Page 2 of 30
Posted on May 20 at 1:13 p.m.
Pardall - You're a f@#*ing idiot. I'm done now.
On Students Stage Sit-In at Cheadle Hall
Posted on May 20 at 12:17 p.m.
Pardall's last post made the only the point that he has ZERO understanding of the legal system (despite being a juror, hahaha) and has only the capability to make false and unfounded accusations that anyone who disagrees with his legal expertise (again, as a juror), must be pro-rape.
That is ALL he has done this entire thread.
Posted on May 20 at 11:53 a.m.
`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.''
You have got to be kidding, right? That is NOT a lie in any sense of the word. That's pointing out a discrepancy in the witness' testimony. Basic trial procedure 101. It's called cross-examination. If you don't like it, too bad. That's how the attorney gets THE TRUTH out of a witness.
God grief man.
Posted on May 20 at 10:21 a.m.
JJ - No, Pardalls SOLE and ONLY argument is that attorneys and judges should be required to take the same "whole truth and nothing but..." oath that witnesses are required to take before testifying in court. THAT IS ALL.
And anyone who dares to disagree with his "logic," is clearly a rape enthusiast. Right Pardall?
Posted on May 20 at 10:09 a.m.
"sacjon, you overlook that I have explicitly quoted the oath taken by California attorneys and their ethical code:"
For the last time, you blithering half-wit, the code NEVER says "the whole truth and nothing but..." because it is a LAW, not an OATH that governs attorneys conduct. It never says your one-liner because attorneys read that LAW and understand the legalese that says the SAME GD EFFING THING but in a more comprehensive and professional manner, SINCE IT IS A FREAKIN LAW! Your one-liner oath that you are OBSESSING about is something that the witnesses (non-attorneys) must take is because they are the ones being questioned. Neither the attorneys nor the judge are being questioned during trial, it's the exact opposite as they are the ones doing the questioning. SO THE OATH DOES NOT APPLY. That is why they have a code of conduct governing their actions in court and an entire set of evidence laws that limit what type of questions they can and cannot ask.
And your accusation of me of thinking rape is "no big deal" is just proof positive of your utter lack of ability to argue with any minutia of logic. I'm not wasting another minute of my time trying to explain your flawed logic on that one.
Posted on May 20 at 8:53 a.m.
JJ - Despite direct quotes from the Business & Professions code, Pardall still thinks attorneys have no duty to tell the truth in court, and you will never convince him otherwise because Jon Krakauer wrote books about the outdoors and climbing Mount Everest and then one about a rape trial.
Posted on May 19 at 1:13 p.m.
$1.6 million for attempted murder plus the other charges (burglary, etc) is not that high. This same DA was holding people arrested in the dispensary shut-downs for close to this amount. And that was for pot! This guy is being charged with breaking into a home/apartment and trying to kill another human being. That's all the back-story needed I'd think.
On Suspects in Isla Vista Shooting Charged
Posted on May 19 at 11:52 a.m.
JJ - how do you know either party was selling or buying? NO drugs were reported as being found. Don't you think the SBSO would have proudly displayed the seized drugs if there were any?
JEEZ people! "Drug-related" could even mean that they were just high on drugs and got into a fight.
Why do you all have such a hard-on to prosecute the students who were shot by these thugs?
Posted on May 19 at 10:59 a.m.
Pardall, I agree 100%. I've seen so many posts online about how the two students "need to be charged" with something, anything because this was "drug related." Unless there is any evidence of drug dealing or possession (which would have been announced if so), you can't charge these kids with anything.
A very likely possibility is that these gangsters went over there to "warn" the 2 students about past drug dealing on their turf or maybe warn about some kind of pending transaction, and then it went sour. Who knows? BLAHBLAHBLAH certainly doesn't.
They could be charged (publicly too) even if they are working a plea deal. This dragon woman of a DA has no qualms at all about publicly smearing people and then trying to get a deal out them. Trust me, my good friends were subjected to this very tactic.
Posted on May 18 at 4:25 p.m.
Haha, blah. Keep on believing in yourself. Someone might actually listen to you. And no, the trees in the park don't count.
On Deputies Seize Five Pounds of Meth During Traffic Stop