Delay Charge Tossed Out of Court (1 Viewer)

[Stinger]

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:34 a.m. EDT

Tom DeLay Conspiracy Charge Tossed Out

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/19/103753.shtml?s=ic

1 down 2 to go. Prosecutor isn't looking to good here.

 

[KCConservative]

Dana, Hip, Kidrocks.....it's your turn. Step up to the podium.

 

[aps]

A trial court judge had already thrown the charge out. The appeals court has affirmed that determination. The trial court judge did NOT throw out the other two charges, determining that there were issues that should be decided by a jury.

DeLay will be tried in court. Now it's a matter of how the jury will decide.

 

[Captain America]

A trial court judge had already thrown the charge out. The appeals court has affirmed that determination. The trial court judge did NOT throw out the other two charges, determining that there were issues that should be decided by a jury.

DeLay will be tried in court. Now it's a matter of how the jury will decide.

A jury like the one on the OJ or Michael Jackson case? We just had a major protest yesterday, just outside my office, over a jury's decision to acquit 3 off-duty cops for beating a bi-racial guy half to death. The Police Dept. "code of silence" went into full swing during this trial. The Federal Court has decided to proceed against the rouge cops. We'll see.

 

[Thorgasm]

A jury like the one on the OJ or Michael Jackson case? We just had a major protest yesterday, just outside my office, over a jury's decision to acquit 3 off-duty cops for beating a bi-racial guy half to death. The Police Dept. "code of silence" went into full swing during this trial. The Federal Court has decided to proceed against the rouge cops. We'll see.

Is history repeating itself? Oh yeah, Rodney King!

We will see what happens with Delay.

 

[cnredd]

A jury like the one on the OJ or Michael Jackson case? We just had a major protest yesterday, just outside my office, over a jury's decision to acquit 3 off-duty cops for beating a bi-racial guy half to death. The Police Dept. "code of silence" went into full swing during this trial. The Federal Court has decided to proceed against the rouge cops. We'll see.

They acquitted, which means "not guilty"...

Then you call them rogue, implying "guilty"...

I guess justice only works when it agrees with whatever that individual wants...:roll:

 

[aps]

They acquitted, which means "not guilty"...

Then you call them rogue, implying "guilty"...

I guess justice only works when it agrees with whatever that individual wants...:roll:

What's wrong with disagreeing with what a jury finds?

 

[Captain America]

They acquitted, which means "not guilty"...

Then you call them rogue, implying "guilty"...

I guess justice only works when it agrees with whatever that individual wants...:roll:

True dat. Technically, OJ is not guilty. The Rodney King beat down was innocent as well even though our very eyes witnessed it on video. And Michael Jackson, innocent as a newborn baby, I'm sure.:roll:

Guilty has nothing to do with guilt or innocence these days it seems. It is a mere declaration and has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not the crime was committed by any given individual.

Ie: No less than a dozen police were involved in this beat down according to eye witnesses. I was surprised to learn that the verdict not only outraged the community here in Milwaukee but the Mayor of Milwaukee himself participated in the protest march. The police chief has fired several officers over this incident as well. Now, I have to wonder if even the Feds will be able to break the MPD code of silence and get around to getting justice for Jude. he obviously got the snot beat out of him. There was nobody BUT off-duty cops doing the punching and kicking. That's a given. Nobody is denying that. Somebody's guilty. They (MPD) just won't tell the courts who. How do you feel about that?

 

[Stinger]

A trial court judge had already thrown the charge out. The appeals court has affirmed that determination. The trial court judge did NOT throw out the other two charges, determining that there were issues that should be decided by a jury.

And the Prosecutor appealed it and fought to get them reinstated. And he lost, and it was probably his better case since a grand jury declined to indite the other two and the Prosecutor scrambled and found a just sitting grand jury and got the indictments.

DeLay will be tried in court. Now it's a matter of how the jury will decide.

He may but the case ain't looking too good.

 

[Stinger]

We just had a major protest yesterday, just outside my office, over a jury's decision to acquit 3 off-duty cops for beating a bi-racial guy half to death. The Police Dept. "code of silence" went into full swing during this trial. The Federal Court has decided to proceed against the rouge cops. We'll see.

And that has exactly what to do with this?

 

[aps]

And the Prosecutor appealed it and fought to get them reinstated. And he lost, and it was probably his better case since a grand jury declined to indite the other two and the Prosecutor scrambled and found a just sitting grand jury and got the indictments.



He may but the case ain't looking too good.

The case is looking mighty fine to me. :lol:

 

[Stinger]

True dat. Technically, OJ is not guilty.

Technically he is, he was found guilty by a jury in the civil trial.

The Rodney King beat down was innocent as well even though our very eyes witnessed it on video.

Actually because there was video which the jury could watch from the beginning which the news media did not want you to see.

And Michael Jackson, innocent as a newborn baby, I'm sure.:roll:

Probably not but he should never have been indicted on the evidence the DA had, as hard as that is to accept it blew any chance of getting him again due to double jeopardy and he's out of the country for good I bet.

Guilty has nothing to do with guilt or innocence these days it seems.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

It is a mere declaration and has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not the crime was committed by any given individual.

I would say that applies much more to NOT Guilty. Look at the Clinton impeachment, the words Guilty and Not Guilty, were meaningless since the actual votes was Remove or Not to Remove from office. In a court Guilty means "we think you did it beyond a reasonable doubt" and Not Guilty means "we at the least have a reasonable doubt". No one would deny that many a jury has left the court thinking the defended may have done it but they could not say beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ie: No less than a dozen police were involved in this beat down according to eye witnesses.

Which is meaningless on it's own.

I have an old friend who was beaten by just three off duty police, witnesses say they did it, the surveilence tape is suddenly missing, Chief told my friend he's not bringing charges. He's going to civil court now. It only took three to beat him.

I can't speak directly to your case and don't want to get involved in a long discussion of it because I don't have the time to go and read all about it.

Just this, it can go both ways. My son-in-law is a Deputy Sheriff, he put a guy in the hospital last week. They had cornered the guy and he had a butcher knive. They called my SiL becuase he's one of the biggest they got. Guy wouldn't give up and he tried to get my SiL. They put him down and did so forcefully. And it was justified.

It goes both ways, just make sure ALL the evidence is considered and keep in mind Police do NOT have to risk thier lives in favor of the suspect who will not cooperate.


As far as the code, what's the answer. The only thing I can think of is make sure you change leadership often and insist on a strong Internal Affiars and state investigators.

 

[Stinger]

The case is looking mighty fine to me. :lol:

Why? What evidence is convincing you DeLay is guilty of something and what is the something?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And the Prosecutor appealed it and fought to get them reinstated. And he lost, and it was probably his better case since a grand jury declined to indite the other two and the Prosecutor scrambled and found a just sitting grand jury and got the indictments.



He may but the case ain't looking too good.

Do you honestly believe that Tom Delay is an honest politician who never let contributions in anyway influence his votes?

Even if Delay is found not guilty on this charge, it would still seem to me that you are taking up for quite the scumbag.

 

[aps]

Why? What evidence is convincing you DeLay is guilty of something and what is the something?

This article (which is only partly laid out below):

Out of the House, Not Out of Trouble

By Cris Feldman
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A23

. . . Here are the known facts. On Sept. 10, 2002, DeLay's co-defendant, John Colyandro, sent a blank check overnight to co-defendant Jim Ellis. On Sept. 13, 2002, Ellis handed over the check in question to the RNC. According to the indictment, Ellis filled in the check for $190,000 and provided the RNC with a list of seven candidates for the Texas House, along with designated sums of cash. On Sept. 20 the $190,000 was deposited by the RNC in a corporate cash account. On the morning of Oct. 2, Ellis met with DeLay at DeLay's Capitol office. That same day the RNC generated seven internal memos requesting seven different checks to the TRMPAC candidates. On Oct. 4 seven checks totaling $190,000 were cut from a noncorporate account containing millions of dollars. The check numbers were in sequential order, 7470 through 7476.

DeLay argues that the RNC sent money to state legislature candidates across the country. Yet the seven Texas TRMPAC candidates received checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000, whereas the next-largest RNC contribution to a candidate for a seat in a state house of representatives was $2,000. DeLay has also said that the $190,000 was "left over" money that TRMPAC did not need. But numerous documents indicate otherwise. For example, on Oct. 20, 2002, Warren Robold, TRMPAC's now-indicted fundraiser, solicited a donor by stating, "We still need $125,000 of corporate funds to finish the project and pay our obligations." [this is me--oh really?]

DeLay's attacks on the prosecutor have been consistent, even as explanations of his own conduct have proved inconsistent. DeLay has said at different times that he knew about the $190,000 beforehand; that he heard about it after the fact; and that he did indeed discuss it with Ellis on Oct. 2, 2002.

Corporate contributions to candidates in Texas are illegal. To make such a contribution is a third-degree felony. A contribution is considered to be the direct or indirect transfer of money, including the agreement to make such a transfer. If DeLay in any way participated in an agreement to indirectly transfer $190,000 in corporate cash to Texas candidates, he still has a problem back in Texas.

The writer is an attorney in Austin. He was on the civil trial team that won a ruling last spring finding that TRMPAC illegally raised, spent and failed to report corporate contributions in Texas. (Emphasis added.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401283.html

 

[Stinger]

Do you honestly believe that Tom Delay is an honest politician who never let contributions in anyway influence his votes?

Even if Delay is found not guilty on this charge, it would still seem to me that you are taking up for quite the scumbag.

So let's falsely accouse politicans we don't like with phoney criminal charges and put them in jail? This is how you want to govern?

 

[aps]

So let's falsely accouse politicans we don't like with phoney criminal charges and put them in jail? This is how you want to govern?

Please see the above article I posted, Stinger.

 

[Captain America]

You raise some very valid points Stinger and I have to agree with most all of them pretty much.

And you're right, to get the whole story about this particular incident it would take several minutes to read.

But when you write:

It goes both ways, just make sure ALL the evidence is considered and keep in mind Police do NOT have to risk thier lives in favor of the suspect who will not cooperate.

you might be interested to know that in this particular case, they were all at a housewarming party. The victim was an invited guest. There were also a lot of off-duty cops invited. One of the cop's badge's come up missing at the party. Jude was really the only person there the cops did not personally know and they accused him of stealing the badge. Jude didn't have a clue as to what they were talking about he claims. The off-duty's were all pretty drunk. The off duty cops started beating the crap out of him. More jumped in. They drug him outside and beat him within a half of an inch of his life. Many eye witnesses. Both off-duty cops and civillians. All the civillian witnesses testify to that. Off-duty cops either denied participating or claimed not to have witnessed. The police were called in by a witness. They arrived, realized that other cops were involved in the assault. They told many of the off-duty cops to leave before the rest of the cops arrived. The cover up began. Many cops were fired or suspended. There never was a question regarding Jude being severely asaulted by the drunken off duty cops. By the time the cops got through with the investigation, however, it was assured that the evidence and testimony was no less than a can of worms coupled with the blue wall of silence.

That has everyone in our town, from the Mayor down to Joe Sh** The Ragman, pretty pissed off as you probably understand.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Dana, Hip, Kidrocks.....it's your turn. Step up to the podium.

I think Delay would make a great spokesperson to replace McLellan.
This is old news: Delay will be convicted:book it.

 

[KCConservative]

I think Delay would make a great spokesperson to replace McLellan.
This is old news: Delay will be convicted:book it.

:lol: I gotta get me one of those crystal balls.

 

[Stinger]

Please see the above article I posted, Stinger.

I've read the article with it's assertions. What are the charges in court? And I stand by my statement responding to someone who doesn't even care if he's really guilty of anything. but the fact is that's not what this has been about, it's all been about a political hit job.

Oh and BTW

". . . Here are the known facts. On Sept. 10, 2002, DeLay's co-defendant, John Colyandro, sent a blank check overnight to co-defendant Jim Ellis. On Sept. 13, 2002, Ellis handed over the check in question to the RNC. According to the indictment, Ellis filled in the check for $190,000 and provided the RNC with a list of seven candidates for the Texas House, along with designated sums of cash."

As far as "the facts" that's the same list the Prosecutor can't produce", so much for "the facts" being claimed.

 

[Stinger]

You raise some very valid points Stinger and I have to agree with most all of them pretty much.

And you're right, to get the whole story about this particular incident it would take several minutes to read.

Off duty cops and drinking can be a recipe for disaster unfortuniately. If they are guilty I hope they get their just rewards and my feelings go out to everyone hurt in the situation including their families who will suffer too.

 

[aps]

I've read the article with it's assertions. What are the charges in court? And I stand by my statement responding to someone who doesn't even care if he's really guilty of anything. but the fact is that's not what this has been about, it's all been about a political hit job.

Oh and BTW

". . . Here are the known facts. On Sept. 10, 2002, DeLay's co-defendant, John Colyandro, sent a blank check overnight to co-defendant Jim Ellis. On Sept. 13, 2002, Ellis handed over the check in question to the RNC. According to the indictment, Ellis filled in the check for $190,000 and provided the RNC with a list of seven candidates for the Texas House, along with designated sums of cash."

As far as "the facts" that's the same list the Prosecutor can't produce", so much for "the facts" being claimed.

Somehow, I knew you would dismiss that article. :roll:

 

[Stinger]

Somehow, I knew you would dismiss that article. :roll:

Somehow I knew you would misrepresent the facts. Where is the so-called list? Why haven't we seen this key piece of evidence that your whole position is based on?

"DeLay’s attorney, who was not at the court hearing, weighed in as well:

"That’s astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said."

http://lonestartimes.com/2005/10/17
​

So why shouldn't I dismiss a citation about evidence which doesn't exist? Why do you present it in the first place?