Proper answer to MyFirstName_MyLastName
MikeTJumps
Here is my response.
Dear Sky...
First off, I did a mail search in my filing cabinet and current (7 days back)
lists and found nothing from your e-mail address, so it must have been a system
problem. You are right in that I did not do a google search. Yes, I could
have, but I didn't. I was waiting for you to identify yourself to me to
determine if you were a legitimate poster or a troll.
NOW, I am going to answer you as forthright and honestly as I can, publicly and
privately..
There is very little legitimate reason for anyone to hit the ground without a
fully developd parachute out, let alone a student. Each such incident is a
tremendous loss to someone if not many people.
As an instructor for over 23+ years, I must fully admit that there are times
when I have not done everything right or perfectly. There are a few times when
I self-grade myself with a zero in performance because a student has escaped me
and I was unable to get back to them for one reason or another (usually they
outfloated me). However, I always train the students that it is their primary
and most important responsibility to save themselves. That being said, there
are far more students who I have "saved" than I have lost. There are times
that I have forgotten to turn a radio on for a student, but I gave them
instructions on what to do if I forgot as well. Since I don't have a remote
control on their parachute, it is their primary responsibility to follow ground
instruction directions and get themselves back to a nice, safe, wide-open
landing area should "ground advisory service" be unavailable either due to
equipment or human failure.
I believe you related an equipment problem as a partial component of your dear
friend's fatality. Knowing that equipment is subject to failure is part of the
darned waiver process, yet it is still our (staff) job to have the equipment in
as good a working order as possible, in full compliance with the FARs. For a
reserve ripcord, a 22# limit on the pull force is mandated by those regulations
and it is supposed to be tested at the time of repacking. However, dirt, wear
and tare, improper handling and friction buildup can increase the pull force of
a ripcord beyond acceptable limits that is beyond the control of the rigger who
packs and seals the reserve system. Since testing before each jump is not a
protocol, the question of, "Could the incident have been prevented by that?" is
moot. Would I use a Sentinel? Not now, but I have used them in the past as
they were the industry standard at the time. They have long since been
superceeded by the Cypres and Astra and I use a Cypres on each set of my own
personal gear and at Skydive Houston, that is what we have on all of our
student gear. (The same goes for the Tandem equipment at SDH and Galveston
Island Skydivers.) Is that a legal issue? No, I don't think so, as any
properly maintained and functioning AAD is specified in the FARs. (Was it
properly maintained is a legal question that needs to be answered.)
As to the instructor failing to get to the student and pulling at 2500', we
must remember that altimeters are plus or minus 250', and that a student's (or
an observer's) could have read 2500' while the instructor's read 2,000'. The
hard deck for deploying is mandated by the AFF program and to date, very few
instructors have busted it and impacted the ground, although some have busted
it and had their AADs fire! (Yes, I wear one.) Usually, the student's AAD
does work, thus just presenting us with an embarassing situation rather than a
fatality.
I am considered a legal "expert witness" in such matters as equipment usage and
student training and performance. As such, I must have all of the material
facts presented to me to make an unbiased determination of what truly happened
in the incident. I do not have all of the facts at this time, therefore I
cannot render a proper synopsis or conclusion as to the incident you are
referring to. If I had all of the details from all reporting sides, I would be
able to make an informed reportable decision.
I feel for and empathize with your loss as I do when anyone loses their life in
our sport. I wish I had a magic button on the ground to prevent anyone from
impacting, but God did not grant me that power, nor the power to reverse time
and recover those unjustly killed, injured, etc.
Sincerely yours,
Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner, D-5957
Capt. hook
>Note to group: I finally received an e->mail from this poster in my AOL
>in-box. Here is my response.
>
>Dear Sky...
>dear friend's fatality
>process
AWK WHAT? This is a clear case of
Criminal Neglect to my mind if it can
be proven...that gives the Polk County
Regulators good reason to oil the rope.
A piece of paper ain't gonna save a DZO's
ass up here, his widder can keep the money we want his life oooooorah
"Fit Via Vi"
Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
SkydiverRick
Well said Mike.
Capt. hook
???? ain't that the same thing as a payed witness? just a thought ;)P
>darned waiver process
those protect against civil cases but I believe they wuddn't mean shit in a
criminal negligence case...I think if more of those were filed rather than
civil law suits it would clean the sport up some,
make the people in charge think twice.
>Was it
>properly maintained is a legal question that needs to be answered.)
I agree, sky hasn't been forth coming
and it throws some suspicion on his eye witness statements...even the polk
county regulators believe in reasonable doubt, need a quorum and majority vote
to lynch someone...were all law abiding citizens you know o~;->
Tom B
"MikeTJumps" <miket...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030906083108...@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> I am considered a legal "expert witness" in such matters as equipment
usage and
> student training and performance. As such, I must have all of the
material
> facts presented to me to make an unbiased determination of what truly
happened
>
> Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner, D-5957
Nice post Mike. Just one point. An unbiased witness is about the last thing
a defending lawyer, or for that matter, a prosecutor seems to look for.
Biased ones are ever so much more dependable.
Tom B
MikeTJumps
with facts.
I've turned down several cases this year because (as I pointed out to the
attorneys), I do not consider myself the most qualified in the area in which
they wish to explore (specifically, equipment manufacture and design). I have
recommended others for such issues.
Peanut4040
Tom B
>> Nice post Mike. Just one point. An unbiased witness is about the
>> last thing a defending lawyer, or for that matter, a prosecutor
>> seems to look for. Biased ones are ever so much more dependable.
> That may be, but in cross-examination, you must be able to defend your
position
> with facts.
Gee, I had it backwards. I always thought facts were facts, and experts were
brought in to help discern the meaning of them. :)
In the few trials I was loosely involved in, both sides brought expert
witnesses. These witnesses looked at the same "facts", and from them had
very very different opinions on what they meant, and how they should be
viewed. Personally, I can't see a good reason that a defendant would spend
money, sometimes a lot of money, to bring in an unbiased person. In fact, a
lawyer might even meet with several eligible expert witnesses, till he finds
one that strongly believes a meaning that benefits his client. I have no
naive belief that prosecutors don't do the same. Hardly unbiased, but things
are ever so much more dependable. I have twice been uninvited from
proceedings in what seemed exactly that manner. In aviation engineering,
there are a large number of professional "experts" that are known to have a
certain viewpoint to about any issue. I would be very surprised if you
didn't find the same in asbestos, tobacco, or even distinct types of
criminal acts. One would almost think there is a service out there, locating
experts of any field, with known track records in previous similar cases.
Tom B
SkydiverRick
>> darned waiver process
>
> those protect against civil cases but I believe they wuddn't mean
> shit in a criminal negligence case...I think if more of those were
> filed rather than civil law suits it would clean the sport up some,
> make the people in charge think twice.
> Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
I don't think that the skydiving business is as dirty as you claim.
Sky
safety slip down on their list of priority, whether from apathy or economic
motivations.
how far are we, as a self-policing community, willing to go to insure the
highest possible degree of safety for our students? and what price are we
willing to pay?
if a particular facility finds it ecomically prohibitive to provide modern
gear and aggressive, vigilant maintenance followed up with demonstably
capable teaching staff perhaps that particular facility should not be
involved in student training.
it is my perception that far too many of us are willing to look away and cry
'skydiver suing skydiver' rather than accept the possibility that there is
apathy, negligence and incompetance needing to be exposed and dealt with
with extreme predjudice.
perfection is not realistic. there will always be a margin of error. it is
my contention that to _strive_ for zero margin of error is realistic and
that it is owed to those who trustingly place themselves in the tutelage of
dz's and instructors.
how many dangerous dropzones is too many? how many unnecessary deaths are
too many? i think that 1 is cause for action.
"SkydiverRick" <rme...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:29z6b.6920$5g7....@twister.austin.rr.com...
Capt. hook
witnesses.
>
a
>>certain viewpoint to about any issue.
>
>chuck
Oh no...Jury duty is bad enuff, Judges can put you in jail without a trial for
having an opinion contrary to their beliefs..Citizenship is a heavy burden to
bare sometimes, specially in yer behind the times a hundred years or so.......
fuk a buncha expert witness, the money ain't worth it. o~;)P
Capt. hook
>>I believe they wuddn't mean
>> shit in a criminal negligence case...I >>think if more of those were
>> filed rather than civil law suits it would >>clean the sport up some,
>> make the people in charge think twice.
>I don't think that the skydiving business >is as dirty as you claim, skydiver
rick
didn't you say yo had been a DZM?
I can see where your coming from, immagine having to think wudda crimped
your style and salary bonus o~;-*
AnalogRTO
community at large. Each of us has our own home drop zone, with a select few
others that we have visited while travelling on vacation or business. It can be
hard to stir people to action when the problem does not occur where they can
see it.
That said, my personal experiences showed me that economic factors tend to
drive things most for many DZO's. Depending on what they pay out each month
(financing/lease/purchase on aircraft, buildings, gear, etc.) they look to the
more profitable portions of the business.
DZ's will turn into tandem mills, with regular upjumpers put as a bottom
priority. Upjumpers will get bumped from load to lod for tandems. Once those
jumpers leave in droves, I see little incentive to maintain rental/student
gear, or even top notch instructors (no upjumpers bringing people out to start
into the sport). After all, why spend money on things that are never used? As
you can see, both apathy and economic factors will play in.
My home DZ is a great place. Several large aircraft (another Otter on the way
also!) serve a large crowd of skydivers. A lean operation with many years
history allows overall business costs to remain low, translating to low jump
ticket prices and low tandem jump prices. In the several years I have jumped
there, I have only seen one or two loads that have gone up with only tandems on
board, and countless that have gone up without any tandems. Safety is a big
concern all around; death does nothing to improve everyone's attitude.
On travelling, I have seen two other DZ's that operate in a similar fashion.
The three of these DZ's were a mix of USPA and non-USPA group members.
Many skydivers do look away from the dangerous dropzones. They tend to find
other places to jump that are safer and treat them better. Then again, how many
deaths in this sport are necessary? Self-policing, how far does that mean the
DZO should take things? A death from gear being put on wrong occurs--do we
place people out at the plane to give everyone a gear check before they board
the plane?
Plenty to think about and I've already gone on too long.
Todd
D22450
Joe Walther
"Capt. hook" <to...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030906212231...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >I am considered a legal "expert witness" >in such matters
>
> ???? ain't that the same thing as a payed witness? just a thought ;)P
Walther responds...
Experts are not witnesses. Anyone with direct evidence in a court case does
not have to be paid. They can be supoened. Experts are hired by either side
in a dispute. They are paid for their time and expertise. It has nothing to
do with "paying" a witness. Doctors, engineers, statisticians, scientists of
all disciplines, accountants, and a whole host of other experts are entitled
to be paid for their work and time.
I'm sure you'll come back with your usual nonsensical, smartassed crap. The
fact is that living has associated costs. Even though this seems to be
contrary to your desires, try to get over it and your life will be a lot
easier.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
"Tom B" <d16...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8Gx6b.1311$Kl5....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Walther responds...
The problem is that the terms bias and prejudice are, for the most part,
interpretive. Witnesses who agree with our positions are always unbiased and
fair. Those holding positions that are in opposition are always prejudiced
and obviously slanted toward the opposition because they are being paid.
The fact is that unless the testimony is based on established hard science
theory that permits no wiggle room, there is always wiggle room. These
experts are not liars and most have sincere beliefs about what they are
saying. Not agreeing with their particular points of view does not alter the
truth and sincerity of what they are saying.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
>
> "MikeTJumps" <miket...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030906234702...@mb-m05.aol.com...
>
> >> Nice post Mike. Just one point. An unbiased witness is about the
> >> last thing a defending lawyer, or for that matter, a prosecutor
> >> seems to look for. Biased ones are ever so much more dependable.
>
>
> > That may be, but in cross-examination, you must be able to defend your
> position
> > with facts.
>
> Gee, I had it backwards. I always thought facts were facts, and experts
were
> brought in to help discern the meaning of them. :)
>
> In the few trials I was loosely involved in, both sides brought expert
> witnesses. These witnesses looked at the same "facts", and from them had
> very very different opinions on what they meant, and how they should be
> viewed.
Walther responds...
Any examples or should we all just guess? Facts ARE facts and these are not
what's usually in dispute. It's the application of the facts. A spinal
injury is a fact. It can't be disputed. What caused the injury and how it
should be treated can be disputed. The respective treatments are facts and
there are many acceptable treatments. The best treatment, however, can
always be disputed.
The case that started this is based on the "fact" that there was nothing out
at impact. That can't be disputed unless it is not true. Why there was
nothing out can be disputed and each of the whys can be factual.
> Personally, I can't see a good reason that a defendant would spend
> money, sometimes a lot of money, to bring in an unbiased person. In fact,
a
> lawyer might even meet with several eligible expert witnesses, till he
finds
> one that strongly believes a meaning that benefits his client. I have no
> naive belief that prosecutors don't do the same. Hardly unbiased, but
things
> are ever so much more dependable. I have twice been uninvited from
> proceedings in what seemed exactly that manner. In aviation engineering,
> there are a large number of professional "experts" that are known to have
a
> certain viewpoint to about any issue. I would be very surprised if you
> didn't find the same in asbestos, tobacco, or even distinct types of
> criminal acts. One would almost think there is a service out there,
locating
> experts of any field, with known track records in previous similar cases.
Walther responds...
What's your point? Both sides of an issue go for testimony that supports
their respective positions. Every field of endeavor has an array of experts
who interpret facts in different ways. There is nothing wrong with different
interpretations. It ususally boils down to the reputations of the various
experts and which one's a jury believes to be the proper interpretation.
Again, if the jury doesn't find in a manner that we would, it is obviously a
case of stupid jurors.
Regards
Walther
Capt. hook
>>how many dangerous dropzones is too >>many? how many unnecessary deaths >>are
too many? i think that 1 is cause for >>action.
A G R E E D....Ricks just nervous cuz he trys to make a living off the
sport...I traveled a Gypsy circuit in texas and have to say the majority of
them passed inspection, those few that didn't failed
to meet my personal standards because
of the peoples in charge lackadaisical
attitude on safe leadership...the worst were
run by inmature young people trying to get by on personality and little
else...who liked to live beyond their means, used to sluffing by on everything
but their personal toys thinking everything will be ok just this one more time
or else letting ego ridden minor local skygods call the shots...yuh
when I started talking filing criminal rather
than civil charges it scared him cuz if not one his self he knows people like
that
you all do if you think about it, look
within look within examine yourselves closely....its all good till you kill
someone, or stand by and watch someone else do it!. o~;->
Capt. hook
>I am considered a legal "expert witness" >in such matters
>> ???? ain't that the same thing as a >>payed witness? just a thought
>Experts are not witnesses.
hey MT called himself an "expert witness"
not me! The man knows his shit but has a touch too much vanity if you ask me!
>Experts are hired by either side
>in a dispute.
and they are chosen because more often than not they lean toward the side
paying, is this not so?
>They can be supoened
oh yeah thats right, I forgot yer a Federal control freak
>I'm sure you'll come back with your usual >nonsensical, smartassed crap.
just be glad I wasn't a trial lawyer...ya wudda got so damn mad at my tricky
fast talking ass most of your decisions wudda been overturned by the apeals
court prolly
ya fukking Natzi o~;)P
Capt. hook
>I am considered a legal "expert witness" in such matters
>Nice post Mike
>Regards
>
>Walther
yeah it figgers yawl are both by the book men....and Woofs ;)P
Tom B
"Joe Walther" <jlwal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9MudnchnspT...@comcast.com...
> > position
> > > with facts.
> >
> > Gee, I had it backwards. I always thought facts were facts, and experts
> were
> > brought in to help discern the meaning of them. :)
> >
> > In the few trials I was loosely involved in, both sides brought expert
> > witnesses. These witnesses looked at the same "facts", and from them had
> > very very different opinions on what they meant, and how they should be
> > viewed.
>
> Walther responds...
>
> Any examples or should we all just guess? Facts ARE facts and these are
not
> what's usually in dispute. It's the application of the facts. A spinal
> injury is a fact. It can't be disputed. What caused the injury and how it
> should be treated can be disputed. The respective treatments are facts and
> there are many acceptable treatments. The best treatment, however, can
> always be disputed.
I am having a bit of trouble understanding how our comments above are
significatnly different. As for not providing an example, personally, I give
a bit of credit to the skydivers. Most are able to read concepts and apply
them to their lives and experiences. But since you asked, yes, I can supply
an example.
Take the Souix City DC10 crash, with potentially billion's of dollars at
stake. It took months to find the segments of the blown engine's fan disk.
Suits were filed, as the airline and engine manufacturer were pointing
fingers at each other, one claiming the crash was caused by the engine
failure, the other claiming the engine did fail, but a three engine plane
with better hydralic redundancy would not have crashed. The crash was in the
summer but many of the investigation's needed parts were lost to corn
fields, somewhere in the midwest. They were found in the fall, after combine
season. But even after months outside, the FAA /NTSB found traces of FPI
inspection penetrant on on the disk's pieces, along several inches of the
original crack.. This proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the crack,
huge by inspection standards, was there at the engine's last major
overhaul/service inspection, when the disk was dipped in penetrant, two
weeks before the crash. FPI penetrant is a florescent liquid or powder that
enters cracks and is visually seen under UV light. That it was there was a
fact. What it meant in terms of when it got there, how long the fracture had
been there, metal fatigue rates, crack propogation rates, etc was up for
grabs. Was the crack just missed at the airline's last inspeciton two weeks
before, or was it also missed earlier when another inspected it? How could
a trained and skilled inspector have missed such a large crack, which by
normal FPI standards was fucking huge. How could a part that should never
fail, have failed. How could an aircraft designed to fly on two engines, not
be able to? There were tons of things for experts to fairly disagree about,
and for the money involved, many were sought.
You can bet your ass the same thing is going to happen, if it has not
already, about WTC and its mode of structural failure, and who bears
responsiblity for that. Yes, I know, terrorists caused it. But I am willing
to bet the trial lawyers are all over it, seeking a domestic deep pocket.
They will need dependable witnesses to do so. IIRC, less than half of 9/11's
victim's families have accepted the government settlement that would prevent
lawsuits.
Whenever there is the slightest complexity, it is not hard to find honest
witnesses that look at the same event and have different opinions of what
happened. God knows that where I work, when working on development projects
that stretch the limits of materials or technology, we damn sure often
disagree of what the "facts" really mean.
I admit being cynical, believing that truth in trials is too often shaped by
well paid experts. When they are well paid, how can they be viewed as
objective or unbiased?
> Walther responds...
>
> What's your point? Both sides of an issue go for testimony that supports
> their respective positions. Every field of endeavor has an array of
experts
> who interpret facts in different ways. There is nothing wrong with
different
> interpretations. It ususally boils down to the reputations of the various
> experts and which one's a jury believes to be the proper interpretation.
There is nothing long with it in theory, just as there is nothing wrong with
honest difference. I have a less favorable view of how it works in real life
America. Most of my views have been from avaition and big money. I
personally believe many of the witnesses to be anything but unbiased even
before viewing the data, the intellucal equilivent of hired thugs in a
protection racket.The lawyers themselves are often experts in the topic of
the trial, often know the experts by name, and even seem to know what their
view will be, based on prior cases.
> Regards
>
> Walther
Tom B
Joe Walther
> >"Joe Walther"
>
> >I am considered a legal "expert witness" >in such matters
> >> ???? ain't that the same thing as a >>payed witness? just a thought
>
> >Experts are not witnesses.
>
> hey MT called himself an "expert witness"
> not me! The man knows his shit but has a touch too much vanity if you ask
me!
Walther responds...
That's what they are called. It is NOT what they are. They are referred to
as witnesses only because their testimony supports a particular position.
It's up to a jury to determine whether or not the position is valid. As for
MT's vanity, you have no idea how much vanity he, or anyone else for that
matter, has.
>
> >Experts are hired by either side
> >in a dispute.
>
> and they are chosen because more often than not they lean toward the side
> paying, is this not so?
Walther responds...
Damn! You are one sharp cookie. Regardless of the leanings, though, the
validity of the testimony is what is at heart of the issue. No criminal
lawyer, defense or prosecution, is going to bring an expert to the stand and
attempt to refute a hard, scientific principle because it can't be done.
Experts come into the picture only when there is an interpretive area
relative to facts in evidence. Again, it is up to a jury to determine the
factualness of the testimony.
>
> >They can be supoened
>
> oh yeah thats right, I forgot yer a Federal control freak
Walther responds...
There is nothing specifically federal about the right to subpoena direct
witnesses. Besides, I have lost count of the number of times I have told you
that I was never on a federal bench. I keep forgetting, though, that this is
lost on one with the retention acumen of a grape! :-) (Your turn.)
> >I'm sure you'll come back with your usual >nonsensical, smartassed crap.
>
> just be glad I wasn't a trial lawyer...ya wudda got so damn mad at my
tricky
> fast talking ass most of your decisions wudda been overturned by the
apeals
> court prolly
Walther responds...
You are the one who should be thankful that you were not a trial lawyer.
First of all, judges do not get "mad" at tricky fast talking asses. They
just recognize them for what they are and then get even. I suspect that you
would have been disbarred within the first year of your admittance to
practice law. Hell, even Texas, has minimal standards.
I would have thrown you in jail on contempt citations. You'd probably still
be there, too. :-)
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
> >"MikeTJumps"
> >I am considered a legal "expert witness" in such matters
>
> >Nice post Mike
> >Regards
> >
> >Walther
>
> yeah it figgers yawl are both by the book men....and Woofs ;)P
Walther responds...
Me? By the book? I don't think so. I've been accused of a lot of things in
my life but being stupid or structured are not on the list. You also seem to
have an abnormally high resentment of "Woofs". Why is that, if it is true?
Regards
Walther
Capt. hook
>
>Me? By the book? I don't think so. I've been accused of a lot of things in
>my life but being stupid or structured are not on the list. You also seem to
>have an abnormally high resentment of "Woofs". Why is that, if it is true?
>
>Regards
>
>Walther
>
>
flat screen stereo tv and drive a buick, drink fine wine and Canadian whiskey
eat out 6 days a week...might be a woof myself for all I know, but yew are a
stickler for the written
law and thats by the book imo, me? I just try to do the right thing, fuk a
buncha Federal, state and city laws...we got our own law out here in the big
thicket ;)P
Capt. hook
>position
>with facts.
>Gee, I had it backwards. I always >thought facts were facts, and experts
>were brought in to help discern the >meaning of them. :) tom
>Walther responds..
> Facts ARE facts and these are
>not what's usually in dispute. It's the >application of the facts
appears to me Joe set the bench too long tom and he's got a pucker factor
Capt. hook
>as witnesses only because their >testimony supports a particular position.
>It's up to a jury to determine
AH HA their fukked, if I'm a jury man
>Experts are hired by either side
>in a dispute.
> and they are chosen because more often >than not they lean toward the side
>paying, is this not so?
>Damn! You are one sharp cookie.
nuh I just have some understanding of human nature, gleened over the decades
by close observation and a lotta Navy Advisory schools mixed with a country boy
philosophy...its deadly huh? I can really push them cityskydiver buttons o~;->
Joe Walther
>
>
> I am having a bit of trouble understanding how our comments above are
> significatnly different. As for not providing an example, personally, I
give
> a bit of credit to the skydivers. Most are able to read concepts and apply
> them to their lives and experiences. But since you asked, yes, I can
supply
> an example.
Walther responds...
Our comments are not all that different and I didn't reply to dispute your
reply. However, I have only retired and still have a great deal of judge in
me. I still give instructions to the jury. :-)
[Some snipped for brevity.]
> ...original crack.. This proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the
crack,
> huge by inspection standards, was there at the engine's last major
> overhaul/service inspection, when the disk was dipped in penetrant, two
> weeks before the crash. FPI penetrant is a florescent liquid or powder
that
> enters cracks and is visually seen under UV light. That it was there was a
> fact. What it meant in terms of when it got there, how long the fracture
had
> been there, metal fatigue rates, crack propogation rates, etc was up for
> grabs. Was the crack just missed at the airline's last inspeciton two
weeks
> before, or was it also missed earlier when another inspected it? How
could
> a trained and skilled inspector have missed such a large crack, which by
> normal FPI standards was fucking huge. How could a part that should never
> fail, have failed. How could an aircraft designed to fly on two engines,
not
> be able to? There were tons of things for experts to fairly disagree
about,
> and for the money involved, many were sought.
Walther responds...
We agree here but, when one calculates the stakes involved, it is a wonder
it didn't take longer.
> You can bet your ass the same thing is going to happen, if it has not
> already, about WTC and its mode of structural failure, and who bears
> responsiblity for that. Yes, I know, terrorists caused it. But I am
willing
> to bet the trial lawyers are all over it, seeking a domestic deep pocket.
Walther responds...
There is no doubt that there will be some litigation here. However, I doubt
that it will result in that many. Close to 85% of all law suits ever get to
trial. I really have no hard numbers for this, only 3 plus decades of
experience and some empirical statistics that tend to make sense. Of that
85%, about 20% result in settlements (some legitimate and some not). The
others are just thrown out. This is why there are way too many lawyers
chasing way too few dollars. It is also one of the prime reasons that
"causes" are made up. This, in-turn, provides lots of reader and listening
fodder to the news media, both print and electronic, and keeps advertising
rates nice and high.
I usually quote an income statistic for lawyers. Every ten years of so, the
legal watch dogs compile these statistics. The problem is that the stats
they come up with blow up in their faces. The latest I have is for the
calendar year ending 2000. When taken all lawyers, as based on the number of
Bar Exams passed, the average income per lawyer is $22,000 a year. When all
federal, state, municipal, and local government lawyers are taken out of the
mix, the income goes up to about $38,000 a year. Then, when only the top 5%
of the law firms are counted, their incomes are measured in the multiple
millions per year. It's the myth of millions to be made that still draws the
wannabees. This and the fact that just about anyone can get into a second
rate law school.
There is a lawyer for every 248 people in this country. The average schmuck
lawyer cannot even make the office lease, let alone a living. These reports
are not going to be published by the ABA or the law schools. This is the way
it is and anyone entering law today had better have designs on a public
service career or have a notable preceptor to the bar.
This is why the system is damaged. The supply of lawyers far outstrips the
need. Groups, like the ABA and the Trial Lawyers Association have used their
lobbying power and money to convince the public at large that whenever
anything bad happens to a person, someone HAS to be at fault and must pay,
even if there is no culpability. The law schools continue to take in
students. The majority of those making application to the prestigious law
schools do not get accepted. This has resulted in the birth of an entire
cadre of minimally acceptable law schools that are waiting in line to take
tuition, knowing full well that many of its graduates will never pass a bar
exam and the majority of those who do, will end up chasing ambulances and
creating a whole new class of causes. There is another class of law schools
springing up now. On-line law schools that require no class attendance at
all. This will be interesting to say the least.
What you and others read about are the sensationalistic, reader-grabbing
cases, most of which are eventually overturned on appeal or the settlements
reduced as much as 90%. There is web site, I believe it is
www.thisistrue.com. This is a legitimate site and the owner of the site is
right on with his complaints. The cases are all true. However, when compared
to the total number of cases filed on an annual basis, the ones documented
are less than one percent.
What will be raised, relative to the WTC destruction, is whether or not
there is any liability at all. Was this an act of war? Was it not? This will
be legally debated for decades because the answer to the question
dramatically changes the eventual outcomes. I doubt that anyone alive today,
will see any money.
> They will need dependable witnesses to do so. IIRC, less than half of
9/11's
> victim's families have accepted the government settlement that would
prevent
> lawsuits.
Walther responds...
I have not seen this statistic. I have, however, an even more fundamental
question. What is the government doing trying to settle with anyone at this
point. There are too many questions unanswered to do so. I have no questions
as to the existence of negligence to some degree by a number of groups. It
is far too soon, though, and there is not a legitimate attorney who would
actually tell you otherwise. I suspect that the bulk of these deal with
insurance settlements.
Also, anyone who would accept an up-front settlement offer from any
government agency at any level, is an idiot. This is also true of private
insurance settlement offers. The insurance adjustors come out of the wood
work with settlement checks with 24 to 48 hours of the injury. This is a big
mistake. There are some very capable insurance companies that simply do not
"settle" without a tremendous fight. These are the ones the ambulance
chasers do not mess with.
>
> I admit being cynical, believing that truth in trials is too often shaped
by
> well paid experts. When they are well paid, how can they be viewed as
> objective or unbiased?
Walther responds...
This is my basic point of disagreement, not just with you, but with others
who share your view. I have a lot more experience with expert witnesses and
juries than you do. Juries are nowhere near as gullible as many would have
us believe. This is especially true in criminal cases. Where juries do get
out of hand in the civil cases, there are judges who will not hesitate to
nullify a jury award and appellate courts who will reduce the awards even
more and in some case throw the case out altogether. However, that small
percentage of sensationalistic cases blur this reality for most people.
My experience with experts is similar. The legitimate experts will simply
tell it like it is. While it is true that a lawyer can just search and
search for an expert to support a case, it is also true that a jury will
still weigh in heavily on reputation and will apply a bit of common sense
most of the time.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
> >(AnalogRTO)
>
> A G R E E D....Ricks just nervous cuz he trys to make a living off the
> sport...I traveled a Gypsy circuit in texas and have to say the majority
of
> them passed inspection, those few that didn't failed
> to meet my personal standards because
Walther responds...
And you have the unmitigated gall to call Mike Turoff vain?
...yuh
> when I started talking filing criminal rather
> than civil charges it scared him
Walther responds...
You don't have the latitude to file a criminal charge. If you think a crime
has been committed, you call the police just like anyone else. The police
and local prosecutors will decide if and when any criminal charges are to be
levied.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
Walther said...
> >Damn! You are one sharp cookie.
And Snuffy has the vanity to actually think I was serious!...
> nuh I just have some understanding of human nature, gleened over the
decades
> by close observation and a lotta Navy Advisory schools mixed with a
country boy
> philosophy...its deadly huh? I can really push them cityskydiver buttons
o~;->
Walther responds...
No siree! There is nothing vain about you. Most of what you say could be
used to grow mushrooms, though.
Regards
Walther
LORD OF THE SKY
> You can bet your ass the same thing is going to happen, if it has not
> already, about WTC and its mode of structural failure, and who bears
> responsiblity for that. Yes, I know, terrorists caused it.
You "Know" Tom ?
Well, they were terrorists, I'll give you that.
The question now is ; who are these terrorists and which country
sponsored them.
My research indicates that Israel /US and the false zionists are the
guilty parties.
It all comes down to those thirty five damn acres. The same Mt . Moriah
on which Abraham (Ibrahm) was willing to sacrifice either of his sons, Isacc
or Ishmael.The same Mt. Moriah which was the site of Solomons' Temple and
now sports the Dome of the Rock.
We could talk about that for days!
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Capt. hook
>
>
>And Snuffy has the vanity to actually think I was serious!...
nuh got a thick skin...just like to set condesending woofs up for some reverse
snobbery...how many case's did you have over turned? I believe I cudda kept you
in the appeals court at least as long as yew cudda kept me in jail for contempt
of court
Capt. hook
>of them passed inspection, those few >that didn't failed
>to meet my personal standards because
>And you have the unmitigated gall to call >Mike Turoff vain?
yes I do, you don't know him! o~;->
Joe Walther
> >Damn! You are one sharp cookie.
> >
> >
> >And Snuffy has the vanity to actually think I was serious!...
>
> nuh got a thick skin...just like to set condesending woofs up for some
reverse
> snobbery...how many case's did you have over turned?
Walther responds...
I never had a case overturned. I had two sent back for resentencing.
> I believe I cudda kept you
> in the appeals court at least as long as yew cudda kept me in jail for
contempt
> of court
Walther responds...
Believe what you want. It takes no great intellect to appeal a case. It's
done every day. Appeals courts, however, are far less tolerant of frivolous
appeals than courts of original jurisdiction are of frivolous cases. I
suspect that you would not keep anyone tied up in appeals court.
Given some of the things that you claim to have done during open court
sessions, on the other hand, would have landed you in huge difficulty in
terms of both jail time and fines as they apply to contempt citations.
Then again, you tend to have somewhat of a knack for embellishing.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
> > have to say the majority
> >of them passed inspection, those few >that didn't failed
> >to meet my personal standards because
>
> >And you have the unmitigated gall to call >Mike Turoff vain?
>
> yes I do, you don't know him! o~;->
Walther responds...
How do you know this? I'll bet anything you want that I have communicated
directly with him a lot more than I have communicated with you. He is not
vain by any standards that I know.
Regards
Walther
Capt. hook
>didn't want you to let the perps go huh?>I >believe I cudda kept you in the
appeals >court at least as long as yew cudda kept >me in jail for contempt of
court
>Believe what you want. It takes no great >intellect to appeal a case..
sorry I meant over turned...believe my cousin vinney style cudda made ya so mad
you wudda been making judgely mistakes left and right ;)P
Tom B
>
> Walther responds...
>
> Damn! You are one sharp cookie. Regardless of the leanings, though, the
> validity of the testimony is what is at heart of the issue. No criminal
> lawyer, defense or prosecution, is going to bring an expert to the stand
and
> attempt to refute a hard, scientific principle because it can't be done.
> Experts come into the picture only when there is an interpretive area
> relative to facts in evidence. Again, it is up to a jury to determine the
> factualness of the testimony.
I hope today it is nearly always as you describe. I was thinking though of a
big sad exception, the 50 years of testimony by the FBI lab techs. An image
of near complete infallibility overcame poor and misleading tests, lack of
experience, etc. In too many cases, the jury saw them as absolute, the
standard just below God, because after all, it was the FBI. I wonder how
many innocent people went to jail from that.
Tom B
Joe Walther
Walther responds...
Here's something you need to understand, Snuffy. I saw My Cousin Vinney. I
thought it was hilarious. There is nothing wrong, though the conduct in that
movie was a bit farfetched, with a lawyer like that. Lawyers like that (and
there are lawyers just like that) are not grandstanding. Their technique is
based more on the fact that they are young, inexperienced and scared to
death than anything else.
Another thing you need to understand is the fact that judges, with rare
exception, do not show their emotions on the bench for the precise reason
you state. Those who do, usually end up making rag rugs with blunt scissors
in specially equipped rooms.
Every judge has lines of demarcation beyond which participants will not be
permitted to go. I had mine, too. Intentional disrespect was one. Not
disrespect for me personally, mind you, but disrespect for the court was not
tolerated. Another one was grandstanding. I gave two warnings. Beyond that,
the fines began. Every time the mouth ran beyond this, the fines doubled and
they were not suspended. I had very few problems and rarely jailed anyone
for contempt. :-)
Regards
Walther
SkydiverRick
>> (AnalogRTO)
>
>>> how many dangerous dropzones is too >>many? how many unnecessary
>>> deaths >>are
> too many? i think that 1 is cause for >>action.
>
> A G R E E D....Ricks just nervous cuz he trys to make a living off the
> sport...
I made a living off of the sport for ten years, but I only do it as a hobby
now. I have nothing to worry about however. There has never been a fatality
at any dz that I have worked (during my time there). I few people made
stupid mistakes (like yourself) but they will agree that they got hurt in
spite of our practices, not because of them (like yourself).
...yuh
> when I started talking filing criminal rather
> than civil charges it scared him cuz if not one his self he knows
> people like that
> you all do if you think about it, look
> within look within examine yourselves closely....its all good till
> you kill someone, or stand by and watch someone else do it!. o~;->
I have nothing to be scared of. My safety record with students speaks for
itself. I would never standby and watch someone kill a student. I enjoy my
sleep too much.
Stick to talking about the things that you know. Stuff like swords and
tights.
Rick
SkydiverRick
I know him too and I would not call him vain.
Capt. hook
>>
>> yes I do, you don't know him! o~;->
>
>Walther responds...
>
>How do you know this? I'll bet anything you want that I have communicated
>directly with him a lot more than I have communicated with you. He is not
>vain by any standards that I know.
>
>Regards
>
>Walther
>
>
wound kinda tight... pulls his shorts up to his armpits & buttons his shirt to
the top...say are yawl kin? <g>.
Joe Walther
a
> big sad exception, the 50 years of testimony by the FBI lab techs. An
image
> of near complete infallibility overcame poor and misleading tests, lack of
> experience, etc. In too many cases, the jury saw them as absolute, the
> standard just below God, because after all, it was the FBI. I wonder how
> many innocent people went to jail from that.
Walther responds...
This is an excellent point, Tom. Image can be misleading. The way a jury
sees a witness, regardless of source, depends in large part on how well that
witness is cross-examined. This is why the rules for cross-examination are
more lenient than those for direct examination. The one thing that cannot be
done under cross-examination is question facts not yet in evidence. But, as
long as the direct examiner opens the door, the cross examiner has every
right to bear down hard and furiously.
The entire system fell victim to this. As in everything else, the majority
of FBI lab techs attempted to do their jobs without embellishment. These
people were also victimized. To tell you the truth, I do not know how
prevalent it was with the FBI technical components. It only takes a few to
kill the agency's reputation. J. Edgar Hoover had some pretty nasty traits
and habits. He was a vindictive paranoid (Although I understand he had some
pretty sexy dresses and things that Snuffy tried to get his hands on.).
However, agents would have been fired on the spot for some of the stupidity
and downright constitutional violations we've seen in recent years.
Complacency with the status-quo has to be constantly questioned and
challenged.
Regards
Walther
Joe Walther
Walther responds...
No, we are not kin. So, you spent years on the same DZ with him. You claim
he knows his stuff but that he's wound kind of tight. That sure sounds vain
as hell to me!
Pulling his shorts up to his armpits and buttoning his shirt to the top are
not character flaws. How do you know how far up he pulls his shorts? You
spend way too much time checking this stuff out! :-)
Regards
Walther
Capt. hook
>tights.
>
>Rick
JerrK is the expert witness on that subject
Sky
"Joe Walther"
: Complacency with the status-quo has to be constantly questioned and
: challenged.
ahhh, can i get a witness?
Capt. hook
>Pulling his shorts up to his armpits and >buttoning his shirt to the top are
>not character flaws.
maybe not down in the city or in your court but shit like that can git ya tied
to a tree in the big thicket. ;)P
Tom B
> What will be raised, relative to the WTC destruction, is whether or not
> there is any liability at all. Was this an act of war? Was it not? This
will
> be legally debated for decades because the answer to the question
> dramatically changes the eventual outcomes. I doubt that anyone alive
today,
> will see any money.
>
>
> > They will need dependable witnesses to do so. IIRC, less than half of
> 9/11's
> > victim's families have accepted the government settlement that would
> prevent
> > lawsuits.
>
> Walther responds...
>
> I have not seen this statistic.
It was in yesterday or today's New York Times.
"Time, however, is fast running out - the Congressionally mandated deadline
for filing claims is midnight, Dec. 22. And though 3,016 people died at the
World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and aboard the airliner that crashed in
Pennsylvania, only 40 percent of the families have filed claims. "
I have, however, an even more fundamental
> question. What is the government doing trying to settle with anyone at
this
> point. There are too many questions unanswered to do so.
I think I know the why, I just wonder how they could possibly believe it
would succed. We were already in a recession before 9-11, with domestic
airlines hit greater than average. Add to that a significant reduction in
travel after 9/11, and you put the industry in greater trouble. The amount
of money they have lost collectively is nearly unbeliveable. But the biggie
was future liability and the potential lawsuits. While their method was
perhaps ill founded, I think they were trying to protect the domestic air
travel industry. A judgement against an airline, besides putting them out of
business, could easilly ripple to the rest of the industry. What if
stockholders then panic and drop them. With their stocks in freefall, they
can't borrow money to recover in the future, etc. Taking all the potential
lawsuits off the table would have helped the industry. I agree with the
administration that the situation is dire. I just don't understand how they
thought people would sign up for the plan.
I have no questions
> as to the existence of negligence to some degree by a number of groups. It
> is far too soon, though, and there is not a legitimate attorney who would
> actually tell you otherwise. I suspect that the bulk of these deal with
> insurance settlements.
Many felt the risk was there, large enough to put at least two major
domestic airlines in bankruptcy, and perhaps worse. As was noted by a
socialist in the 30's, investor fear was the real problem. Fear itself. I
think the plan was an attempt to help confidence.
> Also, anyone who would accept an up-front settlement offer from any
> government agency at any level, is an idiot. This is also true of private
> insurance settlement offers.
Finacal idiots perhaps, but many could not or would not wait. Some just
wanted to close the book and start their lives again. The cash offered was
much more than I would have expected.
The insurance adjustors come out of the wood
> work with settlement checks with 24 to 48 hours of the injury. This is a
big
> mistake. There are some very capable insurance companies that simply do
not
> "settle" without a tremendous fight. These are the ones the ambulance
> chasers do not mess with.
Yep. After my brother's death, it took almost 8 years for his widow, with
two kids in diapers, no life insurance, etc. to get the case to trial. The
defendent, a railroad that had failed to act on 2 previous court orders to
install improved crossing signals at that location, made their first serious
offer the day before the trial would have started argument. She accepted it.
It was not an huge settlement, but enough to feed the kids and make sure
they could attend college someday.
Tom B
SkydiverRick
>> Pulling his shorts up to his armpits and >buttoning his shirt to the
>> top are not character flaws.
>
> maybe not down in the city or in your court but shit like that can
> git ya tied to a tree in the big thicket. ;)P
> "Fit Via Vi"
> Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
Squeal Snuffy, squeal....
Jerry K.
You don't know him well. Mike knows his abilities but I've never
heard him brag them. He'll explain his qualfications but only so
someone would have a better idea concerning the knowledge of his
perspective - certainly not to impress. Vain, he most certainly is
not. Humble, but very knowledgeable, nonetheless.
You just don't know.
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
Years on the dz with im? What was that? One point some odd percent
number of jumps/weekend?
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
>>Stick to talking about the things that you >know. Stuff like swords and
>>tights.
>>
>>Rick
>
>JerrK is the expert witness on that subject
Well, I did choose Saber to five strikes but I also did give you the
option of singing an Irish song at 20 paces if that was more to your
liking. But hoisery? No, that was something you brought into the
picture - more hairdresser code talk as near as I can tell.
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
Ah, yes - a comedic "goombah" style as portrayed by character actor,
Joe Pesci acting as a fictional Italian American lawyer from New York
City having to present a case in a southern court. Your typical "fish
out of water" comedy (but a funny one, nonetheless). On that note, I
thought Fred Gwynne almost stole the show in that film and Pesci was
better in "Goodfellas."
...bsrp
...jlk
Capt. hook
>>
>>yes I do, you don't know him! o~;->
>> "Fit Via Vi"
>> Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
>>
>
>You don't know him well. Mike knows his abilities but I've never
>heard him brag them. He'll explain his qualfications but only so
>someone would have a better idea concerning the knowledge of his
>perspective - certainly not to impress. Vain, he most certainly is
>not. Humble, but very knowledgeable, nonetheless.
>
>You just don't know.
>
>...bsrp
>...jlk
>
together had some effect on MT
Capt. hook
>It was in yesterday or today's New York >Times.
I thought yew wuz frum Arkansas, whut yew doing reading a NewYawk paper?
Their kin only be one explanation......
YOUR'E A YUPPIE
Don't com out in the woods alone boy ;-*
Jerry K.
Did he call you the next morning?
...bsrp
...jlk
CRWMike
"Joe Walther" <jlwal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CsacnZ8_i9b...@comcast.com...
Rev Jim
"Sky" <myfirstNa...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:NUT6b.5897$Ms1....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Heeeel yea!
Capt. hook
>together had some effect on MT
>Did he call you the next morning?
>
nah he's not a people person, wrapped way to tight ya know..spends so much time
struggling with his emotions its hard for him to communicate...a honest old guy
the USPA baddy's take advantage of him
He rarelly gits the respect he deserves
but what can I say, he trys to play by the rules even when everybody else
won't....
We were discussing him once in the loft.
I said "at least he's honest!"
a Master Rigger said
"Yeah but all they have to do is re write
the book to control him."
His own worst enemy, too hard on his self
I'm thinking...you on the other hand are not
your a sluffy boy...ya artta be selling used cars ROFL ;)P
Capt. hook
>>
>> I never had a case overturned. I had >>two sent back for resentencing.
your gonna have to quit babying criminals
joe...STICK IT TO THEM hooyah
Jerry K.
>>gad what a bunch of ass kissing sheep, >but I'm glad some of the time we spent
>>together had some effect on MT
>
>>Did he call you the next morning?
>>
>
>nah he's not a people person, wrapped way to tight ya know..spends so much time
>struggling with his emotions its hard for him to communicate...
No, I'd say his communication skills are excellent as witnessed by his
being utilized as an expert witness, papers he has written, his I/E
rating, his pilot's license, and by the many informative seminars has
given.
>a honest old guy
>the USPA baddy's take advantage of him
Really, when was that? I mean, there was that incident with the
rubber frog but that was before my time.
>He rarelly gits the respect he deserves
Hell, it wasn't any of us who said he was vain.
>but what can I say, he trys to play by the rules even when everybody else
>won't....
>We were discussing him once in the loft.
>I said "at least he's honest!"
>a Master Rigger said
>"Yeah but all they have to do is re write
>the book to control him."
>His own worst enemy, too hard on his self
>I'm thinking...you on the other hand are not
>your a sluffy boy...ya artta be selling used cars
Whereas you oughta be one of those Sunday morning televangelists. You
know - the ones who speak in tongues in order to purvey some sort of
mystical effect.
"Welcome back to the PMS, Praise Me Snuffie Club and here now is your
host who puts the polish on the bishop, puts the revulsion into
reverand, and puts the deke in Deacon - remember - there's a big
difference between kneeling down and bending over so, here's Snuffie!
Praise me!"
...bsrp
...jlk
Capt. hook
hand >are not your a sluffy boy...ya artta be >selling used cars
>Whereas you oughta be one of those >Sunday morning televangelists. You
>know - the ones who speak in tongues
oh no not me the holy rollers are pissed at me now as it is..Floyd took me over
to Moscow Texas to hear gosphel singing
This ole boy that went about 300 pounds
jumped up and started slobbering and running in place, I whack him with my cane
and thet thar pennycoastal preacher
wigged out so I hobble up there and whack him upside the head, got throwed
out......
appears I'm a heathen or something
So I'm down at the cafe doing a skit on
religious fanatics and the women git all mad at me...Floyd say "DAMN I KIN'T
TAKE YOU ANYWHERE WITHOUT A FIGHT BREAKING OUT!" Rukun them long
dress's down to the ankles and buns on the back of the head shudda been a sign
they wern't a good audience for cutting edge humor...so Keneth Wayne sed
"What wud yew do in Kentucky, where they handle snakes in church Onery?"
"Carry a shotgun to service."
"Nobodys mean enuff to be shooting
down the aisle way of a church, not even you!"
"Yew don't understand, I'm gonna use it to blow a hole in the nearest wall to
make a emergency exit for disabled people, not kill their perts!" o~;-)
Jerry K.
>>His own worst enemy, too hard on his >self I'm thinking...you on the other
>hand >are not your a sluffy boy...ya artta be >selling used cars
>
>>Whereas you oughta be one of those >Sunday morning televangelists. You
>>know - the ones who speak in tongues
>
>oh no not me the holy rollers are pissed at me now as it is..Floyd took me over
>to Moscow Texas to hear gosphel singing
>This ole boy that went about 300 pounds
>jumped up and started slobbering and running in place, I whack him with my cane
>and thet thar pennycoastal preacher
>wigged out so I hobble up there and whack him upside the head, got throwed
>out......
>appears I'm a heathen or something
Might have something to do with dickweeds randomly assaulting people.
Probably figured you'd be trying to lynch people next.
>So I'm down at the cafe doing a skit on
>religious fanatics and the women git all mad at me...Floyd say "DAMN I KIN'T
>TAKE YOU ANYWHERE WITHOUT A FIGHT BREAKING OUT!"
Ah, well - it's different up in the big piney and people are kinda set
in their ways and one of those ways is not really caring for mental
cases making light of beliefs which might be dear to their hearts.
Count yourself lucky - people have been burned at the stake, let alone
lynched, for less.
>Rukun them long
>dress's down to the ankles and buns on the back of the head shudda been a sign
>they wern't a good audience for cutting edge humor...
You could have just asked for forgiveness - Christians are usually hip
to that concept.
...bsrp
...jlk
Capt. hook
>jumped up and started slobbering and >running in place, I whack him with my
>got throwed out......appears I'm a >heathen or something
>Might have something to do with >dickweeds randomly assaulting people.
>I wuz defending myself from a >hippo anyway the women git all mad at me.
>Rukun them long dress's down to the >ankles and buns on the back of the head
>shudda been a sign they wuz gonna be >trouble
>You could have just asked for >forgiveness - Christians are usually hip
>to that concept.
>
As long as I think I can whip them, ain't asking for shit....didn't git no chow
though
so maybe I should have, that fried chicken
and tater salad looked mighty good o~;->
Tom Olson
> As long as I think I can whip them, ain't asking for shit....didn't git no chow
> though
> so maybe I should have, that fried chicken
> and tater salad looked mighty good o~;->
> "Fit Via Vi"
> Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
>
Hey gimp.. Didn't figure you for being able to wipe your ass and hold yourself up
off the toilet at the same time. Whada mean whip them?
I mean, you cant even hold up your end of a dual, challenge or conversation...
Come on. Cant you give us a date, list of weapons. What do you want; to hear
that we are going to tie one arm behind our backs or what?
Sissy boy! Give us the details!
Tom O.
Peanut4040
>
kinda like a DZO papy,,, shoot hem.
Peanut4040
well , NOT really,,, i just figured when i got yer age,, i wouldnt wanna git
laid anymore. and would just skydive till i had a stroke or two, and tried
something stupid-- maybe landed on a runway ,,, and had to hide from the Judges
again.
Peanut4040
>
>Damn! You are one sharp cookie.
LOOK OUT PAPPY,,, dats exactly what Lucky says,. before i DON"T get Pucked
Peanut4040
>And Snuffy has the vanity to actually think I was serious!...
Tole yew pappy,,, judges and pigs are in touch wit dar feminine side.
LLL, they wont take yer ugly hinnny down, UNLESS, dar is four of them aginst
ONE of yew. PUSSSYYYYYYYSSSSS
Peanut4040
>Walther responds...
>
>I never had a case overturned. I had two sent back for resentencing
ITS ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY,
who was your mentor Walter,,, was he on the state supreme court, when you was
presiding--
BTW,, are you really retired in Illinoiseeeee
Peanut4040
>permitted to go. I had mine, too. Intentional disrespect was one. Not
>disrespect for me personally, mind you, but disrespect for the court was not
>tolerated. Another one was grandstanding. I gave two warnings. Beyond that,
>the fines began. Every time the mouth ran beyond this, the fines doubled and
>they were not suspended. I had very few problems and rarely jailed anyone
>for contempt. :-)
>
>Regards
>
>Walther
> >
yeah,,, and somebody paid money, and unfortunately, you didn't get much of it,,
I aint stupid enough to call a judge a crook, but i'm stupid enough to call a
judge a STUPID EGOTISTICAL MANIAC pig--
but-- I DIGRESS-- you got the "POWER THRILL" like a dzo, of "hurting" someone,
just because they maybe didnt pay your black robe more respect..
Just curious--How does it feel to hurt someone in a lesser capital status of
yourself.--- because, they are not like you--
Tom B
"Tom Olson" <tomo...@webtoaster.com> wrote in message
news:6cb7b.23557$162....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> > As long as I think I can whip them, ain't asking for shit....didn't git
no chow
> > though
> > so maybe I should have, that fried chicken
> > and tater salad looked mighty good o~;->
> > "Fit Via Vi"
> > Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
> >
>
> Hey gimp.. Didn't figure you for being able to wipe your ass and hold
yourself up
> off the toilet at the same time.
You mean he wipes?
Peanut4040
>for contempt. :-)
yew aint met me yet, laughing,, and btw, IN case, you are still in
ILLINOISEEE-- you never will.
Peanut4040
>joe...STICK IT TO THEM hooyah
> "Fit Via Vi"
> Cuirtan Mheadhon Oidhche
PUCKY YER MAMMA PAPPY.-- he's a judge making money for radar detectors.
Peanut4040
>
>
peanut sings,
And Rosey was her nameeeee
Peanut4040
>Again, if the jury doesn't find in a manner that we would, it is obviously a
>case of stupid jurors.
>
>Regards
>
>Walther
>
COULD be the way the judge "charges" the jury,, dem funny little instructions
before they go behind doors. Show me de MONEYYYYY
Tom Olson
> > Hey gimp.. Didn't figure you for being able to wipe your ass and hold
> yourself up
> > off the toilet at the same time.
>
> You mean he wipes?
>
SkydiverRick
You should always wipe your Snuffy after you use the restroom.
Capt. hook
>before they go behind doors. Show me >de MONEYYYYY nut
Here's a clue cracker...only ones that listen to them fuddy judges are the
goody goody two shoes and school marms...us good ole boys have our own agenda
;->
Capt. hook
>PUCKY YER MAMMA PAPPY.-- he's a >judge making money for radar detectors.
speaking of which.....handle yer woman boy, she just got off student status and
is already acting like a 51 jump wonder ;)P
Sky
: >Again, if the jury doesn't find in a manner that we would, it is
if a jury is manipulated by anyone it is a fault of thier own. nobody can
TELL the jury how to rule. in an extreme example a jury can disregard the
charges and evidence and find according to thier concience. it's called jury
nullification and is one way that we can take back control.
although, i think i have heard of cased of jurys findings reversed by the
judge.
joe, did i get it wrong? right? what is the practical reality of jury
nullification?
Capt. hook
>
>Tole yew pappy,,, judges and pigs
I think I see his problem now, he wuz a judge in ILL. he's got a case of tree
hugging yankee going on ;->
Capt. hook
>>
>
>kinda like a DZO papy,,, shoot hem.
well he's a yankee it might be legal in Polk
County Texas...
Joe Walther
"Sky" <myfirstNa...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:%cc7b.108$wk4...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> if a jury is manipulated by anyone it is a fault of thier own. nobody can
> TELL the jury how to rule. in an extreme example a jury can disregard the
> charges and evidence and find according to thier concience. it's called
jury
> nullification and is one way that we can take back control.
Walther responds...
Take back control of what? If you are speaking in terms of criminal cases, a
jury is always the trier of fact. With one exception, a jury controls the
verdict based on its collective interpretation of the facts as they were
presented during the trial. Instructions to a jury have nothing to do with
the facts of the case, only the application of the law.
> although, i think i have heard of cased of jurys findings reversed by the
> judge.
Walther responds...
There is only one way a judge can override a jury's authority and it is only
applicable in criminal cases. Judges can use what is called a "directed
verdict". A directed verdict can only be FOR the defendant. When the only
possible outcome of factual interpretation can be, in the opinion of the
presiding judge, reasonable doubt, the judge can direct a verdict of "not
guilty". A judge can never direct a jury to find anyone guilty. This is
rarely done but, nevertheless, it does happen from time to time.
> joe, did i get it wrong? right? what is the practical reality of jury
> nullification?
Walther responds...
Juries, in criminal cases, possess de facto power of "nullification". In
other words, a jury in a criminal case can acquit a defendant regardless of
the strength of the evidence against him/her. As in the case of a directed
verdict, though, this is a very rare occurrence.
In criminal cases, the jury determines factual validity. A judge rules on
legal issues. An example of a legal issue is whether or not certain evidence
is admissible. A factual issue would be whether or not a specific bit of
testimony is truthful or not.
Regardless, once a jury renders a verdict of not guilty, the matter is over.
There is no appeal. On the other hand, if the jury renders a verdict of
guilty, the defense can appeal but the appeal can only be based on claims of
legal mistake. A defendant can't appeal a guilty verdict simply because he
or she disagrees with the verdict.
Regards
Walther
>
>
>
>
Sky
"Joe Walther"
: "Sky" wrote in message
: >
:
: >
: > if a jury is manipulated by anyone it is a fault of thier own. nobody
can
: > TELL the jury how to rule. in an extreme example a jury can disregard
the
: > charges and evidence and find according to thier concience. it's called
: jury
: > nullification and is one way that we can take back control.
:
: Walther responds...
:
: Take back control of what? If you are speaking in terms of criminal cases,
a
: jury is always the trier of fact. With one exception, a jury controls the
: verdict based on its collective interpretation of the facts as they were
: presented during the trial. Instructions to a jury have nothing to do with
: the facts of the case, only the application of the law.
take control of dated or repressive statutes etc.
a poor example would be a jury summarily throwing out a sodomy case that
somehow made it to court in spite of the fact that the prosecutor has
glossies, confession and the letter of the law going for him. bad example i
know, but thats what i mean.
something that i have read more than once is that jury nullification is not
presented explicitly as an option and in some cases is quietly discouraged,
and instances of people attempting to educate potential jurors about the
idea, outside the courtroom, but inside the court being removed, but again
this is from reading.
it seems like something that i would want to familiar with if i were called
for jury duty.
i thank yo ufor taking the time to throw down some knowledge. this has
intersted me for years, but apparently not enough to talk to an attorney
about it or spend any time chilling out in a criminal court.
sky
Jerry K.
Anyone can interpret the laws but it seems to me the judges have the
power of directing enforcement which means, given the whole good ole
boy having their own agenda posturing of yours is concerned, that's
why so many country songs are about jail and some of these songs were
actually written by good o'l boys who spent time in jail and were
proud of it.
As a matter of fact, didn't that little PTL guy, the one with the
squinty eyes do some time - I think he was proud of it later when he
got back his old job after he got out. Hell, I think he was navy some
time earlier for that matter - the parallels just keep on a'coming.
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
Actually, he made the challenge so time, place, and choice of weapons
falls to me but I did cede him the choice of date and time for his
convienence which he has in a very cowardly fashion refused to decide,
thus far.
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
ROFLMAO!!! Shit too funny!
...bsrp
...jlk
SkydiverRick
Not very honorable.
Sky
Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power
to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury
may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier):
"The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and
approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and
arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury
must be informed by the judge of that power".
isn't this inherently a contradiction? and is there a remedy?
it would take only one juror who was already familiar with jury's
prerogative to educate the rest of the jury once they are out. but lacking
that one juror, what avenues exist to inform the whole jury given a
resisting judge?
would you need to consider this during jury selection? and if a potential
juror was questioned and disclosed foreknowledge of jury's prerogative, what
are the odds of that juror being selected? seem slim. i will look up juror
selection procedures.
hey, im just curious and am glad to be hunting down information of this
nature than another. so when you get tired of being barraged by stupid
questions just tell me to go phugoff somewhere.
sides, snuffy and jk are hiding somewhere and it is too quiet around here.
sky
Jerry K.
No, I guess not but I guess we shouldn't expect some piddling ass
monkey who lionizes the past and demonizes the present, all the while
forgetting the bad in one era and the good in another and pretending
to be what he most certainly never was: A self-proclaimed "old-timer"
who made a few hundred jumps in the 90's and refused to learn what his
betters tried to teach him. He finds comfort in pretending to be
"old-fashioned" while enjoying modern convienences like flat screen
televisions, computers, and the usenet. And honor. This "man of
honor" has to brag and proclaim this status despite it being
abundantly clear that he doesn't actually have any concept of honor,
let alone the balls to follow through on the ancient and honorable
rite he so haphazardly invoked, that is a challenge. In another era
he would have had a horsewhip taken to his backside for making such
statements while remaining unwilling to or incapable of backing up his
words. I gave him the option of Saber to five strikes, best two out
of three or merely singing an Irish song and what does he do? Makes
vague threats about how he always keeps a shotgun in the trunk and how
he might be tempted to use it. Fuck, he made the challenge - not me.
I just called his bluff and in accepting it, stated very modest terms.
What a dickweed. Pretense, thy name is Snuffie.
Hehhehheh...ass monkey.
...bsrp
...jlk
Tom B
"Joe Walther" <jlwal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uI-dndXmf49...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Regardless, once a jury renders a verdict of not guilty, the matter is
over.
> There is no appeal. On the other hand, if the jury renders a verdict of
> guilty, the defense can appeal but the appeal can only be based on claims
of
> legal mistake. A defendant can't appeal a guilty verdict simply because he
> or she disagrees with the verdict.
>
> Regards
> Walther
Most often it works that way. However when the state courts don't deliver
the "right" answer in some high profile cases, the nearest federal
prosecutor files charges there. I never have really understood how that is
not double jeopardy, other than some jurist in the federal system decided
the end justifies the means.
It leads one to wonder why OJ Simpson was not charged in federal courts for
violating civil rights. While this use is pretty rare, I have never heard of
it applied to anyone but white males.
Joe, if one can be charged with different crimes for one act in this way in
State and Federal systems, what makes this different than filing different
the different charges both in the State court?
Tom
Livendive
"Tom B" <d16...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:w0U6b.2292$vm5...@fe1.columbus.rr.com...> news:ivudnbtqcfY...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom B" <d16...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:OAP6b.1770$Kl5....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > >
>
> > What will be raised, relative to the WTC destruction, is whether or not
> > there is any liability at all. Was this an act of war? Was it not? This
> will
> > be legally debated for decades because the answer to the question
> > dramatically changes the eventual outcomes. I doubt that anyone alive
> today,
> > will see any money.
> >
> >
> > > They will need dependable witnesses to do so. IIRC, less than half of
> > 9/11's
> > > victim's families have accepted the government settlement that would
> > prevent
> > > lawsuits.
> >
> > Walther responds...
> >
> > I have not seen this statistic.
>
> It was in yesterday or today's New York Times.
>
> "Time, however, is fast running out - the Congressionally mandated
deadline
> for filing claims is midnight, Dec. 22. And though 3,016 people died at
the
> World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and aboard the airliner that crashed
in
> Pennsylvania, only 40 percent of the families have filed claims. "
FYI -
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001720711_web9-11l
awsuits09.html
Blues,
Dave
Capt. hook
>falls to me but I did cede him the choice >of date and time for his
convienence >which he has in a very cowardly fashion >refused to decide, thus
far.
>
you got a choice of buzz cut or squeeling like a pig, cityboy...apparently you
have me mixed up with conventional warriors
Capt. hook
>hold yourself up off the toilet at the same >time. Whada mean whip them?
ifin yer ass ain't so big it covers up the seat ya ain't gotta lift up, just
lean forward and reach around city slick. o~;-*
Jerry K.
Ya know? You might get more positive feedback over at
alt.lifestyle.hairstylists
...bsrp
...jlk
Jerry K.
>>Hey gimp.. Didn't figure you for being >able to wipe your ass and
>>hold yourself up off the toilet at the same >time. Whada mean whip them?
>
>ifin yer ass ain't so big it covers up the seat ya ain't gotta lift up, just
>lean forward and reach around city slick. o~;-*
You heard it hear first, folks - country boys can survive as long as
they're good at reacharounds.
...bsrp
...jlk
Capt. hook
Jerry K
Tom O
Rick the prick
>yada yada yada whine whine whine
why don't yawl just com on up to Polk County and git yer haircut boys?
Tom B
> > question. What is the government doing trying to settle with anyone at
> this
> > point. There are too many questions unanswered to do so.
>
> I think I know the why, I just wonder how they could possibly believe it
> would succed. We were already in a recession before 9-11, with domestic
> airlines hit greater than average. Add to that a significant reduction in
> travel after 9/11, and you put the industry in greater trouble. The amount
> of money they have lost collectively is nearly unbeliveable. But the
biggie
> was future liability and the potential lawsuits. While their method was
> perhaps ill founded, I think they were trying to protect the domestic air
> travel industry. A judgement against an airline, besides putting them out
of
> business, could easilly ripple to the rest of the industry. What if
> stockholders then panic and drop them. With their stocks in freefall, they
> can't borrow money to recover in the future, etc. Taking all the potential
> lawsuits off the table would have helped the industry. I agree with the
> administration that the situation is dire. I just don't understand how
they
> thought people would sign up for the plan.
>
From today's news:
NEW YORK (AP) - The crashing of a hijacked jetliner was the kind of
``foreseeable risk'' that the airline industry should have guarded against,
a judge ruled Tuesday as he permitted lawsuits related to the Sept. 11
attacks to proceed. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said negligent
security screening could have contributed to the deaths of 3,000 people in
the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the crash of
a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania.
Well folks, we may get to witness the destruction of the entire domestic
airline industry. Unlikely, but possible.
Tom B