PDA

View Full Version : Срочно, нужен совет юриста!



Ino
11-03-2004, 07:17 PM
Здравствуйте у меня такая ситуация. Я находился в стране по J1 визе и у меня был Social который годен только с DHS формой,перед окончанием визы я подал документы на визу B2(туристическую) и она у меня находится в процессе, соответственно работать я не могу, а тут подвернулся случай купить левый Social , ну я возьми и купи, а дальше все только хуже, для работы также необходимо иметь ID. Его я получил предоставив этот номер, и проблем ни возникло. А сегодня я ходил сдавать на права и они сказали что у меня номер не действительный и что social fake соответственно, я испугался и убежал из департамента, потом выяснилось что они вызвали полицию, да и документы мои все у них остались(ID и fake social), вообсчем влип по самое никуда. У меня вопрос такого плана, что бывает за подобные весчи т.е за подделку документов(но не с целью распространения) и узнают ли об этом на границе если я полечу домой, помогите пожалуйста, посоветуйте xто мне делать?

Verbatim
11-04-2004, 08:20 AM
У меня вопрос такого плана, что бывает за подобные весчи т.е за подделку документов(но не с целью распространения)
Бывает максимум 5 лет тюрмы и $250000 штрафа за каждый фальшивый номер который был использован.


и узнают ли об этом на границе если я полечу домой,
Они могут не только узнать -- они могут вас на границе арестовать.


помогите пожалуйста, посоветуйте xто мне делать?
Вы должны немедленно обратиться к адвокату-криминалисту. Сегодня. Нет, прямо сейчас. Акцентирую -- к адвокату-криминалисту, а не в "иммиграционный оффис" или к юристу, занимающемуся гринкартами и куплей недвижимости. Потратьте деньги на консультацию не скупясь. Я надеюсь что в вашей ситуации, адвокат сможет договориться с властями, чтобы вы легко отделались; для этого вам, возможно, придется заложить людей которые помогли вам достать этот фальшивый номер.

Я не хочу вас пугать, но не исключено, что уже есть ордер на ваш арест и на обыск вашего дома. Если вас арестуют, вы имеете право не отвечать на вопросы полиции или ФБР. Скажите, что вы хотите побеседовать со своим адвокатом. Не спорьте, не обьясняйте, и ничего не доказывайте, но самое главное -- не врите; просто закройте рот на замок.

Если вы в штате Нью-Йорк, пошлите мне ЛС, и я порекомендую вам хорошего криминалиста.

Ino
11-04-2004, 11:15 AM
Боьшое спасибо, только вы вот таверное непоняли по поводу номера, он у меня не фальшивый, это мой, только что на новой карточке(фальшивой), хотя наверно без разницы. А где можно найти адвоката криминалиста?

GG
11-04-2004, 11:38 AM
Ino, если номер твой, но на поддельной карточке это НАМНОГО проще. В смысле собственно ложной идентификации у тебя стало быть нету.

Ino
11-04-2004, 12:33 PM
Да. Номер у меня действительно мой, только что на поддеьной карточке. Видимо в этом году после окончания визы годность номера заканчивается и соответственно он становится как подделка, а что в таких случаях бывает, когда твой номер но на поддеоьной карточке?

GG
11-04-2004, 06:01 PM
Ino, у номера нет окончания срока годности. Ради чего ты подделывал карточку? Чем тебя не устроила оригинальная?

Leon93
11-04-2004, 06:23 PM
Карточки выдаются с надписью" Не для работы"..Он видно купил поддельную со свои номером но без этой надписи. Все равно подделка гос.документа..дело плохо, если у какого-нибудь следователя недобор по раскрытим делам вдруг окажется..

Ino
11-04-2004, 06:54 PM
Да дело обстоит именно так, выходит мне уже ничего не поможет, и дело обстоит только за временем. И что мне за это могут впаять до 20 лет!?

Ino
11-04-2004, 06:55 PM
Может мне со станы бежать пока не поздно, или уже позжно?

LaFemmeGavrila
11-04-2004, 07:02 PM
п*дарики тебе, чувачок... адвоката бери, срочно, как Вербатим сказала...

GG
11-04-2004, 08:53 PM
Ino, я не силен в местных законах, но подделкой документа считается подделка документа устанавливающего некий юридический факт. Фокус в том что то что ты подделал - никакого юридического факта не устанавливает. Сама по себе карточка с ССН несет на себе официально ТОЛЬКО информацию о номере. А его ты как раз и не трогал. Все прочие пометки формально говоря делаются для удобства. В каком-то смысле если ты авторучкой матерное слово на углу настоящей карточки написал ты тоже ее изменил. Но это же не образует подделки.
Тут вступят в игру тонкости законодательства и преценденты. Это тебе без адвоката не справится, особенно если учестно что тебе надо быстро. Но 20 лет тебе за такое не дадут. Это так, мелочь по сути своей. Самого мрачного по местным меркам, подделки идентификации, у тебя нет. Ты просто попытался скрыть факт отсутствия у тебя разрешения на работу. Это никак не тянет на 20 лет :)

Если у тебя нет других криминальных записей и ты пойдешь на встречу ментам (читай сдашь источник поддельной карточки), то 99 из 100 что ты отделаешься легким испугом.

elfy
11-05-2004, 12:16 AM
прикинься дурачком, скажи, что потерял свою настоящую карточку, а не знал, что за заменой надо было идти в social security office, а тут вот выискалися люди "добрые", помогли, кинули короче, а ты всего лишь жертва обмана их (ну сдать конечно их придется тогда обязательно, как и писалось выше)

а вообще, чего ты за правами с подделкой пошел? тебе бы и по карточке с надписью не для работы права дали бы

Ino
11-05-2004, 01:14 AM
да что уже сейчас поделаешь , мне теперь остается только гадать что за это будет, хотя законы я уже почитал. Я попадаю под проступок 1 степени а за это до года или штраф 2500 или то и другое, но это высшие меры наказания по этой статье, если я конечно правильно все понял и нашел правильную статью. Нанимать адвоката у меня нет денег, очень дорого, так что если поймают придется надеятся на гос сектор.

Leon93
11-05-2004, 01:30 AM
Коси под незнайку..Типа нужна била карточка взамен утеряной ..нашлись люди..взяли бабки..А откуда ты знаешь должна там быть надпись или нет??? Дали карточку, сличил номер- твой! Ну и пошол..

Verbatim
11-05-2004, 12:43 PM
Ино: При всем уважении к форумчанам, советующим вам "прикинуться дураком", пожалуйста, последуйте совету адвоката: вместо того, чтобы прикинуться дураком, лучше прикиньтесь немым. Это ваше конституционное право. Обьяснять вы ничего не обязаны -- это прокурор должен доказывать что было у вас в голове. Люди которые прикидываются кем угодно кроме как немыми как правило только глубже зарывают себя в яму.

Подделка карточки с настоящим номером -- это уже не так серьезно как использование фальшивого номера, но тем не менее, это фальсификация государственного документа, и я настоятельно рекомендую вам воспользоваться вашим правом на молчание и передать дело в руки специалиста.

К вашему вопросу: для того, чтобы найти адвоката, обратитесь в местую "county bar association". Если нет денег нанять адвоката обычным путем, обратитесь в Legal Aid.

Verbatim
11-05-2004, 12:45 PM
прикинься дурачком, скажи, что потерял свою настоящую карточку, а не знал, что за заменой надо было идти в social security office, а тут вот выискалися люди "добрые", помогли, кинули короче, а ты всего лишь жертва обмана их (ну сдать конечно их придется тогда обязательно, как и писалось выше)

Это не оправдание, елфи -- даже если присяжные в это вообще поверят.

Vadim849
11-05-2004, 10:36 PM
Слушайте, а вот мне интересно, можно ли сидеть в американской тюрьме вообще не имея никакой визы?

Допустим была у человека туристическая виза, посадили в тюрьму, со временем виза закончилась - что будет? Выдворят из страны? Или какую-то другую визу оформят? Или будет продолжать сидеть без визы?

Что касается штрафа, так ведь если денег нет, то платить не придется. Или я чего-то не понимаю?

Leon93
11-06-2004, 02:31 AM
Америка- страна свободного выбора...Если денег нет, судья, по твоему согласию выберит тебе срок, а если у него был хорошый секс накануне...то, может быть, и общественные работы..

Verbatim
11-07-2004, 01:53 PM
Слушайте, а вот мне интересно, можно ли сидеть в американской тюрьме вообще не имея никакой визы?
Можно.


Допустим была у человека туристическая виза, посадили в тюрьму, со временем виза закончилась - что будет? Выдворят из страны? Или какую-то другую визу оформят? Или будет продолжать сидеть без визы?
Чтобы сидеть в тюрьме виза не нужна.


Что касается штрафа, так ведь если денег нет, то платить не придется. Или я чего-то не понимаю?
Если нет денег, возьмут имуществом. Если нет имущества, то будут вычитать из зарплаты и следить за преобретениями. Если нет ни денег, ни имущества, ни статуса, то выдворят так -- но если когда-нибудь вернешься (с деньгами или с работой), с тебя возьмут с процентами.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-07-2004, 05:37 PM
Чтобы сидеть в тюрьме виза не нужна.
Иногда даже обвинения не нужно.:smoke:

Verbatim
11-08-2004, 08:08 AM
Иногда даже обвинения не нужно.:smoke:
Ну, в приделах Америки, это не более чем на 24-48 часов, в зависимости от законов штатах. Впрочем, и это нелегко для людей, которые не могут провести больше 3х часов без caffe latte. 8)

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-08-2004, 11:45 AM
Иногда даже обвинения не нужно.:smoke:
Ну, в приделах Америки, это не более чем на 2ч-ч8 часов, в зависимости от законов штатах.
Вам два слова и вопрос:
Jose Padilla
Военная база в Гвантаномо не является территорией США?

Verbatim
11-08-2004, 11:54 AM
Jose Padilla
You'd feel better if he was held without bail? Думаю что на военной базе ему безопаснее, чем в тюрьме; это одна из двух причин по которой его там держат. Но ты за Падилью не волнуйся -- на это есть habeas corpus.


Военная база в Гвантаномо не является территорией США?
Не-а.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-08-2004, 06:38 PM
You'd feel better if he was held without bail?
I am not a constitutional scholar, but, yes, it would nave made me feel better.

Думаю что на военной базе ему безопаснее, чем в тюрьме; это одна из двух причин по которой его там держат. Nonsense.
Safe from what exactly? Being tortured to death?

Но ты за Падилью не волнуйся -- на это есть habeas corpus.
Похоже, что в его случае как раз нету.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 08:27 AM
I am not a constitutional scholar, but, yes, it would nave made me feel better.
I'm afraid I am not scholarly enough to lend so much importance to distinctions which have no practical significance.


Safe from what exactly? Being tortured to death?
Sure. It's far more likely to happen in jail than on a military base. And by the way, when exactly was JP tortured to death?


Похоже, что в его случае как раз нету.
I can't believe the journalists are this bored.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 03:03 PM
Sure. It's far more likely to happen in jail than on a military base. And by the way, when exactly was JP tortured to death?
Not in a solitary confinement.


On 21 May 2004, the Department of Defense revealed that the Army Criminal Investigation Command was currently conducting 33 investigations of death in custody cases, 30 of which involved deaths inside facilities.(612) Nine of these 30 cases were the subject of ongoing military investigations of military personnel. Eight of these nine cases involve deaths "classified by medical authorities as homicides, which involve suspected assaults of detainees either before or during interrogation sessions that may have led to the detainee’s death".(613) Of these nine cases, three were in Afghanistan and six in Iraq (including two in Abu Ghraib). A 10th case categorized as a homicide had been closed by the military and "turned over to another government agency".http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004?open&of=ENG-USA

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 03:08 PM
I'm afraid I am not scholarly enough to lend so much importance to distinctions which have no practical significance.
Due process has no practical significance?

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 03:09 PM
Due process has no practical significance?
The distinction between confinement in one prison and confinement in another has no practical significance. As for due process, it has practical significance only when it is not being used as a fifty-cent buzzword. The way the majority of the public and the media is using the word "due process" -- I'd say that's right, it has no practical significance. Just like the word "unconstitutional" -- you know the glitzy synonym for "not nice".

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 03:15 PM
"]On 21 May 2004, the Department of Defense revealed that the Army Criminal Investigation Command was currently conducting 33 investigations of death in custody cases, 30 of which involved deaths inside facilities.(612) Nine of these 30 cases were the subject of ongoing military investigations of military personnel. Eight of these nine cases involve deaths "classified by medical authorities as homicides, which involve suspected assaults of detainees either before or during interrogation sessions that may have led to the detainee’s death".(613) Of these nine cases, three were in Afghanistan and six in Iraq (including two in Abu Ghraib). A 10th case categorized as a homicide had been closed by the military and "turned over to another government agency".http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004?open&of=ENG-USA[/quote]

Over how many years? Out of how many detainees? Homocides by personnel or other detainees? And besides -- every death is investigated; the fact that there is an investigation does not mean a crime was committed. How come AI is not mentioning the outcomes of the investigations? Generally, such information is omitted when it is unpalatable to the accuser.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 03:23 PM
The distinction between confinement in one prison and confinement in another has no practical significance. As for due process, it has practical significance only when it is not being used as a fifty-cent buzzword.
Generally speaking, it is true. In the case of Jose Padilla, - and we are still talking about his case, don't we? - the place of detention is used to subvert the due process and, therefore, is not simply significant but critical.
As far as monetary equivalents of basic judicial right are concerned, how much value do you think, the AG puts on the whole Constitution?

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 03:35 PM
Generally speaking, it is true. In the case of Jose Padilla, - and we are still talking about his case, don't we? - the place of detention is used to subvert the due process and, therefore, is not simply significant but critical.
In what way exactly is due process subverted by detention centers in the case of Jose Padilla? Detention in and of itself is not a violation of due process. The media loves to have a fit any time a crime is stopped in progress or prevented. It would have been more usual, I suppose, to let Padilla set off the dirty bomb, kill a few thousand, then put him to trial.


As far as monetary equivalents of basic judicial right are concerned, how much value do you think, the AG puts on the whole Constitution?
That's not a question -- that's another buzz-line. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the value the AG puts on the whole Constitution is certainly greater than the value the media puts on it; to say nothing of the value which Jose Padilla puts on it.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 03:44 PM
Over how many years? Out of how many detainees? Homocides by personnel or other detainees?
I don't know. I could find out, but it would take a lot of time. I do seriously doubt that all of those cases unearth absolutely nothing wrong with treatment of detainees. After all we already had the scandal in Abu Whatever, with at least one death and prison conviction for US solder for that.

And besides -- every death is investigated; the fact
that there is an investigation does not mean a crime was committed. How come AI is not mentioning the outcomes of the investigations? Generally, such information is omitted when it is unpalatable to the accuser. Well, in this particular case the Dep. of Defense is talking about homicide investigations, so the chances are a crime was committed. Results? I understand the investigations are still on-doing.
And yes, AI is listing some cases, go way down to "6.2 Investigating deaths in custody"
Also don't forget, they are investigating themselves, the results may be different if there was no incentive to make themselves look good to the outside world.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 03:54 PM
I do seriously doubt that all of those cases unearth absolutely nothing wrong with treatment of detainees.
You have to talk about specific cases and specific circumstances. Handling violent prisoners is no piece of cake, you know, and Islamic terrorists are particularly notorious (heard about the people killed and maimed in New York?). They hurt themselves and each other, they attack the guards and other personnel; every homicide committed in self-defense or in defense of others is investigated anyway, as a matter of course -- it's just standard operating procedure. So again -- the fact that there is an investigation does not mean that the guards did anything wrong.


After all we already had the scandal in Abu Whatever, with at least one death and prison conviction for US solder for that.
So? Just because Joe did it in Alabama, doesn't mean John did it in Montana too. What does it have to do with Padilla?


Well, in this particular case the Dep. of Defense is talking about homicide investigations, so the chances are a crime was committed. Results? I understand the investigations are still on-doing.
"Homicide" does not mean "crime" and it is not synonymous with murder or manslaughter. "Homicide" means death not from natural causes -- it may or may not have been legally inflicted. Again -- see what I wrote above about guarding prisoners.


Also don't forget, they are investigating themselves, the results may be different if there was no incentive to make themselves look good to the outside world.
Trust me, if they wanted to make themselves look good to the world, they wouldn't investigate anything. What's the point? They could just say that all deaths were from natural causes, period. Since we are talking about law, we have to base out conclusions on facts, not on suppositions or conjecture.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:26 PM
In what way exactly is due process subverted by detention centers in the case of Jose Padilla? Detention in and of itself is not a violation of due process. The media loves to have a fit any time a crime is stopped in progress or prevented. It would have been more usual, I suppose, to let Padilla set off the dirty bomb, kill a few thousand, then put him to trial.

Petitioner’s Ongoing Confinement In A Military Brig Has Not Been Accompanied By Any Procedural SafeguardsBoth in the civil and criminal context, the Supreme Court has insisted that the government provide basic procedural safeguards before depriving individuals of their physical liberty. Those safeguards include, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner has plainly received
neither, nor has he been permitted to consult with his lawyer. This is not a mere dispute over timing. In the government’s view, petitioner may never be entitled to charges and a hearing, even if he is held in a military brig for the rest of his life. When similar claims have arisen in the past, the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected such an expansive view of the government’s authority.
http://archive.aclu.org/court/padilla.pdf
Let's not get into a discussion about US media. First, there are different outlets arguing different points. Second, I have nor referred to any of the media yet.
If the government had any evidence that Jose had means or even intention to set off a "dirty bomb", they wouldn't have had so much difficulty to at least charge the guy accordingly, would they?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:28 PM
That's not a question -- that's another buzz-line. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the value the AG puts on the whole Constitution is certainly greater than the value the media puts on it; to say nothing of the value which Jose Padilla puts on it.
OK, I have no problem with leaving this in the "pure speculation" department.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:35 PM
You have to talk about specific cases and specific circumstances. Handling violent prisoners is no piece of cake, you know, and Islamic terrorists are particularly notorious (heard about the people killed and maimed in New York?). They hurt themselves and each other, they attack the guards and other personnel; every homicide committed in self-defense or in defense of others is investigated anyway, as a matter of course -- it's just standard operating procedure. So again -- the fact that there is an investigation does not mean that the guards did anything wrong.
OK, we just have to wait and see, I guess. Although I am still very skeptical about a prison guard's necessity to commit homicide as the only way left for self-defense.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:40 PM
After all we already had the scandal in Abu Whatever, with at least one death and prison conviction for US solder for that.
So? Just because Joe did it in Alabama, doesn't mean John did it in Montana too. What does it have to do with Padilla?
With Padilla? Nothing. It was an answer on a completely different question.

Over how many years? Out of how many detainees? Homocides by personnel or other detainees?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:51 PM
Trust me, if they wanted to make themselves look good to the world, they wouldn't investigate anything. What's the point? They could just say that all deaths were from natural causes, period. Since we are talking about law, we have to base out conclusions on facts, not on suppositions or conjecture.
And by using "trust me", do you not invite me to rely on your suppositions and conjecture?:smoke:
Fortunately for us, even US Military is not yet above the law.
I do find it curious, however, that you conceive that the most efficient way for them to look good is by concealing any information.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 04:54 PM
Let's not get into a discussion about US media.
Yeah, don't get me started.


First, there are different outlets arguing different points.
They all suck. With the exception of the New York Law Journal, and they border-line suck.


Second, I have nor referred to any of the media yet.
Yeah, but I assume that's where you get your info from.


If the government had any evidence that Jose had means or even intention to set off a "dirty bomb", they wouldn't have had so much difficulty to at least charge the guy accordingly, would they?
Who says they are having difficulty? Having insufficient evidence is by far not the only reason to hold off on the charges.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:55 PM
Мои извинения всем участникам кто не читает по-английски, но разговоры о американской юриспруденции, как, впрочем, и компютерах, гораздо легче вести именно по-английски.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 04:57 PM
Although I am still very skeptical about a prison guard's necessity to commit homicide as the only way left for self-defense.
What other ways are there when you've been stabbed in the eye and the "detainee" is aiming for the other? (actual case)

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 04:58 PM
Let's not get into a discussion about US media.
Yeah, don't get me started.


First, there are different outlets arguing different points.
They all suck. With the exception of the New York Law Journal, and they border-line suck.

OK-OK, simmer down. No reason to get your panties in a wad!:smoke:

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 05:00 PM
I do find it curious, however, that you conceive that the most efficient way for them to look good is by concealing any information.
The most efficient way for anybody to look good would be by concealing negative information, not by underreporting. So if an organization made up its mind to conceal the bad stuff, it would conceal everything. I am saying that your conviction of underreporting has no factual or logical basis.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:03 PM
Yeah, but I assume that's where you get your info from.
Well, I get my info from all kind of sources, (some of them I refuse to disclose!:smoke:) but I do have enough sense to limit my quotes to Amnesty International and ACLU and such. I hope you find them respectful enough.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 05:03 PM
OK-OK, simmer down. No reason to get your panties in a wad!:smoke:
They are not worth my panties, those worthless motormouths. :twisted:

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:06 PM
Who says they are having difficulty? Having insufficient evidence is by far not the only reason to hold off on the charges.
Well, than we have to ask them what exactly their function is and by what methods they are executing it.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 05:06 PM
Well, I get my info from all kind of sources, (some of them I refuse to disclose!:smoke:) but I do have enough sense to limit my quotes to Amnesty International and ACLU and such. I hope you find them respectful enough.
I do -- but again, they don't explain the data, which may be misinterpreted, such as the fact that all custodial deaths are investigated. There is no such thing as a non-investigated custodial death. They also do not explain what is involved in the investigation, who conducts it, or the facts of specific cases. All that leaves people to interpret the info any way they want -- and most interpret it according to their a priori political convictions.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 05:07 PM
Well, than we have to ask them what exactly their function is and by what methods they are executing it.
Negotiations between the prosecution and the defendant are not public record. Ever. It's done as much to protect the defendant as to advance the public interest. Between you and me, I am sure an immunity plea will be worked out -- a bigger fish will be caught, and Padilla will walk. Mark my words. (Though I doubt that he wants to walk.)

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:29 PM
Interesting coincidence - a BBC news alert just popped out "US Attorney General John Ashcroft has resigned from the Bush cabinet, the White House says."

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:31 PM
What other ways are there when you've been stabbed in the eye and the "detainee" is aiming for the other? (actual case)
I don't know. Conduct proper searches for any sharp objects, so they wouldn't anything to stab with?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:41 PM
The most efficient way for anybody to look good would be by concealing negative information, not by underreporting. So if an organization made up its mind to conceal the bad stuff, it would conceal everything. I am saying that your conviction of underreporting has no factual or logical basis.
You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis? Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 05:47 PM
Negotiations between the prosecution and the defendant are not public record. Ever. It's done as much to protect the defendant as to advance the public interest. Between you and me, I am sure an immunity plea will be worked out -- a bigger fish will be caught, and Padilla will walk. Mark my words. (Though I doubt that he wants to walk.)
May be. may be there is no "big fish".
If and when it all happens he may want to lay low, but in a place of his choosing, not the government's.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 06:38 PM
I don't know. Conduct proper searches for any sharp objects, so they wouldn't anything to stab with?
And if he conseals one anyway -- what, bite the bullet?

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 06:39 PM
You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis?
It did -- but your statement about the deaths in detention does not.


Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?
There was an investigation before the public outcry.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 06:40 PM
May be. may be there is no "big fish".
The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way.


If and when it all happens he may want to lay low, but in a place of his choosing, not the government's.
How do you know where he may want to lay low? Many mafia bigshots in the 80's and 90's chose the government's place of hiding as the safest one.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:21 PM
I don't know. Conduct proper searches for any sharp objects, so they wouldn't anything to stab with?
And if he conseals one anyway -- what, bite the bullet?
Are you asking for my assessment of a hypothetical situation or are we discussing the justification of the guard's actions in a particular case?
When I make a point, I take the effort to back it up with references to credible sources. When you make a point, I see nothing of the kind. Can you tell the difference in conducting a discussion?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:22 PM
You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis?
It did -- but your statement about the deaths in detention does not.
Which statement?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:24 PM
Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?
There was an investigation before the public outcry.
Correction: I should have said "Do you think they would have had any meaningful investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?"

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:31 PM
I do -- but again, they don't explain the data, which may be misinterpreted, such as the fact that all custodial deaths are investigated. There is no such thing as a non-investigated custodial death. They also do not explain what is involved in the investigation, who conducts it, or the facts of specific cases. All that leaves people to interpret the info any way they want -- and most interpret it according to their a priori political convictions.
I previously wrote: "And yes, AI is listing some cases, go way down to "6.2 Investigating deaths in custody".
Did you? There are facts of specific cases there. Take an effort, please, otherwise this all becomes rather speculative.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:34 PM
May be. may be there is no "big fish".
The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way.
OK. You go first. :smoke:

I am sure an immunity plea will be worked out -- a bigger fish will be caught, and Padilla will walk

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-09-2004, 08:46 PM
How do you know where he may want to lay low? Many mafia bigshots in the 80's and 90's chose the government's place of hiding as the safest one.
I was talking about him having freedom to choose where to lay down or lay down at all. The freedom, which he is denied right now in violation of US Constitution.
He may as well choose to enter witness protection, if, and that's a big if, he's actually has anybody to be afraid of. Other than US government, that is.:smoke:
My observations tell me that a criminal is the more cooperative the better is evidence against him/her. Jose's present failure to rat out his co-conspirators, may be similar to US failure to find WMD in Iraq. There just isn't any.

Verbatim
11-09-2004, 09:53 PM
I was talking about him having freedom to choose where to lay down or lay down at all. The freedom, which he is denied right now in violation of US Constitution.
How exactly does his detention violate the US Constitution? Remember, the mere fact of detention in and of itself is not unconstitutional.


He may as well choose to enter witness protection, if, and that's a big if, he's actually has anybody to be afraid of. Other than US government, that is.:smoke:
If he makes a deal with the US government, how do you think his brothers in jihad will take to it? Oh, I forgot -- they are peaceful people.


My observations tell me that a criminal is the more cooperative the better is evidence against him/her.
Where did you have a chance to observe criminals' behaviour in plea bargaining? I'm not being facetious -- I'm just curious.


Jose's present failure to rat out his co-conspirators, may be similar to US failure to find WMD in Iraq. There just isn't any.
What do you mean? That there is no such thing as violent Islamic jihad? And if there is such a thing as violent Islamic jihad -- could there be another reason for a fanatic not to rat out his co-conspirators than the fact that he is just an innocent by-stander?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-10-2004, 12:30 AM
How exactly does his detention violate the US Constitution? Remember, the mere fact of detention in and of itself is not unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.”
Had you granted me the respect by reading the ACLU brief, you'd save me time and trouble of pointing the obvious.
The detention itself may or may not be unconstitutional, but detention without due process inevitably is.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-10-2004, 12:40 AM
He may as well choose to enter witness protection, if, and that's a big if, he's actually has anybody to be afraid of. Other than US government, that is.:smoke:
If he makes a deal with the US government, how do you think his brothers in jihad will take to it? Oh, I forgot -- they are peaceful people.

Jose's present failure to rat out his co-conspirators, may be similar to US failure to find WMD in Iraq. There just isn't any.
What do you mean? That there is no such thing as violent Islamic jihad? And if there is such a thing as violent Islamic jihad -- could there be another reason for a fanatic not to rat out his co-conspirators than the fact that he is just an innocent by-stander?
There such thing as "jihad". Let's not question the obviouse.
There is, however, no proof offered by the government that Jose is a part of it.
"The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way." Remember?

Verbatim
11-10-2004, 08:30 AM
There is, however, no proof offered by the government that Jose is a part of it.
"The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way." Remember?
Then why are you making an assumption that there is no proof? Or, if there is no legally acceptable proof, why are you making an assumption that JP is not a terrorist? Do you have any idea how many perpetrators walk? Or do you naively believe that everyone who gets acquitted didn't do it?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-10-2004, 06:08 PM
Then why are you making an assumption that there is no proof? Or, if there is no legally acceptable proof, why are you making an assumption that JP is not a terrorist? Do you have any idea how many perpetrators walk? Or do you naively believe that everyone who gets acquitted didn't do it?
I am not making such an assumption. I said that the government has not so far offered any proof. This is not an assumption, it's a fact. The government doesn't just get to imprison people indefinitely, with no presentable evidence, for suspicion only. It is not acceptable in "ordinary" criminal cases and I do not see why it can be common practice with suspected terrorists. No I don't have any idea how many "perpetrators" walk. I think none, simply because once the court has established the fact of someone being the perpetrator, there is a whole lot of people whose job is to make sure the perp doesn't just walk out of the court room like nothing happened. And yes, I do deem it not only possible that a guilty person can not be found such, but also quite necessary if there is not enough evidence against that person. It's all because of presumption of innocence. Great concept. Look into it.

Verbatim
11-11-2004, 09:07 AM
I am not making such an assumption. I said that the government has not so far offered any proof. This is not an assumption, it's a fact.
That it has not offered proof is a fact; that it does not have proof is an assumption.


The government doesn't just get to imprison people indefinitely, with no presentable evidence, for suspicion only.
Yes it does. "Compelling government objective" has always been an integral part of due process.


It is not acceptable in "ordinary" criminal cases and I do not see why it can be common practice with suspected terrorists.
Well, you don't see -- but others do. And as I pointed out, due process allows it.


No I don't have any idea how many "perpetrators" walk. I think none, simply because once the court has established the fact of someone being the perpetrator, there is a whole lot of people whose job is to make sure the perp doesn't just walk out of the court room like nothing happened.
Well, here is where you are wrong. A court, first of all, does not "establish the fact" that someone is a perpetrator -- presumption of innocence, remember? As a matter of reality, if John killed Jack, it is a fact of life, and a jury verdict will not magically change that fact. You are naive to think that only innocent people get to walk away from the courthouse. Notice that the choice of verdicts is between "guilty" and "not guilty" -- and not between "guilty" and "innocent". There is a reason for that -- why don't you look into it. In order to convict someone, you have to prove guilt at the probability of 92%. In other words, if there is 9 out of 10 chances that the defendant did it -- guess what? -- precisely -- he will get to walk out of the courtroom like nothing happened. When that person walks out the door, it does not mean that he is only 9/10 a murderer, or that he is innocent -- in fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that he did it, and he got away with it.

This happens every day. You are also wrong to think that there is an army of people working to convict the defendant. There is the DA -- who is certainly more frazzled and has more cases to handle than the defense attorney -- and the prosecution expert team. The defendant has his own attorney, his own investigators, and his own expert team. The judge certainly does not work towards a conviction. So the playing field is pretty much level -- except where it comes to the burden of proof, and there, the defendant has TREMENDOUS advantage over the prosecution.


It's all because of presumption of innocence. Great concept. Look into it.
It is a great concept -- too bad it is so misunderstood. It is a legal concept which merely distributes the burden of proof -- that's all. Presumption of innocence does not nullify the fact of the crime, does not change reality, and certainly does not obligate me to believe that someone is innocent when I am convinced he is not. Nor does it prevent me from expressing my opinion about his guilt. It's all because of the freedom of speech. Great concept. Look into it.

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-11-2004, 02:44 PM
...and certainly does not obligate me to believe that someone is innocent when I am convinced he is not. Nor does it prevent me from expressing my opinion about his guilt. It's all because of the freedom of speech. Great concept. Look into it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/1686039.stm
Talking about the freedom of speech. Apparently it doesn't cover defamatory speech. Only after the criminal court finds somebody guilty of murder, you get to call them a murderer. Your beliefs are completely irrelevant one way or another. You are free to say that you think the guy is a murderer, but you may not say he is a murderer. Are you going to argue this?

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-11-2004, 03:04 PM
I am not making such an assumption. I said that the government has not so far offered any proof. This is not an assumption, it's a fact.
That it has not offered proof is a fact; that it does not have proof is an assumption.
That would be an assumption. The assumption I did not make. Please read my sentence again: "I said that the government has not so far offered any proof." If you continue to attribute to me the things I did not express, my participation in this conversation may become superfluous.

Verbatim
11-11-2004, 03:53 PM
Talking about the freedom of speech. Apparently it doesn't cover defamatory speech.
In theory yes, but in practice, had the publisher litigated this thing, he would probably be off the hook.


Only after the criminal court finds somebody guilty of murder, you get to call them a murderer. Your beliefs are completely irrelevant one way or another. You are free to say that you think the guy is a murderer, but you may not say he is a murderer. Are you going to argue this?
Are you kidding? What you said has absolutely no basis in law. To convict someone of murder in a criminal court, you need a probability of 92%. To prove that someone is a murderer in a civil case, you need a probability of only 51%. The verdict of criminal court, therefore, is not binding on subsequent civil proceedings -- this is how Nicole Simpson's relatives were able to sue her husband for damages and got a verdict that he is, in fact, a murderer. When someone is acquitted, all that means is that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof -- but it does not establish innocense as a matter of law, which is what you seem to be arguing (to prove anything as a matter of law, you need to meet the burden of 75% -- criminal defendants have no legal reason to do so). So, if OJ were to sue me for calling him a murderer, I would be free to demonstrate to the jury -- merely -- that it is more likely than not to be the truth; his acquittal in criminal court would be some evidence of innocense (if!), but it would not nearly be binding on the jury with respect to the question of innocense (because of the difference in the burdens of proof). Which, I think, a reasonable civil jury would most likely find. This is the reason why OJ is not suing anyone over bashing him. (And all that, of course, assuming that the case even goes to the jury -- and that the plaintiff will get past the fact/opinion distinction, which usually sinks defamation cases on summary judgment.)

Whew. Now. Care to cite one case where calling an acquitted defendant guilty resulted in a defamation verdict against the speaker? :wink:

Verbatim
11-11-2004, 03:56 PM
That would be an assumption. The assumption I did not make. Please read my sentence again: "I said that the government has not so far offered any proof."
Well, it just seemed to be where you were going. My apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.


If you continue to attribute to me the things I did not express, my participation in this conversation may become superfluous.
Superfluous, huh? Are you sure it would not become gratuitous, supererogatory, carping, pulchritudinous or outre? :wink:

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-11-2004, 05:29 PM
Are you sure it would not become gratuitous, supererogatory, carping, pulchritudinous or outre? :wink:
It has already been gratuitous, since I am not charging you for all the educating, supererogatory, since I have had to go over the same arguments again and again, carping to your points, getting thin on pulchritude, but never outre. :smoke:

BOP B 3AKOHE
11-11-2004, 05:31 PM
The government doesn't just get to imprison people indefinitely, with no presentable evidence, for suspicion only.
Yes it does. "Compelling government objective" has always been an integral part of due process.


It is not acceptable in "ordinary" criminal cases and I do not see why it can be common practice with suspected terrorists.
Well, you don't see -- but others do. And as I pointed out, due process allows it.
Well, at least one court disagrees with you.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032235p.pdf

Птиц
11-12-2004, 06:11 PM
Jejune??!! Are you calling ME jejune???!!!" (с)

BOP B 3AKOHE
03-01-2005, 02:40 PM
Well, at least one court disagrees with you.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032235p.pdf
Here comes another one:
Judge Rules Terror Suspect Must Be Charged or Freed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Bush administration to either charge or release an American suspected of plotting terrorist attacks with Al Qaeda, saying that his continued confinement after nearly three years would "only offend the rule of law."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=27&u=/latimests/20050301/ts_latimes/judgerulesterrorsuspectmustbechargedorfreed

Doesn't look too good for you, does it? :smoke: