Page 3 of 60
Posted on May 20 at 1:45 p.m.
Well good, sacjon, that you've decided your idiocy can't cope with the truth --- that you support grotesque and unethical behavior in the courtroom to ensnare innocent people, often rape victims.
JarvisJarvis... and when G--- or Jehovah or Allah or Buddha speaks to you inside your head and tells you to lie to the atheists, what do you do? Lies or betray your god?
On Students Stage Sit-In at Cheadle Hall
Posted on May 20 at 1:08 p.m.
Your kidding, right, sacjon?
You don't acknowledge any difference between a half-truth and the whole truth?
Why do only witnesses have to swear to tell the **whole** truth?
Why *don't* attorneys and judges have to swear to tell the *whole* truth?
Using half truths to falsely impugn witnesses is a flaw of our justice system. It is disgusting. For every 1 liar who is caught thousands of innocent and honest folks are ensnared. Particularly when the (usually) male-dominated system seeks to blame rape victims for the rape.
You have zero understanding of honesty and ethics sacjon, your posts on this thread has proven it. You support an inherently dishonest and unethical justice system, with an astonishing rate of false convictions and an even higher rate of false plea deals obtained by unethical behavior.
And yes, how could anyone trust your judgments about female victims of violence?
The UC conduct system is extremely well documented in a series of policy documents, nomoresanity. That you are making comments without educating yourself is sad. And the judgments are sealed by the feds, through FERPA. You may hate it but US must respect that law.
Posted on May 20 at 11:08 a.m.
Amazing to hear you guys defending the dirtiest, most oily, dishonest profession in the US, that of lawyers.
What claptrap. If any of that was true, at the beginning of each day in court, judges & attorneys would have to take the same oath as witnesses.
They don't. So they can and do state partial truths to ensnare witnesses, all the frigging time. Like, `Miss X, yes or no, did you say `I find Mr. X attractive once.''? She answers `yes'. `Miss X, in your interview on XX/XX, you swear you said that to him twice.''
All questions should be based on the **whole truth**, like `Miss X, the sworn record says you stated you found Mr. X attractive twice, yes or no, is that true?
Weaponized half-truths are used **all the time** by attorneys, and even judges. Seen it with my own eyes when I've served on juries.
All the dissembling and falsehoods by sacjon & JarvisJarvis evades the well known fact: partial truths and manipulation are employed by our judicial system to ensnare and discredit rape victims. Sorry, it is true.
And you guys support that. Pretty easy to connect the dots. Violence against women is to you the woman's fault. But violence men is not the man's fault.
Posted on May 20 at 9:43 a.m.
sacjon, you overlook that I have explicitly quoted the oath taken by California attorneys and their ethical code:
NOT ONCE DOES IT REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
what the f*** are you talking about, sacjon. You obdurately miss the point and defense attorneys who attack rape victims with claims that they invited the violent attacks.
Probably, sacjon, you think violent rape attacks are no big deal.
Now why do you do that, sacjon, please explain yourself. Is it that you think rape victims all invite the violent attacks? Is that it?
JarvisJarvis, you are trying to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Free love has nothing to do with violent attacks. Zero, nada, nothing. You are unable to distinguish and categorize information, and again are somehow implying that rapes are not like having your head drilled with a power drill. They are. They are acts of violence, not love.
That the US system of justice is messed up is proven: you cannot find one record, not one, where the judges and attorneys stand up and pledge each day at the beginning of a trial and say `We solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
But a rape victim has to do that. I say level the playing field and make all parties who ever say a word in a court trial solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Posted on May 20 at 8:17 a.m.
nomore, you are the one who is blindfolded, earplugged, in straightjacket, and dosed with milligrams of LSD and thrown in a vat of chocolate pudding.
`Unregulated' is friggin BS. What the h*** are you talking about. UC's discipline system is 147 years old with reams of precedent, documentation, procedures, etc. You don't survive that many years of lawsuits from people whose degrees are compromised without a very developed and bulletproof system. Go learn something before you spout your nonsense.
You utterly miss the fact, documented endlessly by people including Jon Krakauer: our judicial system puts rape victims on trial by its ethical mis-design. Your are defending really creepy and oily attorneys, who have no oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and who shamelessly attack rape victims for having invited violent assaults.
If you were attacked by a drunken friend (while you yourself were drunk) with a power drill to the head, would you expect to be accused of inviting the attack by drinking? Get a clue, cletus.
Just because you see people like yourself everywhere (that is, morons) doesn't mean you are right.
Posted on May 20 at 7:09 a.m.
It is not `my way or the highway', which are not my words, but your fantasy life.
Blind blaming the victim for an act of violence by another is the problem, and our judicial system has failed miserably at solving the problem. I'm open to any solution, and I'm trying to advance any solution by pointing out: in the US system judges and attorneys are free to misrepresent and use half-truths to attack rape victims on the stand. Make everyone in the courtroom subject to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A good step.
Posted on May 20 at 5:42 a.m.
Horsemushrooms. I'm not against due process. I'm against putting rape victims on trial in the station house and in the courtroom after they are rape, which is the current policy.
You are not paying attention clausen. At least at UC, students agree to the internal judicial process when they enroll. When they sue the always lose, because they agree to the process of their own free will.
I guess you want students to be able to say, `gosh, sure, I agreed, but that was then, and this is now. I agreed to pay $ for tuition too, but now I've changed my mind, can I have my money back?'
You are in favor of total personal irresponsibility, billclausen. And UCSB always encourages victims to go to the police, but that is actually not UCSB's call, it is the victims. But you better believe the police at UCSB reach out to victims. What rank trash you have posted about murder at grammar schools: too many kids already are dying in violent incidents at grammar schools and you joke about it.
If you didn't notice, UC's process is swaddled in secrecy due to federal regulations known as FERPA. What defamation is there if there is absolutely no publicity by federal law? Additionally, UCSB's process is ponderous and orderly, driven by a long rulebook, not like the random blasts of your disorganized mind.
It is clear that JarvisJarvis blames all rapes on the victim, and is in fact in favor of rape. That is disgusting.
Realitycheck has missed the point: rape victims who due that are hit on by the police investigators, the prosecutors, and then put on trial by the cesspool of attorneys and judges in our courts, who never swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact defense attorneys swear to use half truth and innuendo to trash rape victims if they ever appear on the stand.
UCSB has a code of conduct and thank goodness it does, enforced by a committee with far higher ethical standards than the trash who prosecute and try rape cases in our judicial system.
Posted on May 19 at 10:36 a.m.
`Drug Related' doesn't necessarily mean the two UCSB students were doing anything illegal. The might have been doing something illegal, or, they might not have been. I doubt the district attorney would fail to charge them if there is good evidence that the students were breaking the law.
A little more blurry is what might happen if the DA needed testimony from the two UCSB students to convict the two others. The UCSB students might be in some sort of plea deal, to help convict the two others.
In any case, I'm not comfortable calling for their charging since everyone outside of law enforcement is ignorant of the hard facts.
On Suspects in Isla Vista Shooting Charged
Posted on May 18 at 12:19 p.m.
`consistent with truth,' which is all attorneys and judges must adhere to, is much weaker than what witnesses must adhere to, which is `the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
It bogles the mind that anyone could say those are the `exact same thing'.
Anyone who has been a juror knows that all sorts of partial truths are exploited by attorneys.
Attorneys are bound by an oath, but when you look it up, it is far, far weaker than the one witnesses are bound by.
Garfield must be writing your replies, scan. You are not respecting the actual facts and oaths.
Posted on May 18 at 10:39 a.m.
Then why are you always referencing Garfield the Cat as a source in most of your other posts?
Wow, you are defending the honor of attorneys. You might be one of the 1% in the US who would be so brave. Send Genis to you!
Here is a quote from the attorney's oath in California, which never says `tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.:'
``To advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.''
See... an attorney can accuse a rape victim of being a nymphomaniac or a slut or a liar if that attorney feels that justice requires it.
More of the disgusting attorney's oath in California, which does not require standards as high as witnesses must follow, is at:https://www.calbarxap.com/application...
The courts are a cesspool. I've been on juries and experienced it. That is why all normal people have a very low opinion of the entire law profession.