# Are Women second class citizens



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

No Justice for 22 Rape victims








No charges for Watson; QB vows to 'rebuild' name


Texans QB Deshaun Watson, who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment by 22 women, said he will "keep fighting to rebuild my name" after a grand jury decided Friday that he will not be criminally charged in Houston.




www.espn.com





Guess if you're the right kind of folk you can do anything you darned well please


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Nobody is a second class citizen, but as we saw with Justice Kavanaugh, mere accusations are not sufficient.

I can't speak to either man's guilt, but be thankful that the U.S. justice system requires evidence, and all are innocent until PROVEN guilty. The grand jury didn't see fit to bring trial. Their reasons are their own, and we may never know.
Do you have some new evidence they were not shown?


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Every run in I had with the law has been guilty til I prove my self innocent. If possible cause my word against a cop, guess what. Rule number one is the cop is always right, period. Could go on but I'll stop. Let's just say I don't support the blue line at all. 

I seriously doubt the guy raped 22 women. More like 22 women wanted something and didn't get what they wanted so make up a story. Being the guy will most likely be a millionaire soon.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Its not a womans' rights issue, its simple. He is rich and hire a lawyer or bribe the prosecutor. Plus he is black so he has civil rights groups and others who will protest for him and, he is famous and a football player in Texas (which is a magic ticket anyway)...


----------



## CapitalKane49p (Apr 7, 2020)

Godspeed


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Prosecutors from the district attorney's office in Harris County, Texas, presented evidence and testimony to the 12-person grand jury for over six hours on Friday related to nine of the 10 criminal complaints filed against Watson. The grand jury, which does not require a unanimous vote, rejected all nine cases; prosecutors did not present the 10th. 
So, at least half the people on the grand jury didn't believe the testimony by 9 of the women. Were they money grubbers or ?


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Women lie and some lie for money...


----------



## ErickthePutz (Jan 10, 2021)

Chipper said:


> Every run in I had with the law has been guilty til I prove my self innocent. If possible cause my word against a cop, guess what. Rule number one is the cop is always right, period. Could go on but I'll stop. Let's just say I don't support the blue line at all.
> 
> I seriously doubt the guy raped 22 women. More like 22 women wanted something and didn't get what they wanted so make up a story. Being the guy will most likely be a millionaire soon.



So…it’s always the cops that lied, yet you constantly have “run ins”. So it’s YOU, not the cops.

Stop committing crimes.

Problem solved.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Cops are trained to lie... This if from Officer.com a pro-cop site. Article is Titled Training Cops to Lie its why everyone should exercise their right to remain silent.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> Cops are trained to lie... This if from Officer.com a pro-cop site. Article is Titled Training Cops to Lie its why everyone should exercise their right to remain silent.


There is no law against an officer lying to you.
But they cannot lie during testimony, or in any presentation of evidence or reporting.
You can lie to them too, but it's illegal when identifying yourself, reporting a crime, or when under oath of course.
And yes, know your rights and exercise them diligently.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

If a cop will lie to you what makes you think they won't lie to a jury at trial? 
The There are Cops labled Liars in Court and still work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an all cops are bad kinda guy but, I am a realist. Lets be honest police are human and humans make mistakes but, humans also lie, manipulate and, are just corrupt.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> If a cop will lie to you what makes you think they won't lie to a jury at trial?
> The There are Cops labled Liars in Court and still work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an all cops are bad kinda guy but, I am a realist. Lets be honest police are human and humans make mistakes but, humans also lie, manipulate and, are just corrupt.


You can do the same. It's just as illegal for them to lie under oath as it is for you to.
The trick is catching the liar. And yes, some get away with it, perps and cops alike. You and I feel the same about those cretins.
Cops deal with liars all the time. I'd venture a guess they are told far more lies than they themselves tell.
But that doesn't excuse it.
Best you can do is don't say more than you must; only speak the truth when you do. And don't violate constitutionally valid laws. 😉


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Real Old Man said:


> No Justice for 22 Rape victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is a member of the protected class. Black Americans. He is also a professional athlete. Dude is almost certainly a piece of crappolie that should receive justice. 22 women says something.
Gotta remember that women take a back seat to race when the race of the person charged is black.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> He is a member of the protected class. Black Americans. He is also a professional athlete. Dude is almost certainly a piece of crappolie that should receive justice. 22 women says something.
> Gotta remember that women take a back seat to race when the race of the person charged is black.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


>


Do you not understand something?


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Real Old Man said:


> No Justice for 22 Rape victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who knows? All I can tell you is that dude ain't going anywhere near my daughters.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> Do you not understand something?


"America's dad" was convicted. That stands as a pretty clear refutation to the idea that race protects celebrities against conviction.
He's only out on a trial technicality, not because his crimes were overlooked.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> "America's dad" was convicted. That stands as a pretty clear refutation to the idea that race protects celebrities against conviction.
> He's only out on a trial technicality, not because his crimes were overlooked.


True in that case, but I see time and time again where blacks get out of being punished as they should be. This is certainly due to race. For example. One of many every day.

Utah: Two men who raped a semi-conscious 14-year-old girl and another who recorded the rape were sentenced to 48 months of probation. Two of the convicted sex criminals are foreign nationals who will be handed over to Immigration & Customs Enforcement.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> True in that case, but I see time and time again where blacks get out of being punished as they should be. This is certainly due to race. For example. One of many every day.
> 
> Utah: Two men who raped a semi-conscious 14-year-old girl and another who recorded the rape were sentenced to 48 months of probation. Two of the convicted sex criminals are foreign nationals who will be handed over to Immigration & Customs Enforcement.


I understand the claim, but we don't have a picture of all cases to know if it's more one way or the other. We each have anecdotal examples.
However, without evidence of the crime, the man must be presumed innocent. This is irrespective if skin color or celebrity status.
If you have no evidence of his guilt, but assume he's guilty, you must question if you could be applying his skin color to justify guilt just as you believe the opposition is using it to apply innocence.

The facts were presented to a grand jury, and they made the choice to not continue to trial. That's all we know. Everything else is speculation and unsupportable.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> I understand the claim, but we don't have a picture of all cases to know if it's more one way or the other. We each have anecdotal examples.
> However, without evidence of the crime, the man must be presumed innocent. This is irrespective if skin color or celebrity status.
> If you have no evidence of his guilt, but assume he's guilty, you must question if you could be applying his skin color to justify guilt just as you believe the opposition is using it to apply innocence.
> 
> The facts were presented to a grand jury, and they made the choice to not continue to trial. That's all we know. Everything else is speculation and unsupportable.


That way of thinking works in a free country with a fair and just legal system. We have neither of those. We do have the ongoing indoctrination of Blacks as victims and a legal system that does let them off with little to no punishment. Again and again it comes up. Like the black criminal in Illinois that had over 40 felony convictions for such crimes as assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery who continued to get probation over actual incarceration.
It happens over and over again.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> That way of thinking works in a free country with a fair and just legal system. We have neither of those. We do have the ongoing indoctrination of Blacks as victims and a legal system that does let them off with little to no punishment. Again and again it comes up. Like the black criminal in Illinois that had over 40 felony convictions for such crimes as assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery who continued to get probation over actual incarceration.
> It happens over and over again.


It's reported over and over again...
But the overwhelming majority of prison populations would suggest blacks are incarcerated at significantly high rates.
There is an asinine push to decriminalize certain things, and stop pressing charges for others, in some absurd attempt to change this trend. I'll never understand this, other than to assume it's intended to create chaos.

But yes, I must continue to believe in the justice system that subscribes to the notion that all accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Again, unless you have evidence suggesting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider him innocent at this point.
You would want the same, would you not?


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

I have been a victim of abuses of authority by the courts, I don't blame the system... I blame the people who represent the system. Given the number I feel there might be something in his favor but, I don't think "blacks" get a free ride. Given how I was treated and the number of Black Americans in prison. I think their may be something to their complaints of the system. I'm white and if it can happen to me, it has happened to others and is happening to others right now.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> I don't blame the system... I blame the people who represent the system.


I completely agree.
The foundation is sound. The actors are corrupt.
Imagine living in a place like Mexico where you're presumed guilty, and must prove your innocence. That system breeds corruption at every level and far more people get screwed.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Problem is cops arrest you and you have to prove you are innocent in court. They say they "presume you are innocent" until proven guilty and they tell you "you have a right to remain silent." But all that does is it means is that "presumed innocent" is an excuse to have a puppet show trial, where you exercise your "right to remain silent" and let cops and prosecutors lie on you. The only difference between the US and China or Mexico is that the jails are nicer in the US and the Mexicans are more honest about their system...


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> No Justice for 22 Rape victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Grand juries are a bit of a joke. They do what the DA tells them to do. Follow the money lol.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> Problem is cops arrest you and you have to prove you are innocent in court. They say they "presume you are innocent" until proven guilty and they tell you "you have a right to remain silent." But all that does is it means is that "presumed innocent" is an excuse to have a puppet show trial, where you exercise your "right to remain silent" and let cops and prosecutors lie on you. The only difference between the US and China or Mexico is that the jails are nicer in the US and the Mexicans are more honest about their system...


I get that you got shafted, and I'll assume you're telling the truth because I have no reason yet to doubt you, but you're flat wrong in the general sense.
Every single day, hundreds and hundreds of trials are conducted, and hundreds of people are confirmed innocent. Your personal experience does not paint the whole institution.
Case in point, a low-income white kid from Kenosha Wisconsin, who shot three people, is a free man today, despite the DA's lies. The cops told the truth on the stand. Innocence was presumed, and the jury confirmed it. High profile, maybe. But the public hd already convicted him, the media and president convicted him... But he's free.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I get that you got shafted, and I'll assume you're telling the truth because I have no reason yet to doubt you, but you're flat wrong in the general sense.
> Every single day, hundreds and hundreds of trials are conducted, and hundreds of people are confirmed innocent. Your personal experience does not paint the whole institution.
> Case in point, a low-income white kid from Kenosha Wisconsin, who shot three people, is a free man today, despite the DA's lies. The cops told the truth on the stand. Innocence was presumed, and the jury confirmed it. High profile, maybe. But the public had already convicted him, the media and president convicted him... But he's free.


And thats my case in point... He had to prove his innocence. All that "presumed innocent" is propaganda, if he was presumed innocent why pay bond, why go to trial, why have to buy a lawyer? Same thing with Zimmerman, he had to prove he was innocent. The presumption of innocence is an excuse/reason for a trial. And its not just my personal experience, if I painted the whole by experience I'd be advocated killing cops, judges and lawyers... but I am not and I won't because, even though I think a majority of the system is corrupt and criminal, I also think harming innocent people is stupid and wrong.

I basically stand by the belief that its more honest to say "Guilty until proven innocent because an innocent person shouldn't have go through the shame of trial and public defamation of "trial by media."


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Sickening moment homeless career criminal repeatedly throws nurse, 62, down the stairs at Seattle light rail station breaking her ribs and clavicle. Jay has criminal records in Washington and California that list 22 convictions, including on charges of burglary, theft and domestic assault


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

RedLion said:


> Sickening moment homeless career criminal repeatedly throws nurse, 62, down the stairs at Seattle light rail station breaking her ribs and clavicle. Jay has criminal records in Washington and California that list 22 convictions, including on charges of burglary, theft and domestic assault


He will be allowed to keep committing crimes because he will just rat on someone else, probably a drug dealer or, set up someone to get out... Same story every time, the system uses informants (many who lie) more then investigates. I can call it inherent corruption of the system, they let guys like this walk for information (many times disinformation).


----------



## 65mustang (Apr 4, 2020)

RedLion said:


> That way of thinking works in a free country with a fair and just legal system. We have neither of those. We do have the ongoing indoctrination of Blacks as victims and a legal system that does let them off with little to no punishment. Again and again it comes up. Like the black criminal in Illinois that had over 40 felony convictions for such crimes as assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery who continued to get probation over actual incarceration.
> It happens over and over again.


The farce of the trial & punishment of "Juicy Smell-it" in Chicago is just such an example. He gets 150 days in jail not prison (probably out in 75) for 8 felony convictions that should have netted him 3 years on each conviction. He pays the city of Chicago $120,000.00 and some fines. Whoop-dee-doo. If he was white they'd have thrown the book at him. He's Black...he's Gay and he's privileged.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> And thats my case in point... He had to prove his innocence. All that "presumed innocent" is propaganda, if he was presumed innocent why pay bond, why go to trial, why have to buy a lawyer? Same thing with Zimmerman, he had to prove he was innocent. The presumption of innocence is an excuse/reason for a trial. And its not just my personal experience, if I painted the whole by experience I'd be advocated killing cops, judges and lawyers... but I am not and I won't because, even though I think a majority of the system is corrupt and criminal, I also think harming innocent people is stupid and wrong.
> 
> I basically stand by the belief that its more honest to say "Guilty until proven innocent because an innocent person shouldn't have go through the shame of trial and public defamation of "trial by media."


If you believe Rittenhouse was in court "proving innocence" then you didn't watch the trial.
The defense only needs to show doubt that the accused is guilty.
The prosecution must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty.
That is the presumption of innocence. Not that an accused person gets to walk free while their trial is pending. You have a narrow view of what the term means, and that could explain why you feel the way you do.
In every single jury I've served on, the judge was adamant about the accused's right to presumption of innocence when giving his instructions to the jury. It was made clear throughout each trial I served on that we must treat the defendant as innocent unless the state could show sufficient evidence to remove all reasonable doubt about guilt.
That's how it works. That's how it's worked for 200 years. You just got unlucky. That doesn't mean the system is bad.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> If you believe Rittenhouse was in court "proving innocence" then you didn't watch the trial.
> The defense only needs to show doubt that the accused is guilty.
> The prosecution must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty.
> That is the presumption of innocence. Not that an accused person gets to walk free while their trial is pending. You have a narrow view of what the term means, and that could explain why you feel the way you do.
> ...


Again in a free country with a just legal system that would occur most of the time. We have neither for the most part. I am please that Rittenhouse was acquitted as he should have been.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> Again in a free country with a just legal system that would occur most of the time. We have neither for the most part. I am please that Rittenhouse was acquitted as he should have been.


I'll happily disagree.
There are hellholes rife with corruption, but it is not nationwide.
Unless stats can be presented detailing the total number of trials that take place versus the conviction rates, we can't assume, with any confidence, that the entire legal system is unjust.
Call me an idealist.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> If you believe Rittenhouse was in court "proving innocence" then you didn't watch the trial.
> The defense only needs to show doubt that the accused is guilty.
> The prosecution must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty.
> That is the presumption of innocence. Not that an accused person gets to walk free while their trial is pending. You have a narrow view of what the term means, and that could explain why you feel the way you do.
> ...


Not the whole thing seen more CNN in prison then Fox... But, yes I do believe he had to prove his innocence at trial. But, hey we all can't be idealists... lol


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> yes I do believe he had to prove his innocence at trial.


To who?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> I'll happily disagree.
> There are hellholes rife with corruption, but it is not nationwide.
> Unless stats can be presented detailing the total number of trials that take place versus the conviction rates, we can't assume, with any confidence, that the entire legal system is unjust.
> Call me an idealist.


You are an idealist.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> To who?


To Commie bastards that wanted to arrest him in the first place... I saw self-defense when I seen the media coverage? But, I wasn't arresting or trying him either.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> To Commie bastards that wanted to arrest him in the first place... I saw self-defense when I seen the media coverage? But, I wasn't arresting or trying him either.


No, he doesn't need anyone to doubt his guilt but the jury. The officers are charged with arresting anyone who has a warrant. He did. A grand jury decided there was sufficient evidence to go to trial, so it did.
In the end, those 6 or 12 people at trial are the only ones that matter.
It doesn't matter what the prosecutors do. It doesn't matter what the defense does. It doesn't matter what the witnesses do. It doesn't even matter what the judge does.
All that matters is the men and women in that jury box.
It's your civic duty to apply the protections afforded in the due process clause of the constitution to every defendant you ever try as a juror. It's something you should impress upon anyone you know will serve.
Jurors have so much power, they can even nullify existing law if they don't agree with it.
It all comes down to them.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> No, he doesn't need anyone to doubt his guilt but the jury. The officers are charged with arresting anyone who has a warrant. He did. A grand jury decided there was sufficient evidence to go to trial, so it did.
> In the end, those 6 or 12 people at trial are the only ones that matter.
> It doesn't matter what the prosecutors do. It doesn't matter what the defense does. It doesn't matter what the witnesses do. It doesn't even matter what the judge does.
> All that matters is the men and women in that jury box.
> ...


Right the same officers who allowed a mob burn buildings and harm innocent people because they were "following orders" also executed a warrant against him for self-defense. Look to me its simple, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Portland, and all the others were acting as an Occupying Army. Those cops did nothing but, one kid defends himself and then they arrest him, for a warrant executed by prosecutors for political reasons... And I can tell you've never dealt with the courts before. Because it matters what all of those people; Judge, Prosecutor, Cops and Defense do...

The Judge decides what the Jury sees and hears, the Prosecutor controls the evidence and warrants and case against you. Your Public Pretender or Attorney controls what you say in your own defense. Look at my trial the only person who told the truth was me. My Supplemental Brief to the Appeals Court is online, Sealed docs and all. I put it there because the Appeals Court ignored it. Rittenhouse was lucky because his case was so sensationalized that his defense had no choice but to do a good job...That is not true for the rest of us.

But, as you said you are an Idealist and a Judge can override a Juries verdict... From BrienRoche Law: _In any trial the judge is the ultimate decision maker and has the power to overturn a jury verdict if there is insufficient evidence to support that verdict or if the decision granted inadequate compensatory damages. The term used to describe this action is judgement notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or judgement of acquittal in a criminal case._


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> Right the same officers who allowed a mob burn buildings and harm innocent people because they were "following orders" also executed a warrant against him for self-defense. Look to me its simple, Occupy Seattle, Occupy Portland, and all the others were acting as an Occupying Army. Those cops did nothing but, one kid defends himself and then they arrest him, for a warrant executed by prosecutors for political reasons... And I can tell you've never dealt with the courts before. Because it matters what all of those people; Judge, Prosecutor, Cops and Defense do...
> 
> The Judge decides what the Jury sees and hears, the Prosecutor controls the evidence and warrants and case against you. Your Public Pretender or Attorney controls what you say in your own defense. Look at my trial the only person who told the truth was me. My Supplemental Brief to the Appeals Court is online, Sealed docs and all. I put it there because the Appeals Court ignored it. Rittenhouse was lucky because his case was so sensationalized that his defense had no choice but to do a good job...That is not true for the rest of us.
> 
> But, as you said you are an Idealist and a Judge can override a Juries verdict... From BrienRoche Law: _In any trial the judge is the ultimate decision maker and has the power to overturn a jury verdict if there is insufficient evidence to support that verdict or if the decision granted inadequate compensatory damages. The term used to describe this action is judgement notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or judgement of acquittal in a criminal case._


I'm fully aware of what happens in a trial(as I said, I've been a juror multiple times), and what a judge "can" do... and for the VAST MAJORITY of trials, the nonsense you're concerned about does not happen.
You assume all trials go as yours did. They don't.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I'm fully aware of what happens in a trial(as I said, I've been a juror multiple times), and what a judge "can" do... and for the VAST MAJORITY of trials, the nonsense you're concerned about does not happen.
> You assume all trials go as yours did. They don't.


I learned something in prison... My case is not the rule but, neither is it the exception. You as a juror know only what they allow you to know. I've dealt with this in state court as well, same stuff... I am the only person I know who won a criminal case and still did 10 days contempt of court for calling out & smart assing the Judge for being corrupt on the stand. Try going through it from the other end, then see if you feel the same way. I was going to be a cop after the Army and was an MP in the Reserves when all my BS started in 2005, which hasn't stopped ad its 2022. Of course I feel the way I do and if they paid me $100 Million, wiped my record and gave me military grade weapons and a license to carry them anywhere... I'll always feel that way.

The problem is the police, but to a far greater extent it is also the courts and the politicians.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> I learned something in prison... My case is not the rule but, neither is it the exception. You as a juror know only what they allow you to know. I've dealt with this in state court as well, same stuff... I am the only person I know who won a criminal case and still did 10 days contempt of court for calling out & smart assing the Judge for being corrupt on the stand. Try going through it from the other end, then see if you feel the same way. I was going to be a cop after the Army and was an MP in the Reserves when all my BS started in 2005, which hasn't stopped ad its 2022. Of course I feel the way I do and if they paid me $100 Million, wiped my record and gave me military grade weapons and a license to carry them anywhere... I'll always feel that way.
> 
> The problem is the police, but to a far greater extent it is also the courts and the politicians.


I'd rather just not break the law, honestly...

If you weren't smart enough to keep your mouth shut to a judge, you might have deserved what you got for that. Like it or leave it, that courtroom is his fiefdom. You are under his full control while there. Bad time to cop an attitude.
Generally speaking... and you can take this any way you choose, but generally when "everybody else around me is wrong", they aren't the ones who are wrong; there's just a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

If you think you'll find a better system anywhere else, go try it out for a while. Let us know.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

wraithofroncollins said:


> And thats my case in point... He had to prove his innocence. All that "presumed innocent" is propaganda, if he was presumed innocent why pay bond, why go to trial, why have to buy a lawyer? Same thing with Zimmerman, he had to prove he was innocent. The presumption of innocence is an excuse/reason for a trial. And its not just my personal experience, if I painted the whole by experience I'd be advocated killing cops, judges and lawyers... but I am not and I won't because, even though I think a majority of the system is corrupt and criminal, I also think harming innocent people is stupid and wrong.
> 
> I basically stand by the belief that its more honest to say "Guilty until proven innocent because an innocent person shouldn't have go through the shame of trial and public defamation of "trial by media."


You don't really understand our judicial system.

In the kids Case the prosecutor actually proved the kid innocent by putting the case on as he did


----------



## PreparenowLastout (Jul 11, 2021)

Real Old Man said:


> No Justice for 22 Rape victims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the fact you just conflated one term to be another shows me not to pay attention


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I'd rather just not break the law, honestly...
> 
> If you weren't smart enough to keep your mouth shut to a judge, you might have deserved what you got for that. Like it or leave it, that courtroom is his fiefdom. You are under his full control while there. Bad time to cop an attitude.
> Generally speaking... and you can take this any way you choose, but generally when "everybody else around me is wrong", they aren't the ones who are wrong; there's just a gross misunderstanding of the situation.
> ...


I'd rather not commit crimes either and, generally don't.

And that is where you are wrong...
They wasn't in full control me, they can put me in jail for contempt but, the point was that the witness in a previous case made a statement about a cop coercing the witness. Then changed the story 4 years. When I asked for discovery the judge denied it. Four years later, some police informant who testified to lying 4 years prior now makes the same claims and evidence to that discredits the witness was not handed over in discovery. Witness tried to pass off the same lies and, resulted in us both testifying to different stories of the same event. So when the prosecutor objected to my testimony "because we already heard from the victim" and the judge sustained, I told the judge respectfully "Your Honor, if you'd have allowed us the transcript of the previous trial in discovery, we could see who was lying." The Judge responded "One more outburst from you Mr. Collins and, I will place you in contempt of court!" and he was very aggressive, almost frightened of the result of proving he knew he allowed a witness to lie in court and covered up impeachment evidence. So I responded "Why because I'm right." calmly. The judge immediately gave me 10 days contempt of court and, I calmly smiled at the court...

The witness had been proven to lie at that trial and the judge allowed them to keep testifying and even protected them from being called out by my lawyer. I wanted to get it on record that the judge, did this in THAT case 2 times and once I could prove in the previous case. So when the Judge became "threatening" in response to my that fact because he and I both know that under Mesarosh v. United States, 351 US 1 (1956) the SCOTUS ruled "United States Government will not permit the conviction of any person on tainted testimony; this conviction is tainted, and justice requires that petitioners be accorded a new trial. "

So my "outburst" was a calculated risk to quietly "threaten" him with that fact. So I got 10 days contempt of court but, he made himself look bias to the jury. Sure I will agree with you the Judge had the authority to do that, I even deserved but, he does not have the right to conceal or abuse his authority for personal gain. And my Right to Freedom of Speech is a duty to Speak Up when I see wrong doing. So I spoke up... I was found not guilty and jury only took 15 minutes to determine I was innocent. 

Remember I told you I had an issue with small town mob BS... Who you think the Judge is? He doesn't work for the mob, he is a freaking boss in the mob.


----------



## Pobilly Duke (May 9, 2020)

Kauboy said:


> No, he doesn't need anyone to doubt his guilt but the jury. The officers are charged with arresting anyone who has a warrant. He did. A grand jury decided there was sufficient evidence to go to trial, so it did.
> In the end, those 6 or 12 people at trial are the only ones that matter.
> It doesn't matter what the prosecutors do. It doesn't matter what the defense does. It doesn't matter what the witnesses do. It doesn't even matter what the judge does.
> All that matters is the men and women in that jury box.
> ...





Kauboy said:


> No, he doesn't need anyone to doubt his guilt but the jury. The officers are charged with arresting anyone who has a warrant. He did. A grand jury decided there was sufficient evidence to go to trial, so it did.
> In the end, those 6 or 12 people at trial are the only ones that matter.
> It doesn't matter what the prosecutors do. It doesn't matter what the defense does. It doesn't matter what the witnesses do. It doesn't even matter what the judge does.
> All that matters is the men and women in that jury box.
> ...


But, in the mean time, you must be locked up as a criminal.
Guilty or Innocent.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

wraithofroncollins said:


> I'd rather not commit crimes either and, generally don't.
> 
> And that is where you are wrong...
> They wasn't in full control me, they can put me in jail for contempt but, the point was that the witness in a previous case made a statement about a cop coercing the witness. Then changed the story 4 years. When I asked for discovery the judge denied it. Four years later, some police informant who testified to lying 4 years prior now makes the same claims and evidence to that discredits the witness was not handed over in discovery. Witness tried to pass off the same lies and, resulted in us both testifying to different stories of the same event. So when the prosecutor objected to my testimony "because we already heard from the victim" and the judge sustained, I told the judge respectfully "Your Honor, if you'd have allowed us the transcript of the previous trial in discovery, we could see who was lying." The Judge responded "One more outburst from you Mr. Collins and, I will place you in contempt of court!" and he was very aggressive, almost frightened of the result of proving he knew he allowed a witness to lie in court and covered up impeachment evidence. So I responded "Why because I'm right." calmly. The judge immediately gave me 10 days contempt of court and, I calmly smiled at the court...
> ...


I'm staring to get the picture, and it doesn't put you in a good light.
You're misunderstanding my points, or intentionally mischaracterizing them.
There is a decorum that must be followed in court. You spoke out of turn in what the judge rightly classified as an "outburst". You were warned not to do it again, and you immediately did it again. Right or wrong doesn't matter. He's the final arbiter. That's why it's so ferociously important to install good and decent judges. He doesn't have the "right" to abuse his power, but he certainly has the authority.
I said you didn't have to like it, but yes, in those chambers THE JUDGE CONTROLS EVERYTHING, including you. Your right to free speech prevents the government from passing a law prohibiting your exercise of it. It does not apply in all cases, and certainly not in a courtroom, as it is not a public space.

Sounds like, in the end, the justice system did work for you afterall. As I said, the jury decides. It is rare for any judge to overrule a jury. Looks VERY bad on their record, and is easier to overturn on appeal.
Damn fine thinking by our founders to ensure unanimous jury decision was required to convict, eh?
I hope you'll admit, even with the corruption you feel took place, it is the U.S. justice system that provided for your not guilty verdict.  
Anywhere else, you'd be rotting in a cell.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Pobilly Duke said:


> But, in the mean time, you must be locked up as a criminal.
> Guilty or Innocent.


Indeed. Standard practice notwithstanding the outcome of a bail hearing.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

On a completely unrelated note..... 🙃









Jussie Smollett released from county jail during appeal


CHICAGO (AP) — Jussie Smollett was released from jail Wednesday following six nights behind bars after an appeals court agreed with his lawyers that he should be free pending the appeal of his conviction for lying to police about a racist and homophobic attack.




apnews.com


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> I said you didn't have to like it, but yes, in those chambers THE JUDGE CONTROLS EVERYTHING, including you. Your right to free speech prevents the government from passing a law prohibiting your exercise of it. It does not apply in all cases, and certainly not in a courtroom, as it is not a public space.
> 
> Sounds like, in the end, the justice system did work for you afterall. As I said, the jury decides. It is rare for any judge to overrule a jury. Looks VERY bad on their record, and is easier to overturn on appeal.
> Damn fine thinking by our founders to ensure unanimous jury decision was required to convict, eh?


Don't get me wrong, I think the system as General concept is Fine but, the practice is where things get easy to manipulate... The system worked but, *only because I understand my state laws as well as my lawyers & I am willing to work it for my survival. I am an exception in that case. *Judges can't be sued, and can't be held accountable for misconduct. You have to break some of the rules and some laws to get the system to work with all the corruption involved. The worst part is not the corruption but, the laws the corrupt have put into place to protect themselves.

It comes down to this, Dirty Cops are more dangerous to good Cops. Why, because they inspire distrust of all cops, and people don't see the line they just see the uniform. Corrupt judges are a problem as they can't be sued, and you have to rely on other judges to do anything to them. I don't care about how it looks on my record because, if all goes as I plan, I will rattle my cage enough to get the issue into such a huge matter that everyone else will see it and something might get done. 

I mean I could have gone with their plans for me and, I'd be a professional criminal with a lot of money, working for the dirty pricks...But, if they are hiding behind the system, you have to get past the system to get to them. All that "Kill cops and judges" BS just makes you the Bad Guy and scares people. Ultimately, they have a place for everyone in the system, within the system and, that includes even innocent people caught in it. To my way of thinking, they can pay me alot of money but, that just a bribe to go away, I will never be safe until they are Dead or in Prison, and it will take more then money to satisfy. Remember I was both Infantry & Military Police before this BS... I even had Top Secret security clearance at one point. I understand you need specific cases and specific targets to get anything done.

So I'm working to do it... They can only stop by killing me.
Because I put the evidence online, I've made sure their corruption can't be covered up... Its SEALED by the court but, they can't stop me from accessing it as a Defendant. My record is nothing, other soldiers have made greater sacrifices for their Oath to Defend the Constitution then myself.


----------



## wraithofroncollins (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> On a completely unrelated note..... 🙃
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah to be rich...


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

PreparenowLastout said:


> the fact you just conflated one term to be another shows me not to pay attention


I did no such thing. I just used the correct term as it was back in the 60's before all you liberal jack donkey's down played serious crimes. Stick you thing in a person that says no and it's rape pure and simple. And trust me in the last 30 some odd years I've run into my fair share of sick b____s who deserved to visit old sparkey, the hangman or a firing squad to put an end to their miserable twisted and evil spirits


----------

