self-incrimination
spiro
The Fifth Amendment states:
"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself"
Why is it that criminals are given what is in effect a legal
get-out-of-a-confession rule? After all, if they are in a position to
admit to a crime it is all more the reason to get them to confess,
isn't it?
And why is such a rule considered so important that it is part of the
US Constitution and is a basic rule of most Human Rights legislation?
Gordon Burditt
>
>"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
>against himself"
>
>Why is it that criminals are given what is in effect a legal
>get-out-of-a-confession rule?
When the confession is extracted by means such as sleep deprivation,
beatings, death threats, torture, etc. confessions by criminals
or non-criminals are pretty meaningless as an indicator of guilt.
For that matter, even completely unsolicited confessions to crimes
widely discussed in the news media is not much of an indicator of
guilt. Some people just like to confess.
>After all, if they are in a position to
>admit to a crime it is all more the reason to get them to confess,
>isn't it?
Yes, and I'm sure the police can get YOU to confess to the assassination
of President Abraham Lincoln within a week without a great deal of
effort (but possibly a great deal of pain for you). I'm fairly
sure you didn't do it, even if you do confess.
>And why is such a rule considered so important that it is part of the
>US Constitution and is a basic rule of most Human Rights legislation?
Think about the implications for the NON-criminals.
Gordon L. Burditt
Jon Beaver
wrote:
In plain English, the Constitution SAYS the government can't coerce a
confession. But it doesn't say in plain English what happens if the
government DOES it anyway. This leaves us with a dilemma -- pretend
the Constitution doesn't means what it says, or pretend, in a court of
law, that we didn't hear the coerced confession. The latter may not
be consistent with truth, but the former isn't consistent with the
Constitution. We have to pick one. The current state of the
decisions say that if the defendant's confession is not voluntary we
can't use it to convict him. The law was basically otherwise until
the 1950's. I wouldn't call it a "get-out-of-confession rule." I'd
call it an "exclusionary rule," like everybody else. But, hey, it's
your choice of words.
The other solution is to punish the cops if it turns out that,
legally, the cops went over the line. But where are you going to get
good cops if you do that?
- Jon Beaver
Larry
Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
Well, Jon, this is actually what I think the state of the law should be
- at least for bad faith violations of a suspect's constitutional
rights. Why let the criminal benefit because the cops screwed up? I
say, hold the criminal responsible for his crime AND punish the cops for
their wrongdoing.
Of course, if the confession was literally beaten or coerced out of the
defendant to the point that its reliability can be doubted, I say
exclude it. But there are plenty of confessions out there obtained in
violation of Miranda that even defense lawyers don't argue weren't
voluntarily given. In those cases, I say punish the guilty as well as
the cops.
nos...@isp.com
>> Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
>
>> * * * [T]he Constitution SAYS the government
>> can't coerce a confession. But it doesn't say in plain
>> English what happens if the government DOES it
>> anyway. * * * [One possible] solution is to punish
>> the cops if it turns out that, legally, the cops went
>> over the line. But where are you going to get good
>> cops if you do that?
>
> [ Assuming the facts of the case pose material doubts
> about the confession's unreliability, e.g., if it was beaten
> or otherwise coerced,] this is actually what I think the
> state of the law should be - at least for bad faith
> violations of a suspect's constitutional rights. Why let
> the criminal benefit because the cops screwed up? I
> say, hold the criminal responsible for his crime AND
> punish the cops for their wrongdoing.
Query whether what Larry says he thinks the law ought re. his "punish
the [wrongfully/unlawfully acting] cops" proposal above includes his
relatedly advocating the elimination of what he forgot to mention
above are common legislative provisions throughout the country that
require the state or municipality that employs a police officer sued
for police misconduct to pay for the police officer's defense and also
broadly to indemnify police officers from liability even when they are
sued personally in police misconduct litigation unless actual malice
or at least substantial recklessness is proven?
nos...@isp.com
missing "don't" re. what "Larry" said ]
On 18 Sep 2005, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> Jon Beaver <jbe...@NO.com> wrote:
>
>> * * * [T]he Constitution SAYS the government
>> can't coerce a confession. But it doesn't say in plain
>> English what happens if the government DOES it
>> anyway. * * * [One possible] solution is to punish
>> the cops if it turns out that, legally, the cops went
>> over the line. But where are you going to get good
>> cops if you do that?
>
> [Assuming the facts of the case don't pose material
> doubts about the confession's unreliability, e.g., if it
> was beaten or otherwise coerced,] this is actually what
> I think the state of the law should be - at least for
> bad faith violations of a suspect's constitutional rights.
> Why let the criminal benefit because the cops screwed
> up? I say, hold the criminal responsible for his crime
> AND punish the cops for their wrongdoing.
Query whether what Larry says he thinks the law ought re. his "punish
jgreimer
> - at least for bad faith violations of a suspect's constitutional
> rights. Why let the criminal benefit because the cops screwed up? I
> say, hold the criminal responsible for his crime AND punish the cops for
> their wrongdoing.
I used to think the same thing. But the problem is that the cops rarely get
punished. Who's going to punish them? Other cops? The cops are an
extension of the courts so even the courts are reluctant to punish cops.
> Of course, if the confession was literally beaten or coerced out of the
> defendant to the point that its reliability can be doubted, I say
> exclude it. But there are plenty of confessions out there obtained in
> violation of Miranda that even defense lawyers don't argue weren't
> voluntarily given. In those cases, I say punish the guilty as well as
> the cops.
I think you've got a good point there. Some lawyers don't try quite as hard
when they know their client is guilty. However if I were a lawyer, which
I'm not, I still would put out more effort for a guilty client who I felt
had his confession extracted illegally than for a guilty one with whom the
police followed all the rules.
Elmo
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-369B21.21...@news1.west.earthlink.net...
How do you purport to determine who "the guilty" is? Obviously here
there is a conflict between the police and the accused and you have
words from "the man with the badge and the gun"... whom we all
know differ from convicts only by 'the wall' and nothing more.
RHR
wrote:
>Some lawyers don't try quite as hard
>when they know their client is guilty.
Bwaaahaaaaheeeeee. Getting guilty guys off is where the money is.
That is why you have frauds like Scheck and Neufeld setting up an
"Innocence Project" to get poor not guilty people off so they can get
leverage for their efforts to help rich guilty clients escape justice.
RHR
Larry
wrote:
If the officer is acting in good faith, I think immunity should apply.
If the officer is acting contrary to clearly-established law, outside
his authority, or in bad faith, I think he should be on the hook himself
for all expenses and consequences of his actions.
Ken Smith
That rule should apply to judges, as well -- and it would, but for
the pandemic of corruption in our courtrooms.
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > If the officer is acting in good faith, I think immunity should apply.
> > If the officer is acting contrary to clearly-established law, outside
> > his authority, or in bad faith, I think he should be on the hook himself
> > for all expenses and consequences of his actions.
>
> That rule should apply to judges, as well -- and it would, but for
> the pandemic of corruption in our courtrooms.
Quit whining, Ken. You're still not a lawyer.
Ken Smith
When injustice happens to others, it's no big thing ... but listen to
the Jews squeal about the "holocaust!" Sixty years later, they *still*
whine like stuck pigs. If G-d has any decency, it will happen again --
and it will happen to *you* personally.
I'll sit back, throw another steak on the barbie, and remind you that
you *earned* it.
Gordon Burditt
>> the [wrongfully/unlawfully acting] cops" proposal above includes his
>> relatedly advocating the elimination of what he forgot to mention
>> above are common legislative provisions throughout the country that
>> require the state or municipality that employs a police officer sued
>> for police misconduct to pay for the police officer's defense and also
>> broadly to indemnify police officers from liability even when they are
>> sued personally in police misconduct litigation unless actual malice
>> or at least substantial recklessness is proven?
>
>If the officer is acting in good faith, I think immunity should apply.
>If the officer is acting contrary to clearly-established law, outside
>his authority, or in bad faith, I think he should be on the hook himself
>for all expenses and consequences of his actions.
And who enforces that law?
Gordon L. Burditt
Larry
You're pathetic. And have numerous psychological problems.
Larry
gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
Well, it depends if you think this should be a civil or criminal action.
If we're talking about the defendant/accused getting compensation for
what occurred, it would be a civil lawsuit.
Ken Smith
Coming from our resident Woody Allen, that's rich.
Larry
You're not referring to my sense of humor, are you?
Besides, Ken. The only injustice would be what would happen to your
"clients" if you actually were a practicing lawyer.
Ken Smith
No. I'm referring to your *obvious* neuroses, so common to New York
Jews that Woody Allen has been able to make a career out of making fun
of them.
Ken Smith
> Besides, Ken. The only injustice would be what would happen to your
> "clients" if you actually were a practicing lawyer.
Based on what? That I maintain that Israel is a parasite which
should be cut off immediately? We've already *seen* the underhanded
tactics you employ in the courtroom to persecute people who don't agree
with you....
You have already *PROVEN* that you are a menace to society in your
capacity as an advocate for the People, committing the *PRECISE* moral
offense the Illinois Bar FEARED Matthew Hale *might* commit, if he were
granted a license to practice.
You, Sir, *ARE* a clear and present danger with a law license. You
abused your office by attempting to persecute Americans who protested
our insane policy regarding Palestine -- BECAUSE YOU'RE JEWISH, AND SO
WAS THE JUDGE. Wasn't he on some Holocaust Committee, Lar?
Fortunately, the Court of Appeals absolutely SLAPPED *YOU* SILLY! It
wasn't even close, Glasser.
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/appeals/decisions/jul05/113opn05.pdf
See http://www.m26.org/ for more about the adventures of Larry
"Israel uber Alles" Glasser and the crooked Jewish judge.
Larry
Oh, I get it, it was about Woody Allen and I both being *Jewish*.* Of
course I should have known that's what you meant.
Since you've failed as a lawyer, you've now become an armchair shrink?
You can diagnose me as having "neuroses"? I assume this is your opinion
of me individually, not simply based on my religion, so I'm
half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this "diagnosis."
And you're still pathetic. Thank goodness for any of your putative
"clients" that you're not a lawyer! You think a "decent" God will cause
another Holocaust, an event which every world leader and leader of every
religion in the world has universally condemned many times over. Sick,
Ken, sick. Get help.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:32:03 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >> Coming from our resident Woody Allen, that's rich.
> >
> >You're not referring to my sense of humor, are you?
> >
> >Besides, Ken. The only injustice would be what would happen to your
> >"clients" if you actually were a practicing lawyer.
>
> Based on my interactions with Ken, I would be happy to have
> him as my attorney. He's true to his beliefs, he has more integrity
> than a stadium full of Promise Keepers, and he doesn't give up without
> one heck of a fight. Seems to me he'd be someone I'd want on my side
> in court. Of course, YMMV.
And you agree with his views that there should be another Holocaust, and
any Jewish party to a lawsuit should automatically lose?
tjab
I could be remembering wrong, but isn't depriving someone of his/her Constitutional
rights under color of authority a federal crime?
Ken Smith
[snip]
>>>>>>>>>If the officer is acting in good faith, I think immunity should apply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If the officer is acting contrary to clearly-established law, outside
>>>>>>>>>his authority, or in bad faith, I think he should be on the hook
>>>>>>>>>himself
>>>>>>>>>for all expenses and consequences of his actions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That rule should apply to judges, as well -- and it would, but for
>>>>>>>>the pandemic of corruption in our courtrooms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Quit whining, Ken. You're still not a lawyer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When injustice happens to others, it's no big thing ... but listen to
>>>>>>the Jews squeal about the "holocaust!" Sixty years later, they *still*
>>>>>>whine like stuck pigs. If G-d has any decency, it will happen again --
>>>>>>and it will happen to *you* personally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll sit back, throw another steak on the barbie, and remind you that
>>>>>>you *earned* it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're pathetic. And have numerous psychological problems.
>>>>
>>>> Coming from our resident Woody Allen, that's rich.
>>>
>>>You're not referring to my sense of humor, are you?
>>
>> No. I'm referring to your *obvious* neuroses, so common to New York
>>Jews that Woody Allen has been able to make a career out of making fun
>>of them.
>
> Oh, I get it, it was about Woody Allen and I both being *Jewish*.*
No, it's about you and Woody Allen obviously being *neurotic* Jews, a
condition so common that he made a career out of making fun of it. If a
stereotype has no basis in fact, the jokes surrounding it aren't funny.
For instance, consider a joke told by Robin Williams:
"Why are there no Jewish evangelists? If someone comes up to him and
says 'Oh! My leg! My leg!!!," the evangelist would respond: "Your leg?!?
MY KNEE!!!"
If this weren't true (older Jews often tend to volunteer details
about their ailments), it wouldn't be funny. And if a Gentile told that
joke, the B'nai Br'ith would be all over him like a cheap suit. :)
> Since you've failed as a lawyer,
How have I "failed as a lawyer?" If someone illegally denies you the
right to practice on apparent religious grounds, you can't practice, and
BY DEFINITION cannot "fail." You, otoh, have failed in your charge to
serve the people of New York and violated your oath of office, placing
your petty religious interests above the search for justice.
And you wonder why I hold you in such contempt, Lar?
> you've now become an armchair shrink?
Please state your professional expertise for the record, Perfesser
Quackenbush! IIRC, you have an undergrad at Northwestern, and a law
degree from GWU. Zero credibility.
> You can diagnose me as having "neuroses"? I assume this is your opinion
> of me individually, not simply based on my religion, so I'm
> half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this "diagnosis."
Why, your posts, of course.
And as my old college roommate would say, "To be Jewish IS to be
neurotic." :)
> And you're still pathetic. Thank goodness for any of your putative
> "clients" that you're not a lawyer!
I'm almost half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this opinion,
especially in light of your whackazoid view of the Bill of Rights and
your demonstrated professional misconduct (see attached). [I note for
the record which you have not responded to my comments regarding it, a
move which I actually consider wise, because you should be in a lot of
trouble.]
> You think a "decent" God will cause
> another Holocaust, an event which every world leader and leader of every
> religion in the world has universally condemned many times over. Sick,
> Ken, sick. Get help.
Why not? Your own holy book talks about how your ancestors COMMITTED
an act of genocide with your god's blessing. And how your fellow Jews
have treated the Palestinians, while hardly rising to the atrocity level
of Nazi Germany, is far from exemplary. Indeed, if Jews had lived up to
the standard of conduct in their holy book, they would have been hailed
and welcomed by their neighbors, for very good reasons.
The Holocaust has irrevocably changed the Jewish people, both for
very good and very bad. The enlightened Jew understands, as Dr Martin
Luther King did, that if there is injustice anywhere, it is a threat to
justice everywhere. The bad Jew (like Larry Glasser) has a chip on his
shoulder the size of Empire State Building, and no moral compunctions
whatsoever. And if *you* failed to learn the central lesson of the
Holocaust -- that *every* man has rights, which must be zealously
protected -- perhaps G-d would see fit to re-teach you that lesson.
(You've already failed it in the M26 incident.)
You think you have the moral right to taunt me? How you treat other
people matters, and it is people like you who will sow the seeds of the
next Holocaust.
Ken Smith
If you knowingly turn a blind eye to the injustice I have suffered --
or worse, have sought to compound it -- why shouldn't we be indifferent
to the suffering of your tribe? Who would care about a group of people
who consider themselves to be the Master Race and the rest of us, lower
life-forms? You are the kind of person who does wonders to destroy the
reputation of the Jewish people worldwide, as is evidenced by acts like
your persecution of the M26 demonstrators.
How you treat others matters, Lar. As Rabbi Hillel famously put it,
"what you find hateful to you, do not do to your fellow-man. That is
the Torah. All else is interpretation."
Ken Smith
Problem is, the government is loath to prosecute itself.
tjab
Ken Smith
Larry is praying that the Jewish good-old-boy network -- and it is an
amazingly strong one, especially in New York City! -- will protect him
from professional recrimination for his misconduct. And to be honest,
it almost certainly will, unless CAIR and the Muslim world decides to
make it a cause celebre.
Larry
wrote:
It is, but it's rarely prosecuted. And it requires intentional,
bad-faith deprevation of civil rights.
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <bigsi1l50bsb2tsi5...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:32:03 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Coming from our resident Woody Allen, that's rich.
> >>>
> >>>You're not referring to my sense of humor, are you?
> >>>
> >>>Besides, Ken. The only injustice would be what would happen to your
> >>>"clients" if you actually were a practicing lawyer.
> >>
> >> Based on my interactions with Ken, I would be happy to have
> >>him as my attorney. He's true to his beliefs, he has more integrity
> >>than a stadium full of Promise Keepers, and he doesn't give up without
> >>one heck of a fight. Seems to me he'd be someone I'd want on my side
> >>in court. Of course, YMMV.
> >
> > And you agree with his views that there should be another Holocaust, and
> > any Jewish party to a lawsuit should automatically lose?
>
> If you knowingly turn a blind eye to the injustice I have suffered --
> or worse, have sought to compound it -- why shouldn't we be indifferent
> to the suffering of your tribe?
I have not knowingly turned a blind eye to it. I have looked into it,
considered arguments on both sides, and have come to the conclusion, in
short, that they're right and you're wrong. You refuse to acknowledge
that any rational mind could come to this conclusion - despite the bar
examiners, multiple court decisions, and numerous people on this
newsgroup all doing so - and instead engage in bigoted, personal attacks.
Larry
wrote:
Oh please. I happen to think government officials - especially law
enforcement - should be held to a higher standard, and thus their
criminal actions are even more egregious than most others. I would
prosecute them much sooner than a private citizen.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When has he made this claim? Can you provide a Google link,
> or at least the MID for the post?
Earlier in this very thread, he said that any decent God would bring
another Holocaust to the world, and I would die in it.
Larry
If you are so certain I am this person, and that this person violated
any ethical or legal rules, make a report to the First Department of the
Appellate Division, New York State Unified Court System.
In other words, put up or shut up. You whine too much.
Ken Smith
Thank you for that incriminating admission, Larry. I'm sure the Bar,
CAIR, and other Muslims around the world will find it edifying.
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> > Since you've failed as a lawyer,
>
> How have I "failed as a lawyer?"
I should have said "failed in your quest to become a lawyer."
> If someone illegally denies you the
> right to practice on apparent religious grounds, you can't practice, and
> BY DEFINITION cannot "fail."
Nothing is illegal "BY DEFINITION" until a court of law rules it so. Do
you have such a court decision?
> You, otoh, have failed in your charge to
> serve the people of New York and violated your oath of office, placing
> your petty religious interests above the search for justice.
>
> And you wonder why I hold you in such contempt, Lar?
If you think I am the person you believe me to be, report me to the
state bar. Otherwise, shut up.
>
> > you've now become an armchair shrink?
>
> Please state your professional expertise for the record, Perfesser
> Quackenbush! IIRC, you have an undergrad at Northwestern, and a law
> degree from GWU. Zero credibility.
You can't even "recall" correctly - not that you even knew in the first
place - and I'm the one with no credibility?
> > You can diagnose me as having "neuroses"? I assume this is your opinion
> > of me individually, not simply based on my religion, so I'm
> > half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this "diagnosis."
>
> Why, your posts, of course.
>
> And as my old college roommate would say, "To be Jewish IS to be
> neurotic." :)
>
> > And you're still pathetic. Thank goodness for any of your putative
> > "clients" that you're not a lawyer!
>
> I'm almost half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this opinion,
> especially in light of your whackazoid view of the Bill of Rights and
> your demonstrated professional misconduct (see attached). [I note for
> the record which you have not responded to my comments regarding it, a
> move which I actually consider wise, because you should be in a lot of
> trouble.]
I'm not in any trouble, nor, as far as I can tell, is the prosecutor of
that case.
>
> > You think a "decent" God will cause
> > another Holocaust, an event which every world leader and leader of every
> > religion in the world has universally condemned many times over. Sick,
> > Ken, sick. Get help.
>
> Why not? Your own holy book talks about how your ancestors COMMITTED
> an act of genocide with your god's blessing. And how your fellow Jews
> have treated the Palestinians, while hardly rising to the atrocity level
> of Nazi Germany, is far from exemplary. Indeed, if Jews had lived up to
> the standard of conduct in their holy book, they would have been hailed
> and welcomed by their neighbors, for very good reasons.
>
> The Holocaust has irrevocably changed the Jewish people, both for
> very good and very bad. The enlightened Jew understands, as Dr Martin
> Luther King did, that if there is injustice anywhere, it is a threat to
> justice everywhere. The bad Jew (like Larry Glasser) has a chip on his
> shoulder the size of Empire State Building, and no moral compunctions
> whatsoever. And if *you* failed to learn the central lesson of the
> Holocaust -- that *every* man has rights, which must be zealously
> protected -- perhaps G-d would see fit to re-teach you that lesson.
> (You've already failed it in the M26 incident.)
>
> You think you have the moral right to taunt me? How you treat other
> people matters, and it is people like you who will sow the seeds of the
> next Holocaust.
Spoken like the school misfit who shoots up the building, then blames
his bullies for making him do it.
Ken Smith
Should I ever take the time to do so, and am able to bring this to
the attention of Muslims throughout the world, I just might take you up
on this, Lar. As for your being Larry Glasser, your disingenuous
denials notwithstanding, it is proven by your own admissions beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Larry
So report "me" to any of those organizations. Go ahead. Or shut up,
already.
Larry
"Take the time to do so"? It's a phone call. If you think I'm the
worst lawyer this side of Matthew Hale who deserves to die, do something
about it. As you say, turning a blind eye to injustice is itself a sin.
So do something, or shut up already. You've been whining about me for
YEARS already - and you've even constructed a profile of who you think I
am!
Ken Smith
> In article <432EE192...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>In article <bigsi1l50bsb2tsi5...@4ax.com>,
>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:32:03 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Coming from our resident Woody Allen, that's rich.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not referring to my sense of humor, are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Besides, Ken. The only injustice would be what would happen to your
>>>>>"clients" if you actually were a practicing lawyer.
>>>>
>>>> Based on my interactions with Ken, I would be happy to have
>>>>him as my attorney. He's true to his beliefs, he has more integrity
>>>>than a stadium full of Promise Keepers, and he doesn't give up without
>>>>one heck of a fight. Seems to me he'd be someone I'd want on my side
>>>>in court. Of course, YMMV.
>>>
>>>And you agree with his views that there should be another Holocaust, and
>>>any Jewish party to a lawsuit should automatically lose?
>>
>> If you knowingly turn a blind eye to the injustice I have suffered --
>>or worse, have sought to compound it -- why shouldn't we be indifferent
>>to the suffering of your tribe?
>
> I have not knowingly turned a blind eye to it. I have looked into it,
> considered arguments on both sides, and have come to the conclusion, in
> short, that they're right and you're wrong.
As if you could ever even *pretend* to be a neutral observer.
> You refuse to acknowledge
> that any rational mind could come to this conclusion
Not a rational mind but rather, a *rationalizing* one. When you
slant the facts and cook the books for your selfish personal reasons --
as you *clearly* have done here -- you can arrive at pretty much any
conclusion you want.
> - despite the bar
> examiners, multiple court decisions, and numerous people on this
> newsgroup all doing so -
It's the nature of USENET -- rather than examine the case fairly, you
and your pallies came into it with an agenda. I can persuade those who
have open minds, but in the case of courts that openly recognize the key
fact which indisputably refute their decisions, you can't say that they
are being honest and fair. I've challenged you repeatedly to find where
it states in Feldman that I wouldn't have standing in federal court to
challenge the facial constitutionality of the Colorado bar admission
statute, and you have repeatedly declined -- because you and I both know
that it isn't in there, and never was.
You are a liar, hypocrite, and professional whore, Glasser.
> and instead engage in bigoted, personal attacks.
You threw the first stone here, Lar. We were ignoring each other
just fine until then....
Larry
Why wouldn't I be neutral Ken? I have no horse in the race. I don't
give three cents over who is or isn't a lawyer in Colorado. And I
formed this opinion on the procedural history of your quest, before I
came to the conclusion that your present-day usenet posts were
reprehensible and disgusting.
>
> > You refuse to acknowledge
> > that any rational mind could come to this conclusion
>
> Not a rational mind but rather, a *rationalizing* one. When you
> slant the facts and cook the books for your selfish personal reasons --
> as you *clearly* have done here -- you can arrive at pretty much any
> conclusion you want.
Res ipsa loquitur. You refuse to acknowledge that any rational mind
could come to this conclusion. Even though multiple judges - both state
and federal - have done so already.
>
> > - despite the bar
> > examiners, multiple court decisions, and numerous people on this
> > newsgroup all doing so -
>
> It's the nature of USENET -- rather than examine the case fairly, you
> and your pallies came into it with an agenda.
What's my agenda?
> I can persuade those who
> have open minds, but in the case of courts that openly recognize the key
> fact which indisputably refute their decisions, you can't say that they
> are being honest and fair. I've challenged you repeatedly to find where
> it states in Feldman that I wouldn't have standing in federal court to
> challenge the facial constitutionality of the Colorado bar admission
> statute, and you have repeatedly declined -- because you and I both know
> that it isn't in there, and never was.
>
> You are a liar, hypocrite, and professional whore, Glasser.
Who?
Ken Smith
> In article <432EDF67...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>Since you've failed as a lawyer,
>>
>> How have I "failed as a lawyer?"
>
> I should have said "failed in your quest to become a lawyer."
>
>>If someone illegally denies you the
>>right to practice on apparent religious grounds, you can't practice, and
>>BY DEFINITION cannot "fail."
>
> Nothing is illegal "BY DEFINITION" until a court of law rules it so. Do
> you have such a court decision?
So, a rape isn't a rape until it is successfully prosecuted? Where
did you go to law school, Moronovich? The GW faculty must be hanging
their heads in shame....
>>You, otoh, have failed in your charge to
>>serve the people of New York and violated your oath of office, placing
>>your petty religious interests above the search for justice.
>>
>> And you wonder why I hold you in such contempt, Lar?
>
> If you think I am the person you believe me to be, report me to the
> state bar. Otherwise, shut up.
Why? I have the right to tell people what an unprincipled prick you
are, even though I suspect that the Jewish good-old-boy network will do
everything in its power to protect you. If you don't like it, sue me
for libel.
>>>you've now become an armchair shrink?
>>
>> Please state your professional expertise for the record, Perfesser
>>Quackenbush! IIRC, you have an undergrad at Northwestern, and a law
>>degree from GWU. Zero credibility.
>
> You can't even "recall" correctly - not that you even knew in the first
> place - and I'm the one with no credibility?
Asked and answered, Con-selor. I've presented the relevant evidence
on numerous occasions.
>>>You can diagnose me as having "neuroses"? I assume this is your opinion
>>>of me individually, not simply based on my religion, so I'm
>>>half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this "diagnosis."
>>
>> Why, your posts, of course.
>>
>> And as my old college roommate would say, "To be Jewish IS to be
>>neurotic." :)
>>
>>>And you're still pathetic. Thank goodness for any of your putative
>>>"clients" that you're not a lawyer!
>>
>> I'm almost half-heartedly curious as to what led you to this opinion,
>>especially in light of your whackazoid view of the Bill of Rights and
>>your demonstrated professional misconduct (see attached). [I note for
>>the record which you have not responded to my comments regarding it, a
>>move which I actually consider wise, because you should be in a lot of
>>trouble.]
>
> I'm not in any trouble, nor, as far as I can tell, is the prosecutor of
> that case.
Which is, of coruse, why you so desperately want me to not talk about
it, right?
>>>You think a "decent" God will cause
>>>another Holocaust, an event which every world leader and leader of every
>>>religion in the world has universally condemned many times over. Sick,
>>>Ken, sick. Get help.
>>
>> Why not? Your own holy book talks about how your ancestors COMMITTED
>>an act of genocide with your god's blessing. And how your fellow Jews
>>have treated the Palestinians, while hardly rising to the atrocity level
>>of Nazi Germany, is far from exemplary. Indeed, if Jews had lived up to
>>the standard of conduct in their holy book, they would have been hailed
>>and welcomed by their neighbors, for very good reasons.
>>
>> The Holocaust has irrevocably changed the Jewish people, both for
>>very good and very bad. The enlightened Jew understands, as Dr Martin
>>Luther King did, that if there is injustice anywhere, it is a threat to
>>justice everywhere. The bad Jew (like Larry Glasser) has a chip on his
>>shoulder the size of Empire State Building, and no moral compunctions
>>whatsoever. And if *you* failed to learn the central lesson of the
>>Holocaust -- that *every* man has rights, which must be zealously
>>protected -- perhaps G-d would see fit to re-teach you that lesson.
>>(You've already failed it in the M26 incident.)
>>
>> You think you have the moral right to taunt me? How you treat other
>>people matters, and it is people like you who will sow the seeds of the
>>next Holocaust.
>
> Spoken like the school misfit who shoots up the building, then blames
> his bullies for making him do it.
If you go about the business of injuring and oppressing others,
sooner or later, someone is going to push back.
Larry
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <432EDF67...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
> >>Larry wrote:
> >>
> >>>Since you've failed as a lawyer,
> >>
> >> How have I "failed as a lawyer?"
> >
> > I should have said "failed in your quest to become a lawyer."
> >
> >>If someone illegally denies you the
> >>right to practice on apparent religious grounds, you can't practice, and
> >>BY DEFINITION cannot "fail."
> >
> > Nothing is illegal "BY DEFINITION" until a court of law rules it so. Do
> > you have such a court decision?
>
> So, a rape isn't a rape until it is successfully prosecuted?
It may be a rape, but no one is the rapist until and unless they plead
guilty or are found guilty by a jury.
> Where
> did you go to law school, Moronovich? The GW faculty must be hanging
> their heads in shame....
>
> >>You, otoh, have failed in your charge to
> >>serve the people of New York and violated your oath of office, placing
> >>your petty religious interests above the search for justice.
> >>
> >> And you wonder why I hold you in such contempt, Lar?
> >
> > If you think I am the person you believe me to be, report me to the
> > state bar. Otherwise, shut up.
>
> Why? I have the right to tell people what an unprincipled prick you
> are, even though I suspect that the Jewish good-old-boy network will do
> everything in its power to protect you. If you don't like it, sue me
> for libel.
You're not worth the time a lawsuit would take. I only respond to your
moronic posts online for the entertainment value.
Talk about whatever you want. I've read the web site, and it sounds
like both the substantive crime committed by the defendants and the
procedural approaches of the prosecution raise interesting legal issues.
So what are you doing "pushing back"? I haven't done anything to injure
or oppress you. Yet you incessantly launch personal attacks against me,
all because I think the multiple courts that have reviewed your
bar-application fiasco have come down on the right side of the issue.
Ken Smith
You're so morally bankrupt, you won't even cop to being Larry
Glasser, despite the compelling evidence that you are. Aemelia Parker
did you in -- and there's plenty more hard evidence where that came
from. The very (rancid) flower of the legal profession....
[From Google -- record on file]
____________________________________________________________
Larry Jul 16 2002, 3:45 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.tv.law-and-order
From: c...@sdf.com (Larry) - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:41:56 -0400
Local: Tues, Jul 16 2002 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment 07/14 (spoilers)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
In article <9fq8juguncuanb4m0vo2oui3dh4b4lc...@4ax.com>, aemilia
<aemilia_par...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:20:19 -0400, c...@sdf.com (Larry) wrote:
>>What are you referring to when you say the defendant couldn't hear all of
>>the information? I saw the episode and thought some of the judge's
>>comments bordered on being inappropriate, but only his comments directed
>>towards the Depute DA.
>Not the defendant, the jury. The judge did not allow several witnesses
>that had forensic and police acquired and observed evidence because it
>would take too long.
Sorry, I misread your post. My mistake, but thanks for the explanation.
>>It may not be the case that double jeopardy would bar a retrial,
depending
>>on the outcome of the first case. There are limited circumstances under
>>which the government can appeal and a new trial granted, I believe.
>I think the guidelines for appeals from the prosecution are very very
>specific and it doesn't happen very often due to double jeopardy and
>not trying a defendant more than once unless new and extremely
>exculpatory evidence is discovered.
As a law school graduate (currently studying for the bar exam) I know the
federal rules of evidence do allow the judge pretty wide discretion in
setting the pace of trials, and eliminating witnesses whose testimony
would be unnecesasary, overkill, cumulative, etc, even if the side calling
those witnesses disagrees.
aemilia Jul 16 2002, 5:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.tv.law-and-order
From: aemilia <aemilia_par...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:23:17 GMT
Local: Tues, Jul 16 2002 5:23 pm
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment 07/14 (spoilers)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:41:56 -0400, c...@sdf.com (Larry) wrote:
>As a law school graduate (currently studying for the bar exam) I know the
>federal rules of evidence do allow the judge pretty wide discretion in
>setting the pace of trials, and eliminating witnesses whose testimony
>would be unnecesasary, overkill, cumulative, etc, even if the side calling
>those witnesses disagrees.
I defer to your greatness. I am finishing my BA then I'm off to law
school myself. Good luck on the bar.
aemilia
Larry Glasser Jul 16 2002, 7:43 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.tv.law-and-order
From: larr...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Glasser) - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:40:01 -0400
Local: Tues, Jul 16 2002 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: Crime and Punishment 07/14 (spoilers)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
In article <toa9juktd309751ro15cps4bmel9nki...@4ax.com>, aemilia
<aemilia_par...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:41:56 -0400, c...@sdf.com (Larry) wrote:
>>As a law school graduate (currently studying for the bar exam) I know the
>>federal rules of evidence do allow the judge pretty wide discretion in
>>setting the pace of trials, and eliminating witnesses whose testimony
>>would be unnecesasary, overkill, cumulative, etc, even if the side
calling
>>those witnesses disagrees.
>I defer to your greatness. I am finishing my BA then I'm off to law
>school myself. Good luck on the bar.
I wouldn't call it greatnes, but thank you. Best of luck to you too.
Ken Smith
It's a lot more than "a phone call" -- it requires organization of
and proper presentation of the documentation, a substantial portion of
which has been gathered and archived. If I am going to make the case,
it will be an air-tight one, and one that Muslim organizations will be
able to digest easily.
> If you think I'm the
> worst lawyer this side of Matthew Hale who deserves to die, do something
> about it. As you say, turning a blind eye to injustice is itself a sin.
> So do something, or shut up already. You've been whining about me for
> YEARS already - and you've even constructed a profile of who you think I
> am!
It is obvious that you are a congenital liar, and are trying your
best to distance yourself from the Larry Glasser who used his office in
an effort to persecute citizens with whom you disagree for religious
reasons, in clear violation of your oath of office. And if you are not
Larry Glasser, why *did* you answer Aemelia as if you were?
Come up with an explanation -- and it had better be a good one.
[from Google -- copy on file]
Ken Smith
Whenever you lie like this, Glasser, even in the face of the
evidence, it only diminishes your credibility even further.
Don't try giving me those baby blues, Glasser. You've been outed as
the pathetic liar you are.
[Again, from Google]
____________________________________________________________________
Ken Smith
> In article <432F5930...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>Larry wrote:
>>>In article <432EDF67...@it.com>, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>>>>Larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Since you've failed as a lawyer,
>>>>
>>>> How have I "failed as a lawyer?"
>>>
>>>I should have said "failed in your quest to become a lawyer."
>>>
>>>>If someone illegally denies you the
>>>>right to practice on apparent religious grounds, you can't practice, and
>>>>BY DEFINITION cannot "fail."
>>>
>>>Nothing is illegal "BY DEFINITION" until a court of law rules it so. Do
>>>you have such a court decision?
>>
>> So, a rape isn't a rape until it is successfully prosecuted?
>
> It may be a rape, but no one is the rapist until and unless they plead
> guilty or are found guilty by a jury.
The rape itself is still against the law, even if a corrupt, lying
prosecutor like you refuses to prosecute, Glasser.
tjab
First you seemed unsure as to whether interrogating someone illegally
"should" be the subject of a criminal action. When I pointed out
that depriving someone of their civil rights under color of authority
is a federal crime, you said that it is "rarely prosecuted as it requires
intentional, bad-faith deprevation of civil rights." It's not
clear what you would conside unintentional; certainly it's axiomatic
that ignorance of the law is no excuse, particularly on the part of
a police officer or prosecutor. Then you add the additional hurdle
of "bad faith." Until I hear from you some examples of a "good
faith" deprivation of civil rights, I can't help but suspect that
you're talking out of both sides of your mouth on this one.
nos...@isp.com
> * * * I pointed out that depriving someone
> of their civil rights under color of authority is
> a federal crime . . . .
This - that you now claim that you "pointed out" what you say above -
is not correct. What you actually said earlier in this thread is that
you did not know ("I could be remembering wrong") whether what you
here say is a crime and so - rather than "point[ing this] out" you
asked ("isn't depriving someone of his/her Constitutional rights under
color of authority a federal crime?"). And, as it happens, neither
your initial formulation of what you suppose to be a crime nor the one
above is a fair summary of the actual crime to which you refer (81
U.S.C. ยง 242) because, as the poster to whom you object pointed out,
correctly, the key element you forgot (or, if you prefer, were
"remembering wrong") was the "wilfully" one.
> [Another poster claimed] that it is "rarely prosecuted
> as it requires intentional, bad-faith deprevation of civil
> rights."
And he was essentially correct. See, Screws v. United States, 325
U.S. 91 (1945), and at lease some of its progeny - e.g.: United States
v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479
U.S. 1104 (1987); and United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, at 881 (9th
Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1094 (1994).
> It's not clear what [that poster] would consider
> unintentional; certainly it's axiomatic that
> ignorance of the law is no excuse, particularly
> on the part of a police officer or prosecutor.
Apart from and in addition to the also well-documented (and some might
claim nearly self-evident) fact that too many D.A.s' personal and
political reluctance criminally to prosecute police officers with whom
they must work on a more or less continual basis, the above cited
cases (and, again, many more could also be cited) illustrate and
underscore the corollary difficulty for prosecutors in proving both
the nature and degree of "wilfull[ness]" required by 18 U.S.C. ยง242
and "conspiracy" corollary (18 U.S.C. ยง 241).
> Then you add the additional hurdle of "bad faith."
Here, too, carefully read Screws and progeny of discussions of the
interplay between "bad faith" and "wilfully" in the context of 18
U.S.C. ยง242 prosecutions.
> Until I hear from you some examples of a "good
> faith" deprivation of civil rights, I can't help but
> suspect that you're talking out of both sides of
> your mouth on this one.
Even if you had not provided your own self-indictment of your lack of
intellectual grounding for these comments (i.e., that you opt to argue
on the basis of what it is you who says you "could be remembering
wrong"), what you here say you "can't help but suspect" is itself just
an empty if also too common example of arguing on the (non)basis of
the classic "Fallacy of Ignorance": the debater who says s/he does not
know and can't imagine s/he may not be correct in his or her
presuppositions and so, rather than verify, invokes that very avowed
lack of knowledge as the reason for choosing to "suspect" that, as
between the two, it his or her interlocutor who must be the one who is
incorrect.
Anyway, if you are intellectually serious about these issues, you will
read and think carefully about Screws and at least a fair sampling of
Screws' progeny in terms of what those decisions tell one about the
burdens placed on prosecutors faced with having to decide whether
criminally to prosecute law enforcement officers for "willfully"
violating the federal constitutional of persons in their custody or
with whom they otherwise dealt.
tjab
I'm surprised that such a learned person as yourself didn't point out the
most obvious loophole for police officers who might otherwise face 18-242
prosecutions, namely that it only applies to the deprivation of civil
rights for reasons of race. color, or national origin.
My basic point is this: that Larry's suggestion that illegally obtained
confessions should be allowed in court and that the jury should determine
whether they are reliable, and that recourse by the defendent should be
limited to civil action against the police, or criminal action should
some prosecutor make the unlikely decision to initiate it (I'm sure
Larry will correct me if I've mistated his position) runs counter to
the Constitution because as the Supreme Court has correctly observed, it
would not in the real world protect the Fifth Amendment rights of persons
interrogated by the police.
Jon Beaver
>In article <x-D4B727.17...@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>In article <11iresf...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>>
>>> >> Query whether what Larry says he thinks the law ought re. his "punish
>>> >> the [wrongfully/unlawfully acting] cops" proposal above includes his
>>> >> relatedly advocating the elimination of what he forgot to mention
>>> >> above are common legislative provisions throughout the country that
>>> >> require the state or municipality that employs a police officer sued
>>> >> for police misconduct to pay for the police officer's defense and also
>>> >> broadly to indemnify police officers from liability even when they are
>>> >> sued personally in police misconduct litigation unless actual malice
>>> >> or at least substantial recklessness is proven?
>>> >
>>> >If the officer is acting in good faith, I think immunity should apply.
>>> >If the officer is acting contrary to clearly-established law, outside
>>> >his authority, or in bad faith, I think he should be on the hook himself
>>> >for all expenses and consequences of his actions.
>>>
>>> And who enforces that law?
>>
>>Well, it depends if you think this should be a civil or criminal action.
>>If we're talking about the defendant/accused getting compensation for
>>what occurred, it would be a civil lawsuit.
>
>I could be remembering wrong, but isn't depriving someone of his/her Constitutional
>rights under color of authority a federal crime?
The Constitution doesn't guarantee a "correct" decision by a judge.
It guarantees due process. Elegant.
- Jon Beaver
Larry
wrote:
> In article <x-BEAA30.20...@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
Of course ignorance is no excuse. But hearings over whether admissions
by a defendant are admissible are routine pretrial proceedings in a
criminal case. And reasonable minds can disagree - perhaps, for
example, police considered it a situation where Miranda rights were not
required, but a judge disagrees, and therefore rules the statements are
inadmissible at trial. That doesn't necessarily mean the defendant's
rights were violated.
> Then you add the additional hurdle
> of "bad faith." Until I hear from you some examples of a "good
> faith" deprivation of civil rights, I can't help but suspect that
> you're talking out of both sides of your mouth on this one.
A good faith example would be when the police believe they are doing
something proper and lawful, but they aren't. This could be because of
a number of reasons - subsequent judicial review, a mistake of fact as
to the reality of the situation, etc.
Larry
> On 20 Sep 2005, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>
> > * * * I pointed out that depriving someone
> > of their civil rights under color of authority is
> > a federal crime . . . .
>
> This - that you now claim that you "pointed out" what you say above -
> is not correct. What you actually said earlier in this thread is that
> you did not know ("I could be remembering wrong") whether what you
> here say is a crime and so - rather than "point[ing this] out" you
> asked ("isn't depriving someone of his/her Constitutional rights under
> color of authority a federal crime?"). And, as it happens, neither
> your initial formulation of what you suppose to be a crime nor the one
> above is a fair summary of the actual crime to which you refer (81
> U.S.C. ยง 242) because, as the poster to whom you object pointed out,
> correctly, the key element you forgot (or, if you prefer, were
> "remembering wrong") was the "wilfully" one.
He may also be referring to Sec. 1983. (18 USC, I think)
>
> > [Another poster claimed] that it is "rarely prosecuted
> > as it requires intentional, bad-faith deprevation of civil
> > rights."
>
> And he was essentially correct. See, Screws v. United States, 325
> U.S. 91 (1945), and at lease some of its progeny - e.g.: United States
> v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479
> U.S. 1104 (1987); and United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, at 881 (9th
> Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1094 (1994).
The classic case is Bivens v. 6 Unnamed Federal Agents. I don't have
the cite offhand.
Larry
wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that such a learned person as yourself didn't point out the
> most obvious loophole for police officers who might otherwise face 18-242
> prosecutions, namely that it only applies to the deprivation of civil
> rights for reasons of race. color, or national origin.
>
> My basic point is this: that Larry's suggestion that illegally obtained
> confessions should be allowed in court and that the jury should determine
> whether they are reliable, and that recourse by the defendent should be
> limited to civil action against the police, or criminal action should
> some prosecutor make the unlikely decision to initiate it (I'm sure
> Larry will correct me if I've mistated his position) runs counter to
> the Constitution because as the Supreme Court has correctly observed, it
> would not in the real world protect the Fifth Amendment rights of persons
> interrogated by the police.
You've correctly re-stated my position, but your comment about the
Constitution is not entirely accurate.
Basically, the Constitution says that the police can't compel you to
incriminate yourself. There is no statement, however, of what the
remedy is for compelled self-incrimination. Since courts are not
legislatures, they cannot punish or prosecute any violation of this
amendment - but since they do have wide latitude to control their
courtrooms and what occurs during court proceedings, they have come up
with the exclusionary rule - they can't punish the cops or anyone else,
but they can preclude illegally-obtained statements from being used in
cases over which they preside.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <dgpfci$p...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>>
>> I'm surprised that such a learned person as yourself didn't point out the
>> most obvious loophole for police officers who might otherwise face 18-242
>> prosecutions, namely that it only applies to the deprivation of civil
>> rights for reasons of race. color, or national origin.
>>
>> My basic point is this: that Larry's suggestion that illegally obtained
>> confessions should be allowed in court and that the jury should determine
>> whether they are reliable, and that recourse by the defendent should be
>> limited to civil action against the police, or criminal action should
>> some prosecutor make the unlikely decision to initiate it (I'm sure
>> Larry will correct me if I've mistated his position) runs counter to
>> the Constitution because as the Supreme Court has correctly observed, it
>> would not in the real world protect the Fifth Amendment rights of persons
>> interrogated by the police.
>
>You've correctly re-stated my position, but your comment about the
>Constitution is not entirely accurate.
>
>Basically, the Constitution says that the police can't compel you to
>incriminate yourself.
Nor prosecutors, nor judges, nor Senators or Congressmen.
>There is no statement, however, of what the
>remedy is for compelled self-incrimination. Since courts are not
>legislatures, they cannot punish or prosecute any violation of this
>amendment - but since they do have wide latitude to control their
>courtrooms and what occurs during court proceedings, they have come up
>with the exclusionary rule - they can't punish the cops or anyone else,
>but they can preclude illegally-obtained statements from being used in
>cases over which they preside.
Not only *can* they preclude them, they *must* preclude them. If
they did not, they would themselves be complicit in a violation of
Constitutional rights. It both mystifies and disturbs me that you
don't seem to grasp that point.
Jon Beaver
Interesting. So you think the person whose LEGAL DUTY it is to decide
WHETHER OR NOT evidence is illegally obtained and whether it should be
excluded under the law should be PROSECUTED for a federal crime if
(s)he makes the "wrong" decision? You want the job?
- Jon Beaver
tjab
nos...@isp.com
> [T]he most obvious loophole for police officers who
> might otherwise face 18-242 prosecutions . . . [is]
> that it only applies to the deprivation of civil rights
> for reasons of race. color, or national origin.
This is not correct. Reread 18 U.S.C. ยง 242 but this time carefully
so as not (as you do above) to conflate as if one what are its several
different provisions. Nonetheless, neither this statute nor past or
the likelihood of future prosecutions thereunder sufficiently address
and provide a remedy for police and other law enforcement officers'
misconduct amounting to a deprivation of their target's/victim's
federal constitutional or other federally secured rights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Larry
wrote:
> In article <x-413334.21...@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >In article <dgpfci$p...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm surprised that such a learned person as yourself didn't point out the
> >> most obvious loophole for police officers who might otherwise face 18-242
> >> prosecutions, namely that it only applies to the deprivation of civil
> >> rights for reasons of race. color, or national origin.
> >>
> >> My basic point is this: that Larry's suggestion that illegally obtained
> >> confessions should be allowed in court and that the jury should determine
> >> whether they are reliable, and that recourse by the defendent should be
> >> limited to civil action against the police, or criminal action should
> >> some prosecutor make the unlikely decision to initiate it (I'm sure
> >> Larry will correct me if I've mistated his position) runs counter to
> >> the Constitution because as the Supreme Court has correctly observed, it
> >> would not in the real world protect the Fifth Amendment rights of persons
> >> interrogated by the police.
> >
> >You've correctly re-stated my position, but your comment about the
> >Constitution is not entirely accurate.
> >
> >Basically, the Constitution says that the police can't compel you to
> >incriminate yourself.
>
> Nor prosecutors, nor judges, nor Senators or Congressmen.
Right. The government.
>
> >There is no statement, however, of what the
> >remedy is for compelled self-incrimination. Since courts are not
> >legislatures, they cannot punish or prosecute any violation of this
> >amendment - but since they do have wide latitude to control their
> >courtrooms and what occurs during court proceedings, they have come up
> >with the exclusionary rule - they can't punish the cops or anyone else,
> >but they can preclude illegally-obtained statements from being used in
> >cases over which they preside.
>
> Not only *can* they preclude them, they *must* preclude them. If
> they did not, they would themselves be complicit in a violation of
> Constitutional rights. It both mystifies and disturbs me that you
> don't seem to grasp that point.
Not only do I grasp the point, it *is* my point! To avoid complicity,
courts prohibit the admission into evidence of a statement obtained in
violation of someone's rights.
tjab
So how do you square that with your suggestion that illegally obtained
confessions be allowed in court?
Larry
wrote:
Because if the court was so otherwise sanction the wrongdoer - whether
it be civil, criminal, administrative, or via another mechanism, it is
not complacent in or furthering the constitutional violation, as there
has already been conseuqences imposed for the error.
tjab
I guess you don't grasp the point after all. The purpose of the exclusionary
rule is not to sanction the police. It is the court system's refusal to be
a participant in the violation of Constitutional rights. Sanctions do not lessen
a court's complicity if it lets evidence obtained in violation of the Fifth
or any other amendment go before a jury.
Jon Beaver
You need to READ the cases. There are several rationales for the
exclusionary rule. In fact, there are many exclusionary rules.
That's why exclusion depends on the facts of the case. It's not a
matter of just figuring out if the evidence was "illegally obtained,"
then applying a one-size-fits-all rule. You'd think there'd be a
different treatment for tortured confession than for asking a casual
question of a person in custody which produces an incriminating
answer. And there is.
- Jon Beaver
Larry
tjab
Larry
wrote:
Exactly what Jon said.
There is a difference in a tortured confession and a situation where a
court later, in hindsight, determines that procedural safeguards or
requirements like Miranda warnings should have been administered, but
weren't. The exclusionary rule is not the one-and-only,
end-all-and-be-all result of (or remedy for) any/all police misconduct.
Jon Beaver
Exactly that your critique of "THE purpose of THE exclusionary rule"
is misinformed.
- Jon Beaver