Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    What I said was very specific, accurate and true. Sure, if you change what I said anything might be true.

    It's as if I said "I can speed with impunity on any highway as long as there are no witnesses." And you wrote "no you can't if a cop caught you on radar."

    My quote above stands true until you can show my exact statement is untrue...which you haven't done.
    Untrue! You can be cited "after the fact" if PC exists to do so.

    You are driving at 100 miles an hour, you hit a Moose. Say it landed 40 - 50 feet away. An accident reconstructionist can certainly estimate travel speed enough to determine you were not driving at 25 miles an hour? Seem plausible? If not, just substitute different facts that make PC easily determinable.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You aren't doing a good job with logic here. If you said "I can speed on any highway with impunity as long as there are no witnesses" then for that to be true the only way you could be cited for speeding was if there was a witness. And if I then demonstrated that you could be caught without witnesses by, say, a cop using photo radar, that would prove your statement untrue because I have now shown you an instance where you can be caught without there being a witness to the speeding.

    It's the same thing here. You say there is no association between you and your screen name. I've given you an example of where in fact there is just such an association, thus disproving your statement.
    So what is the officer called who reviews the video/camera evidence? Exactly! He is a professional WITNESS to the crime. No witness, no conviction.

    Whether she could successfully sue you for defamation would depend on the exact facts and the evidence to support it. But she certainly could file the lawsuit and get the subpoenas needed to identify the person behind that screen name in order to pursue her claim. Again, this illustrates my point: it is the person (you) behind the screen name that would be sued, not your screen name. There is a link between you and your screen name.
    She would sue who, EL? Then how would EL identify me? Then how would she show damages when the public cannot connect the screen name with the person? Remember, I said "successfully."

    Heck, I could take out a billboard that says cbg is a **** and she could not successfully sue me. Remember I said "successfully", because anyone can sue anyone else for any reason.

    As to your point as to the specifics of defamation law, that has nothing to do with the point you started this thread with, which deals with being banned in this forum, and I think that's already been sufficiently addressed.
    I will never forget what my lawyer friend said after my court case. He said "it easy for a lawyer to discredit someone." Because there are two ways to win a debate/case. Prove you aren't liable or at fault, or, discredit the opposing party as OJ did. Bringing up the root of this thread is only used to discredit me because I already admitted that EL can do what they want. What I am now is hyper-aware of the tactics and methods of lawyers and debate specialists.

    I hate to say this TM but you speak to me with a severe disadvantage now. I will never believe or do business with anyone who uses the court system to prevail over another person. I am walking away from another lucrative job right now because the lady bragged to me about the contractors she successfully sued in court...never using the award to fix the supposed poor work they performed. Actually, she is using the $15K she won off the hardwood floor installer to hire me for new patio doors and a few windows. ...She was bragging to the wrong person. IMO, winning in a courtroom can skew a person's morals and ethics.

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Untrue! You can be cited "after the fact" if PC exists to do so.

    You are driving at 100 miles an hour, you hit a Moose. Say it landed 40 - 50 feet away. An accident reconstructionist can certainly estimate travel speed enough to determine you were not driving at 25 miles an hour? Seem plausible? If not, just substitute different facts that make PC easily determinable.
    Again, what is an accident reconstructionist? Yep, he's an Expert WITNESS!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Again, what is an accident reconstructionist? Yep, he's an Expert WITNESS!
    You said as long as there were no witnesses, right. What you are meaning is if there are no "EYE" witnesses, right? EYE witness also includes a person who has personal knowledge of hearing and smelling of an event.

    EYE witness who testifies or ANY witness who testifies?

    Also, if you wreck speeding and paralyze yourself, I would not call that immunity from impunity.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Many crimes lack any witnesses to the actual offense and the cases are made solely upon expert testimony or circumstances. To imply that an EYE witness is needed before you can be cited/arrested or charged is simply untrue.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    So what is the officer called who reviews the video/camera evidence? Exactly! He is a professional WITNESS to the crime. No witness, no conviction.
    No, he's not a witness to the event. He was not there at the scene to see what happened. He's simply reviewing what a machine recorded, which is not the same thing. In any event, this still has nothing to do with what you started this thread with, so why do you keep banging on it?

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    She would sue who, EL?
    She could file a John Doe lawsuit for the claim, get the subpoenas, then substitute your name for "John Doe" when she learns of your actual identity.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I hate to say this TM but you speak to me with a severe disadvantage now. I will never believe or do business with anyone who uses the court system to prevail over another person.
    This isn't new. I've long known you hate all lawyers. The hatred of all lawyers you is, in my view, irrational but it is what you feel and I'm not going to change a view that you hold so strongly. But if you are hoping I'm offended by your hatred of my profession then you'll be disappointed. As I consider your view irrational I'm not at all hurt by it.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    Many crimes lack any witnesses to the actual offense and the cases are made solely upon expert testimony or circumstances. To imply that an EYE witness is needed before you can be cited/arrested or charged is simply untrue.
    I wasn't talking about any crime, rather a speeding citation.

    I would say that an officer who reviews video from a radar camera is an eye witness. If not, what kind of witness is he? Better yet, what moving violation can a person be convicted of with absolutely no witnesses.

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    No, he's not a witness to the event. He was not there at the scene to see what happened. He's simply reviewing what a machine recorded, which is not the same thing. In any event, this still has nothing to do with what you started this thread with, so why do you keep banging on it?
    So when a photo is shown of an injury, a scene, a car, an intersection or skid marks, the jury is instructed that they are not looking at the injury, scene, car or intersection in the case. Unlikely and definitely was not instructed in my trial.

    Your assertion that an officer reviewing a video of a traffic offense is not 'witnessing' the violation is well, ........a play on words.

    She could file a John Doe lawsuit for the claim, get the subpoenas, then substitute your name for "John Doe" when she learns of your actual identity.
    I would wager you any day that it would not lead to a conviction...if it even got off the ground.

    This isn't new. I've long known you hate all lawyers. The hatred of all lawyers you is, in my view, irrational but it is what you feel and I'm not going to change a view that you hold so strongly. But if you are hoping I'm offended by your hatred of my profession then you'll be disappointed. As I consider your view irrational I'm not at all hurt by it.
    I don't hate lawyers, rather I have lost all respect for them. I find them to be very dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical people. But nothing against you TM, I am sure there are good ones out there. But you do not represent all lawyers just as I do not represent all contractors.

    Funny story I heard yesterday: My contractor friend said he did a quote for an attorney. Somehow it was known that he was an attorney. He begged the contractor to call him back with a bid because once people find out that he is a lawyer, nobody will do his work. He pled that he was a workman's comp attorney and fought for the people. So I am not the only one out there that avoids them. Also, I can only hate a person that did me harm like that lying, POS, insurance company attorney in my case. He was pure filth despite his $2,000 suit.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I wasn't talking about any crime, rather a speeding citation.
    In CA those ARE crimes. The same rules apply, in general, to infractions as to other crimes.

    I would say that an officer who reviews video from a radar camera is an eye witness. If not, what kind of witness is he? Better yet, what moving violation can a person be convicted of with absolutely no witnesses.
    Yes, he is a witness. He can and does testify as to his observations.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    In CA those ARE crimes. The same rules apply, in general, to infractions as to other crimes.
    Then name a specific moving violation that can easily be convicted with absolutely no witness of any kind.

    Yes, he is a witness. He can and does testify as to his observations.
    So if he is a witness that used his eyes, does that make him an "eye witness?"

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Then name a specific moving violation that can easily be convicted with absolutely no witness of any kind.
    I never said there was one. A witness can be an investigator who came to a conclusion based upon the evidence, an eyewitness, or someone else who had some legal input into the trial. A witness does NOT have to be an EYEwitness. We make cases based upon expert testimony and investigation all the time.

    So if he is a witness that used his eyes, does that make him an "eye witness?"
    You can call him whatever you want. When we use therm "EYEwitness" we are usually referring to someone who actually witnessed the criminal event in question. But, he's truly just a "witness". A rose by any other name ...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Being Banned

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    In CA those ARE crimes. The same rules apply, in general, to infractions as to other crimes.
    It sounds like that is what you did say...that moving violations "are crimes and the same rules (of no witness) apply."

    Sure, there are crimes that do not require a witness like raping an unconscious girl. But the same rule of 'no witness required" does not apply to moving violations.

    I think you guys get carried away when vehemently trying to prove me wrong or find anything in my post to point out as inaccurate.

    Come to think of it, raping an unconscious girl would require a DNA Expert Witness. So maybe you could state a crime that does not require any witness? Or, maybe explain what your above quote means?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: If You're Banned from a Store Are You Banned From the Entire Chain
    By caterpuff in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 05:58 AM
  2. Legal Research: We're Banned from Seeing Each Other
    By caitcat1254 in forum Legal Practice
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 01:06 PM
  3. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Banned From Wal-Mart
    By darthbane714 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-08-2008, 05:46 PM
  4. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Banned from the Big W
    By cogadh in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 10:25 PM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Suspected and banned
    By Natasha in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2005, 11:26 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources