> abusing her own child, if that's what he saw her do. What if the
>>
>> defendant climed he saw her conspiring with others to falsely accuse him?
>
> What if the defendant filed charges of assault against someone in a
> different case of the prosecutor's?

He can't. All he can do is claim to the police or to the prosecutor
that he saw an assault. Filing charges is up to the prosecutor.

> What if his charge involved witnessing
> conspiracy to commit perjury or obstruction justice or jury tampering in
> that other case of the prosecutor not involving him? You see where I'm
> going with this.

Deeper into ignorance?

> If charges are appropriate in those cases, then why not a charge of perjury
> against the single witness agains him in his case? It seems arbitrary not to
> treat this like any others I mentioned above.

He may complain to the authorities, but he can't file charges or cause
them to be filed.

If he actually was a witness to the conspiracy, he may testify to that
effect on his own behalf.
>

[deadrat]

On 5/21/13 8:49 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:00:01 PM UTC-4, Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>> So the only question left is whether the defendant has a legal right to
>>
>>> equal protection of law to have the same due process of his filing
>>
>>> charges for a crime as the original accuser against him.
>>
>>
>>
>> Witnesses do not have the right to file charges. The state files charges.
>>
>>
>>
>> Defendants do not have the right to file charges. The state files charges.
>>
>>
>
> Obviously, that's what I meant. For if the prosecutor was not involved at all,
> one could always file whatever charges he wants.

Who? The defendant? He can't file charges at all.

> I'm assuming charges have to
> go through the prosecutor which would have a problem with filing charges
> against the complaintant - his star witness.

The complainant here is the defendant. You mean the target of the
complaint. The prosecutor's problem would be probable cause.

> My claim is that prevention is arbitrary

You claim is wrong. The prosecutor won't file charges unless he has
probable cause. The unsupported claim of an interested party doesn't
rise to probable cause.

> and denies the defendant his equal protection of due process.

You don't know what either of those terms means.

> See my last couple of previous posts.

Which don't make any more sense than this one. You seem to think that a
prosecutor will file charges based solely on the unsupported testimony
of an interested party. No rational argument seems to be able to move
you from this position.

[Mike]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:

>
> All he could do is report the abuse. Filing charges is up to the state.
>
>

My entire complaint is prosecution's arbitrary decision as to what charges
to file based on what other legal situation the person is in who is
testifying to having witnessed a crime.

It would seem to me that the only descresion the prosecution should have
is to decide what level of evidence he will prosecute, whether he requires
more than one person's word, or whether to require physical evidence, or
whether or not to prosecute for possession of an ounce of pot. This would be
based on what he feels is his ability to persuade a jury on that evidence.
But once he decides what constitutes evidence, then he should be forced by
the US constitution to not discriminate against persons. I don't think he
should have the right to decide which perons is credible. That should be a
matter for the jury.

To decide not to prosecute based solely on the fact that it inconvienences
him in a case is arbitrary and descriminates against persons, denies justice
to the community, and denys equal protection against victims of a crime.
Perjury is not necessarily a victimless crime. If you lie about someone
assaulting you so that his life is messed up, then you are victimizing him.
The state is also a victim in such crimes in spending all that time and
expense for nothing. ANY witness to a crime should be taken seriously.

>
> > What if the
>
> > defendant climed he saw her conspiring with others to falsely accuse him?
>
>
>
> He wouldn't be allowed to bring it up in court unless he had
>
> particulars. Then he could ask the witness about his actions.

He should be able to file a police report and have it processed like any
other by the prosecutor.

[Mike]

Sure, prosecutors will give equal protection and due process after filing
charges with the court. But not fiing charges based on who is testifying to
a crime is a form of discrimination and is a denial of equal protection
and due process in and of itself.

[Mike]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:32:56 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:

> Sure, prosecutors will give equal protection and due process after filing
>
> charges with the court. But not fiing charges based on who is testifying to
>
> a crime is a form of discrimination and is a denial of equal protection
>
> and due process in and of itself.

So I wonder if you can file suit against a prosecutor, whether him personally
or his office for discrimination for not filing charges with the court after
receiving a police report for a crime to which you testify, like he would for
anyone else? If you could file suit against prosecution, would that force him
off your case because that would prejudice him against your right?

[cda...@jprude.net]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:48:38 -0700 (PDT), Mike <maj...@charter.net>
wrote:

> I wonder if you can file suit against a prosecutor, whether him personally
> or his office for discrimination for not filing charges with the court after
> receiving a police report for a crime to which you testify, like he would for
> anyone else? If you could file suit against prosecution, would that force him
> off your case because that would prejudice him against your right?

Prosecutors are almost completely immune from suit for even
very terrible things they do in the course of performing their
official prosecutorial functions.

As others said correctly, prosecutors also are conferred with
almost completely unreviewable discretion to decide not to prosecute a
person another person accused of having committed even a serious
crime.

A criminal defendant suing a prosecutor anyway because the
defendant claims that the prosecutor should have prosecuted but
declined to prosecute someone the defendant complained about almost
always would not and should not have the effect of disqualifying him
from continuing to prosecute the defendant.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/13 10:11 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:38:51 PM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> All he could do is report the abuse. Filing charges is up to the state.
>>
>>
>
> My entire complaint is prosecution's arbitrary decision as to what charges
> to file based on what other legal situation the person is in who is
> testifying to having witnessed a crime.

The witness testifies that the defendant has committed a crime. An
innocent defendant has witnessed only false testimony. Why can't you
understand that this isn't necessarily a crime?

> It would seem to me that the only descresion

It's "discretion."

> the prosecution should have
> is to decide what level of evidence he will prosecute, whether he requires
> more than one person's word, or whether to require physical evidence, or
> whether or not to prosecute for possession of an ounce of pot. This would be
> based on what he feels is his ability to persuade a jury on that evidence.
> But once he decides what constitutes evidence, then he should be forced by
> the US constitution to not discriminate against persons.

OK, so this is just your opinion, right? Based on not the slightest
shred of understanding of the law, right? Because as it stands now, the
prosecutor's decision not to prosecute based on the claim of an
interested party does not violate equal protection. Do you understand
that much?

Let's assume that the witness testifies that the defendant held up a
bank. The witness saw a crime. Let's suppose that testimony is false:
the defendant didn't hold up the bank. The defendant watching the
testimony sees only false testimony, which isn't necessarily a crime.
And the defendant has no knowledge whether it is from merely hearing the
testimony. Unlike the witness who most definitely has seen a crime.
Have you got that far?

> I don't think he
> should have the right to decide which perons is credible. That should be a
> matter for the jury.

Once the case goes to trial, the determination of credibility for
consideration of guilt belongs not to the prosecutor. The determination
of credibility for purposes of conducting the state's part in a trial is
entirely within the prosecutor's purview. Nothing else will work under
our system of separation of powers, and as a practical matter, I don't
see how anything else can work at all.

> To decide not to prosecute based solely on the fact that it inconvienences
> him in a case is arbitrary and descriminates against persons,

It's "discriminates." And discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. Do
you understand that?

> denies justice to the community,

The legal system isn't about justice.

> and denys equal protection against victims of a crime.

There is no equal protection problem for the class of victims. Do you
understand why?

> Perjury is not necessarily a victimless crime. If you lie about someone
> assaulting you so that his life is messed up, then you are victimizing him.
> The state is also a victim in such crimes in spending all that time and
> expense for nothing. ANY witness to a crime should be taken seriously.

Perjury is most certainly a serious crime. No one is arguing otherwise.
But the defendant is not a witness to perjury just because he heard
something wrong given in testimony. Do you understand that yet?

>>> What if the
>>
>>> defendant climed he saw her conspiring with others to falsely accuse him?
>>
>>
>>
>> He wouldn't be allowed to bring it up in court unless he had
>>
>> particulars. Then he could ask the witness about his actions.
>
> He should be able to file a police report and have it processed like any
> other by the prosecutor.

He can, but it will be ignored, because he needs more than his presence
in the face of false testimony to show that he's seen a crime. Has this
sunk in yet? The defendant's remedy is to impeach the witness. If he
can't do that, then he my be wrongly convicted. That's a bad thing, so
that's why we have a Bill of Rights.

[deadrat]

Discrimination isn't necessarily illegal. Has this sunk in yet?

> and is a denial of equal protection

It is certainly not a denial of equal protection. If you can make a
case that it is, please do so by analyzing the classes of people treated
differently and the level of scrutiny that comes into play. If you
can't do that, then you probably think that equal protection means
treating everybody identically. If that's the case, tell me why I can't
collect veterans benefits even though I never served in the military.
The gov is treating me differently from veterans. Isn't that a form of
discrimination?

> and due process in and of itself.

You have no idea what due process is, now do you?

[deadrat]

On 5/22/13 11:48 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:32:56 AM UTC-4, Mike wrote:
>
>> Sure, prosecutors will give equal protection and due process after filing
>>
>> charges with the court. But not fiing charges based on who is testifying to
>>
>> a crime is a form of discrimination and is a denial of equal protection
>>
>> and due process in and of itself.
>
> So I wonder if you can file suit against a prosecutor, whether him personally
> or his office for discrimination for not filing charges with the court after
> receiving a police report for a crime to which you testify, like he would for
> anyone else?

Because you can't sue a state, you have to sue the prosecutor (or his
boss) as an individual in his capacity as an agent of the state. You
can't sue for damages: the only suits allowed are for injunctive relief
for a violation of your civil rights. But that's ineffective for a
completed harm. Generally speaking, no one has standing to sue an
official to force him to do anything over which he has discretion. For
those things that the law commands an official to do with no room for
judgment on his part, you may ask for a writ of mandamus. Obviously,
the prosecutor has discretion over whom to prosecute, so no one can
force him to change him mind about a nolle prosequi.

> If you could file suit against prosecution, would that force him
> off your case because that would prejudice him against your right?

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a trolley; it my aunt had balls,
she'd be my uncle.