From: hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rage (story)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:54:09 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

In article <1992Jul24.011228.8885@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
<In article <19305@plains.NoDak.edu>, hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
<> In article <1992Jul22.155839.8861@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
<> <In article <19271@plains.NoDak.edu>, hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
<When people hear about RICO, they think it is something new. Hardly. The states
<have always had a principle known as an action against property. Basically the
<argument goes that the item committed an act against society/the state, and now
<the state may move in a civil proceeding against it. The state prosecutes the
<item.
<
<No. I am not making this up. When the senior partner at my law firms showed me
<the cases, I was just as shocked.

What were you shocked about? I thought you approved of RICO.

<Now, as only people are protected by the constitution, certain 'rights' do not
<apply. The offending item (farm, boat, rake, corvette) does not get a lawyer

Actually item have no rights, so there is nothing to keep the government
from changing the rules so that it wins every time without any need for
evidence.

Pretending to prosecute an item instead of a person is simply another example
of judicial corruption.

<This is nothing new. The principle came over to the U.S. with the Puritans. It
<has been valid law ever since. This is NOT an eroding of any rights.

The amount of governmental enthusiasm, not to mention wanton abandon are new.
wanton abandon includes prosecuting for crimes that haven't happened yet.
So far at least they haven't prosecuted livers as items.

<> The interrogation can take place in Joel Fleischman's living room for
<> all I care. If trial testimony is being taken there, it is a courtroom.
<>            The witness doesn't see the person the state is trying to
<>    destroy.
<> That is the primary difference between being allowed to confront, to use
<> the constitution's word, one's accuser and just seeing him or her on TV.
<> Also the defendant doesn't get to ask his own questions.
<
<Wrong! "Confront" in the COnstitution does not mean 'stand over them with a
<baseball bat.' Or, 'Berate them with pointless questions.' Confront means to
<be able to have your counsel question the subject. That is fully allowed.

The right to cross-examine witnesses belongs to the defendant not his
counsel. The questions they would ask can be quite different, especially
if counsel incorrectly believes the defendant guilty or if they have
differing ideas regarding the honesty of the prosecutors.

<Further, one important note. This video-taped testimnoy applies to minors
<beneath a certain age (state variable). The reason that this is used with
<children is to assure more honest answers by the child. They ar enot being
<coerced by EITHER the defendant OR the courtroom OR the person who brought the
<allegations to the police. It is neutral. 

'Tisn't neutral. In the real world the right to stand over them with a
baseball bat belongs to the "child welfare" part of the prosecution.
The trial doesn't start until the child gives the answers that the
prosecution wants.

BTW is there anything in the constitution to keep the state from handling
all witnesses the same way it does minors below a certain age?

<> The doctrine of harmless error when applied to unlawful and unconstitional
<> deeds which are neither harmless nor error is judicial corruption.
<>
<
<You are ignoring the facts. The appellate court does a de novo review of the
<evidence presented WITHOUT factoring in the mistakenly admitted evidence.
<If there is then any reasonable doubt that the defendant should be found
<guilty, the appellate court orders a new trial with the evidence in error
<excluded.

Can you say non sequitor? Can you spell it?

<> The jury's mind is the mind that is supposed to count, not the appellate
<> court's. That's why it's called "trial by jury" not "trial by appellate
<> court". They can have quite different ideas about what doubt is reasonable.
<> See Simi Valley vs Rodney King.
<
<There has never, ever been a trial without a mistake in evidence or procedure
<or jury instructions or prejudice. To afford a defendant a perfect trial means 
<that we abandon all trials, as they do not exist.

The isanity offense is not about error, it is about deliberate misconduct.
Even when "mere" mistakes are involved, we can at least go for constitutional
trials. Allowing a conviction to stand, despite admission of perjury by
prosecution witnesses, despite previous unadmitted contradictary testimony
by the same prosecution witness, and despite exculpatory evidence not
shown to the defendant is not the result of honest ajudicating.

<You seem to believe that we have less rights than we did before. That is simply
<not true. What has happened is the press has finally gotten around to telling
<stories about the legal system as it IS, as opposed to how people THINK it is.

What is new for much of it is the judiciary's effort to legitimize it and
therefore eliminate the need for the official crooks to hide what they do.
I suspect this is due to Gideon vs Wainwright (sp?). Once victims of "law"
enforcement acquired some means to complain about violations of their rights
continuing current practice required that there be no rights to violate.

<> I have heard of at least one case where a sister was convicted for standing
<> and watching while her brother killed their father. So far
<> as I know there was no dispute as to the facts of the killing, but
<> maybe some regarding motive. That dad was a federal marshall or
<> something may have had an influence on the case.
<
<Did you hear it from a reputible source, or word of mouth? (A 15 second snippet
<on T.V. or radio is word of mouth.) IF you are discussing the case that was
<covered on sixty minutes about a decade ago, she was convicted because she
<helped in the planning, and setting up of the execution. True, she did not pull
<the trigger, but she encouraged her brother onward.

Huh? What plan? There wasn't enough plan to share. I wondered at the time
I saw it what she had been convicted of. If she'd helped plan I wouldn't
have wondered.

<The lowest anyone has been tried at for murder in recent history is, I believe,
<13. It involved drugs and drug money, and the 'youth' has a stack of priors.
<
<Hope he fries.

If he does it'll probably be cause he didn't do it. Executions end appeals.
Drugs and drug money haven't done much for the integrety of "law"
enforcement.

-- 
Mike   hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu
"This dream is brought to you by Sharassin of Shan. Dreams and
communication wizardry of all sorts at reasonable rates."  --  Sharassin of Shan
Newsgroups: talk.rape