Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not guilty is taken as innocent in the eyes of the law.


Now the court of public opinion may have a differet view and even rightfully so, but it doesn't change the fact that not guilty and innocent are the same in the legal venue.

The fact that he was found guilty in a civil court wjen innocent in a criminal court tells me just how bad this country has gotten when it comes to how the law is administered and just how weaponized it has become.

It hasn't "become" anything. Civil trials have always been able go ahead of or run in parallel with criminal trials about the same acts. I'm just giving recent examples because they're ones that I'm most familiar with.

It's always been this way. You just had a bad assumption that things worked a different way, and you hadn't looked deeply enough to find out that it was wrong until now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For some crimes they do need to extend the statute of limitations.

That's what happened in the Carroll case. New York changed the law to get rid of the statute of limitations on crimes like sexual abuse, which is why she was able to sue when she did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not guilty is taken as innocent in the eyes of the law.

Yes, but that is only because the person is "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Now the court of public opinion may have a differet view and even rightfully so, but it doesn't change the fact that not guilty and innocent are the same in the legal venue.

Yes, but that is only because of the legal standard. In real life we can call OJ a murderer because he was found to be one in a civil trial. We just cannot punish him for being a murderer by locking him up.

The fact that he was found guilty in a civil court when innocent in a criminal court tells me just how bad this country has gotten when it comes to how the law is administered and just how weaponized it has become.

What? So you would prefer that no justice be done at all. Wow! There is little doubt that he was guilty so why are you complaining that the victims families got at least some justice?

It pains me to say that in the OJ Simpson case because I personally believe he was guilty like a lot of people do and even worse was the outcomes of both criminal and civil case which in my own view completely destroyed the Integrity of the legal system.

How so? The prosecution did not do a good job. They should have seen that they were being set up with a loaded jury. That should not have been allowed. They could have demanded a better venue when it was moved. The prosecution did a major no no, they let OJ try on the gloves, with his knowledge before hand. He could have easily made his hands swell a bit ahead of time and then stiffening up the fingers can also make it look as if the glove does not fit.

You appear to be all over the place on this case. If the prosecution screws up they do not still get rewarded with a guilty verdict. This will happen at times. Tell me, would you rather have a higher percentage of innocent sentence to prison?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what happened in the Carroll case. New York changed the law to get rid of the statute of limitations on crimes like sexual abuse, which is why she was able to sue when she did.

Yes, for civil cases. But she was not able to criminally prosecute him. They probably cannot raise the criminal statute of limitations after the fact. Though I could be wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but that is only because of the legal standard. In real life we can call OJ a murderer because he was found to be one in a civil trial. We just cannot punish him for being a murderer by locking him up.

Heck - we would be able to call OJ a murderer even without his civil trial. It's just that without a trial verdict to point to, it would be up to us to show that we have good grounds to call him that if he were to sue for defamation.

 

[F1fan]

Well it's still a mockery of justice in the OJ Simpson trial whether you think he's guilty of murder, which I do personally , the civil trial showing guiltiness when he was actually proven innocent by the judge and jury shows a serious systemic flaw on how our justice system works.

He wasn't proven innocent, he was acquited of the charges. That was due to OJ's all-star defense team doing excellent theatrics in court, and serious mistakes the prosecution team made. The civil case avoided the mistakes. Since the jury was not hung he could not be charged again due to double jeopardy (actual double jeopardy, not what Trump claims in his situation).

Still, I have never heard of any civil trial preceding a criminal trial ever, in the history of our nation, which is why in this case is so controversial for which obviously, the pending Supreme Court decision will be very interesting.

I'm sure your extensive legal experience is notable.

 

[Sargonski]

You have to know that you have shown that you have not understood the arguments against you. You will not find a post where anyone denied that it was a criminal matter too. This is your poor reading comprehension, I did not flip flop.

there are lots of post with you claiming this is a civil matter .. agreeing with the Colorado Judge but, if you now deny this .. Good .. finally you have come to senses and realize that this is a criminal matter relying conviction in a criminal court for punishment to be meted out.

 

[Sargonski]

Both bars can apply.

And you need to drop the false accusations of "kangaroo court". Just because you don't understand the law does not make it a kangaroo court.

Only in Kangarooland do both bars apply .. hence if this is the case you have proven to yourself that this was a kangaroo court.

In addition .. not listening to what has been told you .. that the bar has not yet been set via due process. .. and certainly not the case where both bars apply.

You should try harder to eliminate made up hopes and dreams from your commentary .. and speak what you know to be true .. not what you hope might be true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

.....

I'm sure your extensive legal experience is notable.

Extensive legal experience is not required to note the clear fact that there has never been a civil trial preceding a proper criminal trial on the same exact charge. Much less via Judge Judy tribunal style.

Not a single one of you will ever cite such a case, because no such case exists, except for the banana republic tactics that we are seeing now by a hive mind party hell bent on removing their political opponents by bastardizing the Constitution and the continued spitting on due process.

Only one person actually surprised me on the hive mind left , and that was governor Gavin of California where he said we will beat Trump at the polls.

I may not be particularly fond of the guy, but I do give him credit for at least doing it legally and showing some actual respect for the Constitution and due process in this particular matter unlike some other people out there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Extensive legal experience is not required to note the clear fact that there has never been a civil trial preceding a proper criminal trial on the same exact charge. Much less via Judge Judy tribunal style.

Not a single one of you will ever cite such a case, because no such case exists, except for the banana republic tactics that we are seeing now by a hive mind party hell bent on removing their political opponents by bastardizing the Constitution and the continued spitting on due process.

Dude... I just tagged you in a post where I mentioned two specific cases just like that, and another where a civil trial followed a not guilty verdict.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Dude... I just tagged you in a post where I mentioned two specific cases just like that, and another where a civil trial followed a not guilty verdict.

I came across no such tag, and the OJ case still had a criminal trial preceding the civil trial , but what a mockery and joke that was in spite of me thinking that OJ was still guilty.

The fact that he was found not guilty in a criminal court of law still makes it one of the biggest kangaroo courts I've ever seen in spite of the Criminal Court screwing it up big time because the Civil Trial said he was guilty which is absolutely nuts as far as formal rule of law goes.

So just refer me to whatever post that other example is and I'll read it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Only in Kangarooland do both bars apply .. hence if this is the case you have proven to yourself that this was a kangaroo court.

In addition .. not listening to what has been told you .. that the bar has not yet been set via due process. .. and certainly not the case where both bars apply.

You should try harder to eliminate made up hopes and dreams from your commentary .. and speak what you know to be true .. not what you hope might be true.

There are so many people who knows the real deal about their kangaroo tactics and have explained the whole thing beautifully but the hive mind left people's wing just doesn't care and they still want to continue to spit on the Constitution and due process.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@9-10ths_Penguin

I looked over my list and I think you're referring to Kyle Rittenhouse case which is a state matter and not a federal matter.

The idea that you can sue people acquitted of crimes is still absolutely ridiculous in terms of legal framework.

You still haven't provided a case where a civil court proceeded a criminal court, so these crazy examples are totally non applicable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I came across no such tag,

I quoted your post. You got a notification.

and the OJ case still had a criminal trial preceding the civil trial ,

But not a conviction proceeding the civil trial. Wasn't your whole point that you need a criminal conviction before you can get a civil judgment?

but what a mockery and joke that was in spite of me thinking that OJ was still guilty.

The fact that he was found not guilty in a criminal court of law still makes it one of the biggest kangaroo courts I've ever seen in spite of the Criminal Court screwing it up big time because the Civil Trial said he was guilty which is absolutely nuts as far as formal rule of law goes.

So just refer me to whatever post that other example is and I'll read it.

Here you go - post 818: Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

BTW: my mistake - it was 3 cases, not 2.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I quoted your post. You got a notification.


But not a conviction proceeding the civil trial. Wasn't your whole point that you need a criminal conviction before you can get a civil judgment?


Here you go - post 818: Trump kicked off Colorado ballot

BTW: my mistake - it was 3 cases, not 2.

I caught it and had given you a response but these are cases where a criminal trial proceeded a Civil Trial.

You still haven't provided any example where a civil Trial came first, and the criminal trial came later.

I'll give you a half credit for trying though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin

I looked over my list and I think you're referring to Kyle Rittenhouse case which is a state matter and not a federal matter.

So what?

The idea that you can sue people acquitted of crimes is still absolutely ridiculous in terms of legal framework.

Your opinion of how the law works doesn't change how the law works.

You still haven't provided a case where a civil court proceeded a criminal court, so these crazy examples are totally non applicable.

Sounds like you've forgotten what you were trying to argue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there are lots of post with you claiming this is a civil matter .. agreeing with the Colorado Judge but, if you now deny this .. Good .. finally you have come to senses and realize that this is a criminal matter relying conviction in a criminal court for punishment to be meted out.

Yes, because it is a civil matter. This is not a criminal matter. That is not denying that there is a criminal side to this too. You are the one that keeps mixing up criminal matters and civil ones. They have different burdens of proof. They have very different punishments. The existence of one does not automatically negate the existence of the other. But the removal of a person from the ballot is a civil issue. It is not a criminal one..


Let's go back to OJ Simpson. He was charged and found not guilty of murder after the prosecution screwed the pooch. And they voted "Not guilty" unanimously so it was not a hung jury. He could not be tried again for the same crime, or to be clearer he could not be tried criminally again for the same crime. That is what double jeopardy is.

That does not mean that he could not be tried civilly. And he was. And he lost. Badly. As a result they were able to strip him of much of his wealth. He was tried both criminally and civilly. And his case supports that we do not need to try Trump criminally for a civil matter. He could have been sue civilly before the criminal trial. But the families were still grieving. It was not until the criminal trial was lost that they tried to get some degree of justice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only in Kangarooland do both bars apply .. hence if this is the case you have proven to yourself that this was a kangaroo court.

I thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. What makes you think that? Where in the Constitution does it say that one cannot be tried both civilly and criminally?

In addition .. not listening to what has been told you .. that the bar has not yet been set via due process. .. and certainly not the case where both bars apply.

I have listened. I have asked for evidence that due process was not followed and all that you had was Barr making that claim without any evidence. By the way, Barr was more of a prosecutor. He may not be as aware of civil matters. I am sure that he knows the law better than I do, but this appears to be a bit of personal prejudice since he did not site any evidence that supported his claims. Just as you never have.

You should try harder to eliminate made up hopes and dreams from your commentary .. and speak what you know to be true .. not what you hope might be true.

Oh my oh my! There goes another irony meter.
Once again, a case law example of a person that was found to be disqualified:

J.D. Watkins

District Attorney

“Engaged in the late rebellion” (unclear precisely what Watkins did)

State Judge

Quo warranto action filed against Watkins under state law and Section 3.

Louisiana Supreme Court

Yes. Louisiana ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631 (La. 1869).

No

1869

Court confirmed state courts can enforce Section 3 and that Section 3 is not a criminal punishment but a qualification for office.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.

www.citizensforethics.org

He was never charged with any crime and he was still removed. Just as Trump may be. We will see how the Supreme Court reacts.

Please read that last block of print. It shows you what everyone that has been opposing you has been claiming all along.

Now unless you can find some actual legal evidence it looks as if you are just working using your own feelings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I caught it and had given you a response but these are cases where a criminal trial proceeded a Civil Trial.

You still haven't provided any example where a civil Trial came first, and the criminal trial came later.

I'll give you a half credit for trying though.

You are still not thinking logically. That OJ's civil trial came afterwards makes our case even stronger. You do not seem to understand that for a civil suit it does not matter what the results were of a criminal trial. If it does not matter what the criminal trial says then there clearly is no need of a criminal trial first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are still not thinking logically. That OJ's civil trial came afterwards makes our case even stronger. You do not seem to understand that for a civil suit it does not matter what the results were of a criminal trial. If it does not matter what the criminal trial says then there clearly is no need of a criminal trial first.

Your the one that is saying it's OK to have a Civil Trial before criminal trial, now you're saying the opposite?