Marine Sues Murtha For Defamation
Spread Eagle®
Congressman Discussed Killings Involving Serviceman's Squad in Haditha,
Iraq
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A05
A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two
dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal
court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed
him when the congressman made public comments about the incident
earlier this year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101345.html
Spread Eagle®
Go Diana!
Don Homuth
<red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
accrue from it.
That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
none
at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
about Bush and Cheney!
Jack Linthicum
I hope you read more than the first paragraph because the guy has some
problems.
"In the court filing, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments
after being briefed by Defense Department officials who "deliberately
provided him with inaccurate and false information."
Zaid said the filing is designed partly to force Murtha to disclose
what information he received from the Defense Department and the Marine
Corps commandant to form his opinion..
Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a
libel expert, said yesterday that Wuterich would have the burden of
proving that he is innocent and that Murtha's statements were false,
but he added that the quotations appear to be actionable in court.
He has to find out who told Murtha what and what the truth is and was.
Lots of luck little fella we haven't had a straight word from the
Pentagon for many years.
Don Homuth
<red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
Here's a summation of the defense against any defamation lawsuit:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060802-0716-hadithainvestigation.html
By Robert Burns
ASSOCIATED PRESS
7:16 a.m. August 2, 2006
WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha
supports accusations that Marines from Camp Pendleton, Calif.,
deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children,
a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed
their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to
probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence
and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two
Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.
The decision on whether to press criminal charges ultimately will be
made by the commander of the accused Marines' parent unit, the 1st
Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton. That currently is Lt.
Gen. John Sattler, but he is scheduled to move to a Pentagon
assignment soon; his successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
The Marines initially reported after the Nov. 19, 2005, killings that
15 Iraqi civilians at Haditha had been killed by a makeshift roadside
bomb and in crossfire between Marines and insurgent attackers. Based
on accounts from survivors and human rights groups, Time magazine
first reported in March that the killings were deliberate acts by the
Marines.
A criminal investigation was then ordered by the top Marine commander
in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer.
A parallel investigation is examining whether officers in the Marines'
chain of command tried to cover up the events.
Public attention on the case grew after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a
former Marine, asserted publicly on May 17 that he had learned from
Marine Corps officials that innocent Iraqis had been killed “in cold
blood.”
Lawyers for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, one of the accused Marines,
argue in a lawsuit to be filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha
falsely accused Wuterich of murder and war crimes. The suit maintains
that Pentagon officials “who have briefed or leaked information to Mr.
Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false
information” and that the congressman subsequently “has made repeated
statements .... that are defamatory” to Wuterich and his fellow
Marines.
Chas Hurst
"Spread Eagle®" <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
news:1154529148.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
This just in from the AP
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687/
WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha
supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians,
Vince
Actually its interesting, since the plaintiff, who could be the
defendant in a criminal case has now waived any right to refuse to
testify in the civil case
Vince
lein
How is that germaine?
ef_hutterite
ef_hutterite
Or Ford, or Carter, or Bush 1, or KEnnedy....
Vince
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>
>"Spread EagleŽ" <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
>news:1154529148.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> Marine Names Murtha in Defamation Suit
>> Congressman Discussed Killings Involving Serviceman's Squad in Haditha,
>> Iraq
>>
>> By Josh White
>> Washington Post Staff Writer
>> Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A05
>>
>> A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two
>> dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal
>> court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed
>> him when the congressman made public comments about the incident
>> earlier this year.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101345.html
>
>This just in from the AP
Can't wait to crow about anything bad regarding our troops can you
traitor?
Don Homuth
<efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>Can't wait to crow about anything bad regarding our troops can you
>traitor?
Truth is just Truth.
You can't have opinions about Truth.
(Peter Schickele, Prof Emeritus of Musicology at the University of
Southern North Dakota at Hoople)
That's the report.
You don't happen to like it.
Deal with it.
Charlie Wolf
necessarily what it might seem on the outside. I have no doubt that
there are legal strategies involved in this suit.
But Murtha is still a "former Marine" and a douchebag.
Regards,
On 2 Aug 2006 08:21:37 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Charlie Wolf
Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
I seem to recall that Ted "Can't Drive A Whore Across the Bridge"
Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
serve. What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
Regards,
ef_hutterite
ROTFLMAO!
Bring me the Bell Jar!!!!
Vince
Ted Kennedy was born in 1932 He served in the army in 51-52
Vince
ray o'hara
"Spread Eagle®" <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote in message
news:1154529148.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
never sue for defamation lest you prove your accuser right.
Vince
Oh, and Mary Jo Kopechne was not a "whore" She was trained as a teacher
and was one of 6 very talented "boiler room girls" the other 5 have had
distinguished careers.
Boiler Room Girls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Boiler Room Girls" were the female members of Senator Robert F.
Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign staff. Six of them were:
* Rosemary "Cricket" Keough: is partner in a Lincoln, Massachusetts
law firm with husband Paul Redmond
* Mary Ellen Lyons and her sister Nance Lyons: both are practicing
lawyers in Boston
* Esther Newberg: is a New York literary agent
* Susan Tannenbaum: is a lobbyist for Common Cause in Washington,
D.C. and is married to a Washington lawyer
* Mary Jo Kopechne: died at age of 28 on Chappaquiddick Island in
1969 in an accident involving U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, who pled
guilty to leaving the scene of an accident
Vince
ray o'hara
"ef_hutterite" <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote in message
news:rll1d2l7n0lmu4pp2...@4ax.com...
ford,bush1 and jfk all had extensive service in ww 2 ,jfk and bush saw much
combat. kennedy had his boat sunk and bush was shor down.
carter served on subs in the cold war.
ray o'hara
"Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:v1s1d2pp1ti6o324o...@4ax.com...
your recall is wrong
ted served in the army in 51-53 he was elected to the senate in 62.
none
none
deferments.. f..i..v..e.. not one but five to get out of the draft!
so fuck you moron!
none
defamation..
Typical repug. brings up an issue that has nothing to do with the topic.
gatt
"Chas Hurst" <hur...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vo2dnX3_VeH0VU3Z...@comcast.com...
> WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha
> supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians,
> including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Well, that's kinda funny. I don't recall Murtha mentioning him by name...
-c
gatt
> Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
Do tell us in what branch Cheney served.
-c
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:19:45 -0600, ef_hutterite
><efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>
>>Can't wait to crow about anything bad regarding our troops can you
>>traitor?
>
>Truth is just Truth.
Motivation for dissemination and source chosen is just that - partisan
ire.
Chas Hurst
"gatt" <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:Hx8Ag.6928$Oh1...@news01.roc.ny...
I think the word funny has no place whatsoever in this discussion.
Don Homuth
<charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
Not the case, with either of them.
Jack Linthicum
You read "lawyer" "pentagon" and "truth" in the same thread and you
don't find it either funny peculiar or funny ha-ha? The guy just wants
to find out what the Marines and other top brass told him so they can
prepare a court defense. It's called "discovery"
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>
>"ef_hutterite" <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote in message
>news:rll1d2l7n0lmu4pp2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>>
>> >Don Homuth wrote:
>> >> On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>> >> <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>> >>
>> >> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>> >> accrue from it.
>> >>
>> >> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>> >
>> >
>> >at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>> >about Bush and Cheney!
>>
>>
>> Or Ford, or Carter, or Bush 1, or KEnnedy....
>
>
>
>ford,bush1 and jfk all had extensive service in
VIETNAM?????
DUMBASS!
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>ted served in the army
... as what bartender at the officer's club?
Don Homuth
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The guy just wants
>to find out what the Marines and other top brass told him so they can
>prepare a court defense. It's called "discovery"
Discovery is a formal written request for the information. The
request is routinely granted. Information Not provided pursuant to
the request is usually not admissible in a court of law.
You don't need a civil suit to get it.
The civil suit is an attempt to throw some smoke, merely, and nothing
else.
ef_hutterite
>so fuck you moron!
ESAD pignut!
ef_hutterite
>Typical repug.
Assfuck lieberal.
Vince
There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
Vince
Don Homuth
Nonsense. That is certainly not the applicable rule in every state.
Nor does it appear to be the rule under the UCMJ and procedural rules
for courts martial either.
Don Homuth
>There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
http://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-131.pdf
The Oregon criminal discovery statutes expressly require both the
prosecution and the defense to furnish to each other the names and
addresses of persons intended to be called as witnesses at any stage
of the trial, as well as any written or recorded statements of the
witnesses or memoranda of any oral statements of such persons (except
the defendant).ORS 135.815(1), 135.835(1). The Oregon criminal
discovery statuteswere intended to eliminate “trials by ambush.” State
v. Dickerson, 36 OrApp 479, 485, 584 P2d 787 (1978). The ultimate aim
of reciproca lcriminal discovery statutes is to ensure that both sides
have access to al lthe facts, so that the jury can best determine
where the truth lies. Statev. Mai, 294 Or 269, 274, 656 P2d 315
(1982). The court in Dickerson,supra, 35 Or App at 486, quoted with
approval the commentary to the ABA standards on criminal discovery
stating: “Where life, liberty and protection of communities from crime
are the stakes, gamesmanship is out of place.”
Don Homuth
>There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
In courts martial, you are likewise wrong:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040510-0743.html
Q Is there a military equivalent to a discovery process for
collection of statements that could potentially be exculpatory, for
example, or to -- (audio break from source) -- that might be entered
by the prosecution? And if so, how long does that process typically
take? And then a follow-up question is, what is the procedure for
bringing in witnesses who are outside of the theater, such as military
officers who have since redeployed and gone back to their home bases?
Thanks.
U.S. MILITARY ATTORNEY: Absolutely there is discovery in the
military. We term our discovery process "open discovery." We
typically give discovery -- if you're on the prosecutor's side, give
discovery as soon as possible to the defense counsel. The defense
counsel has every right -- our discovery rules pretty much parallel
the federal rules of evidence, so they're entitled to the same amount.
Any statement that would be exculpatory, any statement that would aid
the defense or his attorney to present a defense in his behalf would
actually have to be handed over by the prosecuting attorneys if they
have it. And --
Q Time frame for doing that?
U.S. MILITARY ATTORNEY: It depends on the court-martial. I mean,
there's cases where you'll have little or no evidence, so it's very
easy to give it over. Then there's cases where, again, if it's -- you
know, depending on what type of case it is, there's a lot more
discovery that you would have to go through. So it really depends...
Any more interesting legal insights to share?
Don Homuth
>There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
And in Fact, in courts martial, the prosecutor in such cases has a
More affirmative duty wrt discovery than in civilian cases:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2002_May/ai_90309969/pg_2
The Brady rule attempts to ensure that defendants in the United States
receive fair trials. (13) Brady requires the government to disclose
favorable evidence, regardless of whether the defense has requested
it. (14) This requirement also imposes an affirmative duty on the
prosecutor to search for such evidence. (15)
Chas Hurst
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1154555202.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I would like to know who is paying for "the guy" to file this suit.
Jack Linthicum
There are people who have this kind of bug up their ass, they are
called Republicans, just like the guys who financed Santorum are
financing a Green Party candidate. It is called "shrewd politics". Once
McCain asked Bush in South Carolina about this kind of thing, saying
something like this is carrying politics too far. Bush response,
without Rove pulling his string, 'everything is politics.' The phone
banks in New Hampshire were "shrewd politics".
Big Mean Liberal
>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>> <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>
>>> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>> accrue from it.
>>>
>>> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>
>>
>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>about Bush and Cheney!
This just goes to show you what a bunch of morons the true believers really
are.
Cheney never served. He had a bunch of deferments that carried him untill he
was no longer elligible for the draft:
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried:
"On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting
married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr.
Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born."
This quote comes from a Saturday NYTimes article --
"Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign
Issue" -- discussing the lengths VP Dick Cheney went to in order to avoid
serving during the Viet Nam war.
It is apparent from the piece that Richard Cheney did everything humanly
possible -- short of fleeing to Canada -- to avoid military conscription: He
applied for and recieved 5 student deferments, a number described as
"incredible" by professor David Curry of the University of Missouri in St.
Louis. Curry has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book,
"Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender." The Times quotes
Mr. Curry as observing: "That's a lot of times for the draft board to say
O.K."
* Three weeks and a day after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed (giving
President Johnson unlimited military force in Vietnam), Cheney married Lynn
Cheney.
* Within a day or so of the end of deferment for "Married w/o children," Mr.
and Mrs. Cheney conceived their first child.
Here's the rest of Cheney's well timed actions:
In February 1962, when Mr. Cheney was classified as 1-A available for
service he was doing poorly at Yale. But the military was taking only older
men at that point, and like others who were in college at the time, Mr.
Cheney seemed to have little concern about being drafted.
In June, he left Yale. After returning home to Casper, a small city in
east-central Wyoming, he worked as a lineman for a power company.
At that point, the Vietnam War was still just a glimmer on the horizon. In
1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the fewest since 1949.
Mr. Cheney was eligible for the draft but, as he said during his
confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up because the Selective
Service System was taking only older men.
But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper
Community College in January 1963 he turned 22 that month and sought his
first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective
Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie,
he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.
On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which
allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military force in
Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.
Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He
sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed
to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.
In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men
drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in
1965 and 112,386 in 1964.
Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at
the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting
married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr.
Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his
wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the
"hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents.
It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the
draft.
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm
Don Homuth
>There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
Now then, if you want some Truly Bizarre takes on discover, evidence,
rules of procedure, due process et al, you could do a lot worse than
to read this:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4090511.html
Aug. 2, 2006, 5:55PM
Gonzales holds line on terror detainees
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants a new system for trying
terror suspects to let prosecutors withhold classified evidence from
the accused, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday, holding
to a hard line on detainee policy despite concerns by senators and
military lawyers.
"We must not share with captured terrorists the highly sensitive
intelligence that may be relevant to military commission proceedings,"
Gonzales told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Gonzales said detainee legislation also should permit hearsay and
coerced testimony, if deemed "reliable" by a judge. These approaches
are not permitted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ,
which is used for military courts-martial.
The administration's plans have sounded alarms in the military's legal
corps and on Capitol Hill, who say the UCMJ is a tried-and-true body
of law that is well-regarded around the world.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning,
prior to Gonzales' remarks, the services' Judge Advocate Generals said
they would not support passing a law that would bar defendants from
accessing evidence, which is considered a fundamental right in
civilian and military courts.
GOP senators who have been negotiating a final legislative proposal
with the administration said they, too, were unconvinced the
administration's position was sound.
"We haven't reached a final decision on how we're going to handle it,"
but it is important to have "this statute be able to survive any
subsequent federal court review process," said Sen. John W. Warner,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Lindsey Graham said he opposes withholding evidence because of
the dangerous precedent it sets.
"If the only way we can try this terrorist is to disclose classified
information, and we can't share it with the accused, I would argue,
don't do the trial. Just keep them. Because it could come back to
haunt us," said Graham, R-S.C.
Gonzales played down the effect of denying classified evidence to
terror suspects, telling lawmakers, "I think it would be an
extraordinary case where classified information would be used and
would not be provided to the accused."
Gonzales' testimony provided the latest details on how the
administration would retool the tribunals that President Bush
established in 2001 for trying terrorism detainees, a system that the
Supreme Court rejected in June. The Supreme Court ruled the tribunal
system was not authorized by Congress and violated international
treaty obligations on detainee treatment.
Bush officials have yet to unveil their legislative proposal, which is
still being examined by military lawyers.
Trial procedures, sentencing and appellate review rules would "largely
track" with courts-martial rules, Gonzales said. "At the same time,
the military commission procedures should be different from the
procedures used to try our own service members," he said.
Warner, R-Va., said he may convene hearings during the August
congressional recess so that the legislation can be finished by
September. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Wednesday
he expects a detainee bill to reach the floor in September.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would
oppose any legislation that would authorize the defense secretary,
instead of Congress, to determine what crimes may be tried by military
tribunals.
Steven Bradbury, the top legal adviser at the Justice Department,
confirmed the administration was considering granting the defense
secretary such authority but added: "I would not say that the
secretary of defense would be creating new crimes from whole cloth,
but rather ... recognizing offenses that exist under the laws of war
and providing for their prosecution in the military process."
At the Judiciary panel hearing, Specter said handing over control to
the administration would invite another challenge by the Supreme
Court. "Is there any reason we ought to follow that course that would
be risky at best?" Specter asked.
"That's certainly an avenue that's open to Congress and one you might
judge as appropriate," Bradbury replied.
Military lawyers testifying before the panel agreed with Specter that
Congress should make clear who should be tried by military commission.
They also said coerced statements should not be admissible in court.
___
ef_hutterite
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>they are called Republicans,
Is that a specific cite?
I hope you're not that dumb.
Vince
Note the "of the type you get in civil cases".
Im well aware of Roberts
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0109.htm
(note that the statements in Roberts are arguably dicta
see also
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2004Term/03-0093.htm
But it is still not the same type you get in civil cases
Vince
Vince
In civil cases you get despositions under oath
I wrote "of the type you get in civil cases"
Vince
gatt
"Big Mean Liberal" <ho...@herpator.com> wrote in message
news:12d2d55...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
>
> This just goes to show you what a bunch of morons the true believers
> really are.
LOL! Nowayman. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor AND the
Presidential Medal of Honor and he personally led the Marines out of the
ChoSahn and shot down six hunnert Japs and stormed the wall at Chapultapec
with a flamethrower between his teeth.
You shouldn't direspect the Sergeant General like that.
Some FUCKHEAD says he was a veteran, so it must be true.
-c
Vince
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:24:01 -0400, Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>> There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>> cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
>
> In courts martial, you are likewise wrong:
>
You don't get depositions in criminal cases. you do in civil cases.
Vince
Vince
Try getting a deposition of the witnesses in a criminal
case
You get documents in a criminal case. But you don't get to question the
witnesses.
Vince
Vince
before any criminal trial
Vince
Vince
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:24:01 -0400, Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>> There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>> cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
>
The key is not documents
It's depositions
You don't get depositions under the UCMJ]
Vince
aeffects
who is this right wing, tightass degenerate, wannabe-Vietnam Vet 'puke'?
Andrew Venor
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>
>>>On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>>><red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>
>>>Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>>accrue from it.
>>>
>>>That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>
>>
>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>about Bush and Cheney!
>
>
> Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
> serve. What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
> Regards,
>
After being expelled from Harvard for cheating on his Spanish final Ted
Kennedy served two years in the US Army from 1951-1953 at NATO
headquarters in Paris. So saying he avoided being assigned to serve in
Korea during that war would be a more accurate statement.
ALV
Don Homuth
This will not Be a civil case. It will be a criminal case.
The rules of Discovery will hold strictly. There is no need for a
civil case to "smoke out" evidence at all.
aeffects
Charlie Wolf wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
> >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
> >>
> >> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
> >> accrue from it.
> >>
> >> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
> >
> >
> >at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
> >about Bush and Cheney!
> Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
>
> I seem to recall that Ted "Can't Drive A Whore Across the Bridge"
> Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
> serve. What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
kennedy '51-52 USArmy -- you gonna step on your dick, take the golf
shoes off -- what a fuck'in maroon....
> Regards,
lein
Is Murtha being court martialed?
ef_hutterite
Who the fuck are YOU tightass???
lein
Not unusual, I've heard people call FDR a veteran.
ray o'hara
> >> >>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
> >> >> accrue from it.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
> >> >about Bush and Cheney!
> >>
> >>
> >> Or Ford, or Carter, or Bush 1, or KEnnedy....
> >
> >
> >
> >ford,bush1 and jfk all had extensive service in
>
> VIETNAM?????
>
> DUMBASS!
they served in their day,
SHITHEAD!!!
Vince
The defamation case gives him depositions
that is the whole point
Vince
ef_hutterite
Seems teddy would be more likely to...
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>
Precision, precision in terms is key.
ray o'hara
and you lack any.
you might as well attack george washington for not serving in viet nam .
but bish and cheney were the right age and they skipped out.
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>Ted
>Kennedy served two years in the US Army from 1951-1953 at NATO
>headquarters in Paris.
Is that what they call the Rue de Wineries?
ef_hutterite
wrote:
>
>"ef_hutterite" <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote in message
>news:poj2d2hcuh2noqivb...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:01:36 -0400, "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"ef_hutterite" <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote in message
>> >news:qb72d29vhngv7m4iq...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>> >> >> >> accrue from it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can
>say
>> >> >> >about Bush and Cheney!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or Ford, or Carter, or Bush 1, or KEnnedy....
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >ford,bush1 and jfk all had extensive service in
>> >>
>> >> VIETNAM?????
>> >>
>> >> DUMBASS!
>> >
>> > they served in their day,
>>
>>
>> Precision, precision in terms is key.
>
>
>and you lack any.
Oh I was right on it, you dummy.
>you might as well attack george washington for not serving in viet nam .
Or Ike for starting it...lol!
Ockham's Razor
Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> The defamation case gives him depositions
None pertinent that he could not have had in the criminal case.
>
> that is the whole point
The "point" is he is trying to get some pre-trial publicity that he is
being "rail-roaded" by prejudgment and hopes that he can influence the
criminal trial. A doubtful strategy in a military court martial.
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
Vince
> In article <F9udnSGMGOzE0EzZ...@comcast.com>,
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>
>> The defamation case gives him depositions
>
> None pertinent that he could not have had in the criminal case.
he gets none in the criminal case
none zero zip
>> that is the whole point
>
> The "point" is he is trying to get some pre-trial publicity that he is
> being "rail-roaded" by prejudgment and hopes that he can influence the
> criminal trial. A doubtful strategy in a military court martial.
this is also true
Vince
Ockham's Razor
Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> Ockham's Razor wrote:
> > In article <F9udnSGMGOzE0EzZ...@comcast.com>,
> > Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The defamation case gives him depositions
> >
> > None pertinent that he could not have had in the criminal case.
>
> he gets none in the criminal case
>
> none zero zip
If there are people who can provide pertinent defense argument they will
be allowed to testify. Including character witnesses. That testimony
will be a part of the record and can be used in any subsequent appeals.
He will get nothing better from a civil trial that will very likely go
nowhere.
And, you need to consider that everything Murtha has said has been
corroborated.
His position is about the same as the guy who sued Nike because he
thinks he looks like Jordan.
Vince
> In article <pdednSIy9LZP_0zZ...@comcast.com>,
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>>> In article <F9udnSGMGOzE0EzZ...@comcast.com>,
>>> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The defamation case gives him depositions
>>> None pertinent that he could not have had in the criminal case.
>> he gets none in the criminal case
>>
>> none zero zip
>
> If there are people who can provide pertinent defense argument they will
> be allowed to testify. Including character witnesses. That testimony
> will be a part of the record and can be used in any subsequent appeals.
> He will get nothing better from a civil trial that will very likely go
> nowhere.
He wants to question the navy investigators under oath, with no jury and
no judge.
he cant sue them because of inter service immunity, but suing a non
service perosn (he thinks) gives him the entree
> And, you need to consider that everything Murtha has said has been
> corroborated.
>
> His position is about the same as the guy who sued Nike because he
> thinks he looks like Jordan.
he will lose but it's clear what he wants.
Vince
lein
You'll need to get a crowbar and some wd-40. Once Don gets stuck off
topic, it's hard to get him back.
Whitey
<charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>>> <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>
>>> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>> accrue from it.
>>>
>>> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>
>>
>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>about Bush and Cheney!
>Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
>
>I seem to recall that Ted "Can't Drive A Whore Across the Bridge"
>Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
>serve. What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
>Regards,
That's offensive. Mary Jo Kopechne was not a whore. Kennedy is.
ef_hutterite
<Chuckle>
Don Homuth
>The defamation case gives him depositions
>
>that is the whole point
It's hardly a Point worth bothering with. Each side in a criminal
case calls its own witnesses, who testify under oath as to what they
know. Then the other side gets to question them in turn.
The entire court proceeding acts as one huge deposition. Having
depositions before the fact is unnecessary.
Bill Shatzer
> But Murtha is still a "former Marine" and a douchebag.
> Regards,
Murtha is a former Marine and a decorated combat veteran.
Which is more than you'll ever be.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>>On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>>><red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>>Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>>accrue from it.
>>>That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>about Bush and Cheney!
> Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
Hey fuckhead, Cheney is a veteran of just what? The West Texas Quail and
Lawyer Hunting Society?
Cheney is rather notorious for having "other priorities" and never wore
a uniform a day in his life.
And the dubya's ANG service doesn't qualify him as a veteran either - at
least as far as the government is concerned. Veterans need to have
served on active duty and ANG types don't qualify UNLESS they were
activated for federal service which the dubya never was.
> I seem to recall that Ted "Can't Drive A Whore Across the Bridge"
> Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
> serve.
Your recollection of Kennedy is 'bout on par with your recollection of
Dick "military hero" Cheney. Which is to say, you're brain dead.
Kennedy served in the US Army on active duty from 1951-53. His military
obligation was completed long before the Vietnam years.
And, when the Vietnam conflict heated up in 1963, Kennedy was 31 years
old - well past the maximum draft age of 26.
What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
He served. Honorably by all accounts
Which is more than can be said of Dead-Eye Dick.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
> "ef_hutterite" <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote in message
> news:rll1d2l7n0lmu4pp2...@4ax.com...
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>>>On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>>>><red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>>>Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>>Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>>>accrue from it.
>>>>That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>>about Bush and Cheney!
>>Or Ford, or Carter, or Bush 1, or KEnnedy....
> ford,bush1 and jfk all had extensive service in ww 2 ,jfk and bush saw much
> combat. kennedy had his boat sunk and bush was shor down.
> carter served on subs in the cold war.
Ford's combat experience is less publicized (and less decorated) than
Kennedy's or Bush I's but he did see considerable combat during WW2 as
gunnery officer on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey.
Peace and justice,
Lobby Dosser
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:12:01 -0700, none <""otto_c\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
>>> <red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
>>>
>>> Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
>>> accrue from it.
>>>
>>> That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
>>
>>
>>at least Murtha served in Vietnam. Hell that's a lot more you can say
>>about Bush and Cheney!
> Hey fuckhead - both GWB and Cheney are veterans.
>
> I seem to recall that Ted "Can't Drive A Whore Across the Bridge"
> Kennedy was draft age eligible during the Vietnam years and didn't
> serve. What's your opinion about ol' Teddy?
> Regards,
>
You might want to revisit that GW was in the TANG and is therefore not
considered a Veteran. Cheney had "Other Priorities".
Lobby Dosser
So would saying he was smart if he had anything to do with said
avoidance.
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:19:45 -0600, ef_hutterite
> <efhut...@montanan.org> wrote:
>
>>Can't wait to crow about anything bad regarding our troops can you
>>traitor?
>
> Truth is just Truth.
Which does not address his comment.
Lobby Dosser
> On 2 Aug 2006 14:46:42 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> The guy just wants
>>to find out what the Marines and other top brass told him so they can
>>prepare a court defense. It's called "discovery"
>
> Discovery is a formal written request for the information. The
> request is routinely granted. Information Not provided pursuant to
> the request is usually not admissible in a court of law.
>
> You don't need a civil suit to get it.
>
> The civil suit is an attempt to throw some smoke, merely, and nothing
> else.
>
And everyone should pay attention. There are two areas where Homuth has
undeniable expertise: Gassbagery and Smoke and Mirrors.
Lobby Dosser
I spoke too soon. Maybe you're not as good at Smoke and Mirrors as I
thought. Oh well, you can always fall back on Gasbaggery.
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
Don Homuth <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:24:01 -0400, Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
>>There is no discovery in criminal cases of the type you get in civil
>>cases. you file the civil case to smoke out the evidence
>
> Now then, if you want some Truly Bizarre takes on discover, evidence,
> rules of procedure, due process et al, you could do a lot worse than
> to read this:
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4090511.html
>
> Aug. 2, 2006, 5:55PM
> Gonzales holds line on terror detainees
>
>
> By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
> © 2006 The Associated Press
>
> WASHINGTON — The Bush administration wants a new system for trying
> terror suspects to let prosecutors withhold classified evidence from
> the accused, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday, holding
> to a hard line on detainee policy despite concerns by senators and
> military lawyers.
>
> "We must not share with captured terrorists the highly sensitive
> intelligence that may be relevant to military commission proceedings,"
> Gonzales told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
>
> Gonzales said detainee legislation also should permit hearsay and
> coerced testimony, if deemed "reliable" by a judge. These approaches
> are not permitted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ,
> which is used for military courts-martial.
>
> The administration's plans have sounded alarms in the military's legal
> corps and on Capitol Hill, who say the UCMJ is a tried-and-true body
> of law that is well-regarded around the world.
>
> Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning,
> prior to Gonzales' remarks, the services' Judge Advocate Generals said
> they would not support passing a law that would bar defendants from
> accessing evidence, which is considered a fundamental right in
> civilian and military courts.
>
> GOP senators who have been negotiating a final legislative proposal
> with the administration said they, too, were unconvinced the
> administration's position was sound.
>
> "We haven't reached a final decision on how we're going to handle it,"
> but it is important to have "this statute be able to survive any
> subsequent federal court review process," said Sen. John W. Warner,
> chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
>
> Sen. Lindsey Graham said he opposes withholding evidence because of
> the dangerous precedent it sets.
>
> "If the only way we can try this terrorist is to disclose classified
> information, and we can't share it with the accused, I would argue,
> don't do the trial. Just keep them. Because it could come back to
> haunt us," said Graham, R-S.C.
>
> Gonzales played down the effect of denying classified evidence to
> terror suspects, telling lawmakers, "I think it would be an
> extraordinary case where classified information would be used and
> would not be provided to the accused."
>
> Gonzales' testimony provided the latest details on how the
> administration would retool the tribunals that President Bush
> established in 2001 for trying terrorism detainees, a system that the
> Supreme Court rejected in June. The Supreme Court ruled the tribunal
> system was not authorized by Congress and violated international
> treaty obligations on detainee treatment.
>
> Bush officials have yet to unveil their legislative proposal, which is
> still being examined by military lawyers.
>
> Trial procedures, sentencing and appellate review rules would "largely
> track" with courts-martial rules, Gonzales said. "At the same time,
> the military commission procedures should be different from the
> procedures used to try our own service members," he said.
>
> Warner, R-Va., said he may convene hearings during the August
> congressional recess so that the legislation can be finished by
> September. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Wednesday
> he expects a detainee bill to reach the floor in September.
>
> Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would
> oppose any legislation that would authorize the defense secretary,
> instead of Congress, to determine what crimes may be tried by military
> tribunals.
>
> Steven Bradbury, the top legal adviser at the Justice Department,
> confirmed the administration was considering granting the defense
> secretary such authority but added: "I would not say that the
> secretary of defense would be creating new crimes from whole cloth,
> but rather ... recognizing offenses that exist under the laws of war
> and providing for their prosecution in the military process."
>
> At the Judiciary panel hearing, Specter said handing over control to
> the administration would invite another challenge by the Supreme
> Court. "Is there any reason we ought to follow that course that would
> be risky at best?" Specter asked.
>
> "That's certainly an avenue that's open to Congress and one you might
> judge as appropriate," Bradbury replied.
>
> Military lawyers testifying before the panel agreed with Specter that
> Congress should make clear who should be tried by military commission.
> They also said coerced statements should not be admissible in court.
>
> ___
>
>
Jack Linthicum
ef_hutterite wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2006 15:50:49 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >they are called Republicans,
>
> Is that a specific cite?
>
> I hope you're not that dumb.
I see you are
GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive
By Paul Kiel - August 2, 2006, 4:00 PM
OK, we've done it. We've nailed it down: Every single contributor to
the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a
conservative -- except for the candidate himself.
The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in
order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported
yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign
(or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another
$15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three
contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.
Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.
- The Green Party listed a $1,000 check from a Bill Wickerman of
Covington & Burling. There is no such person. However, a Bill
Wichterman works there. He's a Republican lobbyist who has also given
to Santorum this campaign.
- James Holman, who in the past has supported GOP House candidate
Howard Kaloogian, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. J.D. Hayworth
(R-AZ), was incorrectly listed by the Greens as "James Howmen." He
disclosed that he was an editor at the San Diego Reader; a James Holman
is the publisher there.
- The Green Party disclosed that a "Franklin Schoneman" of Pottsville,
Pa. gave $5,000. A "Franklin Schoeneman" of Pottsville has given $8,000
to Santorum so far this election.
That leaves only one contribution, for $30, as a legitimate donation
from a Green Party supporter. That came from the candidate himself,
Carl Romanelli. He made it to his own campaign fund, not the local
Green Party.
Romanelli's latest FEC report shows his campaign currently has $17.20
on hand.
Vince
I've been an attorney for 30 years. How long have you practiced law?
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:On 2 Aug 2006 07:38:09 -0700, "Spread Eagle®"
:<red...@virtualhosts.net> wrote:
:
:>Fat assed lying coward Murtha is going down.
:
:Nah -- he's not. The lawsuit will drag on, but no judgement will
:accrue from it.
:
:That's a prediction. Now wait for it.
My prediction is slightly different. There will be a flurry of
bullshit stemming from this lawsuit, terminating right around election
time, at which point it will drop from sight.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Lobby Dosser
He once stayed at a Holiday Inn. From that single experience he
apparently gained all knowlege of Everything. Ask him anything. Assert
anything. State a Fact. He'll not only know more than you, he'll spend an
hour telling you and have friends who are Janitors in the Pentagon to
back him up. The fact that you have been an attorny for 30 years has no
meaning whatsoever for him.
Lobby Dosser
> ef_hutterite wrote:
>> On 2 Aug 2006 15:50:49 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
>> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >they are called Republicans,
>>
>> Is that a specific cite?
>>
>> I hope you're not that dumb.
>
> I see you are
>
> GOP Donors Funded Entire PA Green Party Drive
Cool!! I bet the Greens are Tickled Pink!
Jack Linthicum
sort of, this cite names names and amounts given plus the background of
each. Apparently, whoever submitted the list of donors to the FEC took
pains to try to disguise some of the names but failed, due to the great
blogger look up.
http://www.attytood.com/archives/003603.html
Green Party Senate candidate Carl] Romanelli, a Wilkes-Barre resident
and rail industry consultant, Romanelli favors universal health care,
immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, reproductive freedom, and the
right to same-sex marriage.
Lobby Dosser
The unfortunate part is that Santorum is such a Buffoon. Why the hell
can't idiots like him just get dumped by the party.
Jack Linthicum
You can't dump him he knows too much. He was the third man in the
Senate and the coordinator for the Senate to the K Street Project
which he now says he knows nothing (Sgt Schulz) about.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06026/644541.stm January 2006
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05319/606571.stm November 2005
ef_hutterite
<bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Peace and justice,
War and oppression,
ef_hutterite
ef_hutterite
ef_hutterite
Pompous gasbag PC...
Ockham's Razor
Bill Shatzer <bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Charlie Wolf wrote:
>
>
> > But Murtha is still a "former Marine" and a douchebag.
> > Regards,
>
> Murtha is a former Marine and a decorated combat veteran.
"There is no such thing as an Ex-Marine"
--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
Ockham's Razor
Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> he will lose but it's clear what he wants.
He will change his mind if he becomes responsible for the other-sides
legal costs.
The more noise this guy makes the more he looks like he is guilty and
trying to obfuscate the process.