It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama speech undercuts federal charge for judge's murder

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Wow, impressive work!
My prior post alluded to the criminal complaint and statement released by FBI ( Oh noes divulging facts from the case) but by you providing the actual document, I'd say that cinched it hook, line and sinker.

**SNIP**

A much tamer and milder...kk

edit on 15-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)





posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Blah, blah, blah, pat each other on the back, blah, blah, blah, ad hominem attack, blah, blah, blah, irrelevant discussion, blah, blah, blah.

So, you pointing out evidence that the judge went there for one thing and someone points out that the President and others have stated that he was there to see his friend really has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

At least WUK brought to the discussion the hearsay component. At least he saw the relevance of the discussion.

But hey, pat each other on the back, throw an ad hom in here and there, discuss things that are not relevant to the FACT that the President discussed a component of the case in his 2012 Campaign Rally speech.

When someone in the government is acting in their official capacity as an agent of the government, I would assume that the hearsay rule would not apply.

Until someone can disprove this thesis, you are all just avoiding the tenet of the article.

But hey, just keep patting yourself on the back.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
When someone in the government is acting in their official capacity as an agent of the government, I would assume that the hearsay rule would not apply.


How has assuming worked out so far?


Until someone can disprove this thesis, you are all just avoiding the tenet of the article.

But hey, just keep patting yourself on the back.


This is your "thesis," you need to prove it. You know better than to present an idea and then demand others disprove it. Why do you think you can just assume something and then pretend it is true until someone else disproves it? Have any logical argument to present at all?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


What you aren't understanding is, Obama is not involved directly in this case. Nothing he says really has any impact on the case itself, nothing he says can be brought up in the case as it would be hearsay.

So, basically the POTUS could say that the shooter was influenced by aliens from zeta reticuli and it would have absolutely zero impact on the case whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Sorry, not a lawyer so I do not know where to look it up.

Are you just going to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over........



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


What you aren't understanding is, Obama is not involved directly in this case. Nothing he says really has any impact on the case itself, nothing he says can be brought up in the case as it would be hearsay.

So, basically the POTUS could say that the shooter was influenced by aliens from zeta reticuli and it would have absolutely zero impact on the case whatsoever.


So your trying to tell everyone on ats that when the potus gets involved there is no Consciousness, man that was a good laugh, as weeeeeeee all know when the potus takes a self interest in a fly taking a #, that fly is either squashed or transformed some how, got to love these obama lovers, keep that blind eye going guys we are dam near to a nazi germany stage, just a few months now, and that change that was promised to you will be at your and my doorstep

Thanks op, i did not know that we are in 2012 and we are dealing with the elections of the potus once again

edit on 15-1-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Sorry, not a lawyer so I do not know where to look it up.


So what makes you think your argument is anything but crazy?


Are you just going to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over........


Are you for real?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Inadvertent disclosure.

When made in a Federal proceeding or to a Federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if:

(1) the disclosure is inadvertent;

(2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and

(3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 607. Who May Impeach

The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness

(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character.

The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses

(a) Examining witness concerning prior statement.

In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

(b) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness.

Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in rule 801(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

A statement is not hearsay if--

(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

(2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is

(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or

(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or

(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant's authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.

(2) Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.

(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

(7) Absence of entry in records kept in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6). Evidence that a matter is not included in the memoranda reports, records, or data compilations, in any form, kept in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6), to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter was of a kind of which a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation was regularly made and preserved, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births, fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.

(10) Absence of public record or entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or data compilation, or entry.

(11) Records of religious organizations. Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, legitimacy, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates. Statements of fact contained in a certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament, made by a clergyman, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.

(13) Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

(14) Records of documents affecting an interest in property. The record of a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the content of the original recorded document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute authorizes the recording of documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in documents affecting an interest in property. A statement contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established.

(17) Market reports, commercial publications. Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

(18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.

(19) Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person's family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person's associates, or in the community, concerning a person's birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

(20) Reputation concerning boundaries or general history. Reputation in a community, arising before the controversy, as to boundaries of or customs affecting lands in the community, and reputation as to events of general history important to the community or State or nation in which located.

(21) Reputation as to character. Reputation of a person's character among associates or in the community.

(22) Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

(23) Judgment as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries. Judgments as proof of matters of personal, family or general history, or boundaries, essential to the judgment, if the same would be provable by evidence of reputation.

(24) [Other exceptions.][Transferred to Rule 807]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From this source-www.law.cornell.edu...

SO IN CONCLUSION



The President could be called as an expert witness to facts not known to the general public.

That is just ONE component. I am not going to look for a hundred different reasons to call him to the bench. I could come up with numerous other factors that he could be called due to his statement given. Also his statement when he thanked the Sheriff on his actions with the media.

Your counter argument.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


This has a lot less to do with love of Obama and just plain respect for reality. I have my issues with Obama. Real issues. There are real problems that actually effect real people. To think this is the kind of stuff people sit around complaining about makes me think you can not find real problems. This is just a goofy jab at Obama not based in any kind of legal reality. Even the article in the OP admits it just fantasizing and making things up. I do not have my stance because of some love for Obama but I cannot help but find a great deal of entertainment in this kind of empty and missdirected hate.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

SO IN CONCLUSION



The President could be called as an expert witness to facts not known to the general public.

That is just ONE component. I am not going to look for a hundred different reasons to call him to the bench. I could come up with numerous other factors that he could be called due to his statement given. Also his statement when he thanked the Sheriff on his actions with the media.

Your counter argument.



What facts not known to the public? Everyone on the planet knew the judge just stopped by to say hello. It was being reported around the globe for days. Have you even thought this through at all? So they call Obama to the stand and ask him what? Spell this out for us.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Sinnthia its called government policy and everyyyy action the potus takes makes a difference on the policy scheme of things, your reasoning and several other millions of americans is the reason we the U.S citizens are in the perdicament that we are in, as i said before keep that blind eye going or osterich affect as it is working for the crooks and cronies in office to do just about any god damn thing they want to now



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


What government policy are you referring to? What am I turning a blind eye to? What is it you think is actually happening here? Do you think Obama is secretly trying to help Jared go free in an attempt to destroy America?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Take a U.S foreign policy class at your local college, there you might find the answers that many Americans do not have a clue about, and i do not have the time to right about, best luck



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
From the article -

As a legal matter, Obama's view (which tracks with the public narrative offered by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik) may be irrelevant, but it probably doesn't help to have the President of the United States emphasizing the social aspect of Roll's stop to see Giffords on Saturday, rather than the reason prosecutors claim drew him there.


Admitted baseless supposition right there. Great article to latch onto. The is just before the paragraph that points out the only thing really at stake is who prosecutes first. Guess my silly ostrich head is too busy worrying about wars, the economy, health care, the patriot act, to get upset over guess made by some person on the internet who read an article that admits it has no legal basis for its fantasy. Lesson learned. When does impeachment begin?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Take a U.S foreign policy class at your local college, there you might find the answers that many Americans do not have a clue about, and i do not have the time to right about, best luck


Telling me to go learn something without being able to explain it yourself or why it is relevant is actually pretty funny. Either you have something to teach me or you are just wasting a post to passive agressively call me ignorant. It hardly gets more transparent than that.

ETA: "Foreign policy?" Has this gone international?
edit on 15-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Wow, just wow. That is quite a lengthy post. It reminds me in an INVERSE way to a conversation I once heard at a nursing home between two Little Old Ladies.

LOL #1 OMG, this food is so terrible.
LOL #2 It most certainly is and the portions are so small.

To paraphrase. Your logic is so weak and yet your posts are so long.

Actually I believe you have done a rather masterful job with your OP attempting to MISDIRECT the attention from the dirt bag shooter and any implications related to The Tea Party with legal-schmegal subterfuge regarding Obama's remarks. IMO, if you take away all the other murders and focus solely on the senseless death of nine year-old Christina Green, the death penalty for Jared Loughner will be just fine.

**SNIP**
Regards...Kind and Kurious
edit on 15-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Take a U.S foreign policy class at your local college, there you might find the answers that many Americans do not have a clue about, and i do not have the time to right about, best luck


Seems that we can't even go a week without the verbal jabs. Our nation is doomed.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




Now do you understand, that these TWO PEOPLE are in the authority of the government making statements about the FACTS of the CASE.


Yes.

Do you understand that those "facts of the case" are already on public record and did not originate with the President? Do you understand that when the case goes to court, the Government is required to prove its case, and demonstrate that those facts, if they have bearing on the charge and if they choose to use them as evidence, are indeed factual?

Now do you understand that Obama REPEATING the ALREADY PUBLIC reports of Judge Rolls motives for attending the event is irrelevant to anything what-so-ever?

As President, he might have access to more information than news organizations, but the comments he made were nothing more than what the news agencies had been reporting for days. Those reports are that Judge Roll decided that morning to go to the event, his visit was not scheduled in advance, that is all.

We know he was a personal friend with Giffords, and would certainly want to say 'Hi'. We know they had worked together on issues affecting her district and his circuit and he would certainly want to thank her for her help with those issues. We know that prominent public figures, especially personal friends, like to lend each other support and 'photo ops' as part of their 'job', and what better venue could Judge Roll pick to do that than spontaneously in front of Gifford's constituency meet and greet?

There are several 'maybes' about how Judge Rolls intentions for the visit can be gauged if it has an impact on the charge: Judge Roll made a habit of sweeping up after mass, but we are given to understand that he skipped that job on the day; perhaps he mentioned to the Priest that he wanted to see the Congresswoman about something while she was in the area. Perhaps he phoned his wife to tell her what he was doing, or one of his aides to verify something, or one of Giffords aides to make sure he would not be interrupting.

Those bits, what ever they are, are not public record as far as I can see. No one, least of all Dupnik or Obama, have indicated how they know about Judge Roll's specific intention for attending the event on the day.

Why would any court need to know how Obama got his information for his speech when the entire world already knew that information days before that speech? It doesn't matter in any way whatsoever. He could have gotten it through official channels, or he could have gotten it off the TV set or an Internet blog. The point is he didn't say anything that everybody else already knew.

Is Obama kept in some null entropy field so he is only allowed to get information from official channels and therefore cannot comment on anything that goes on around him?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 





The President could be called as an expert witness to facts not known to the general public.


Which facts not known to the general public did the President reveal?

Even if he had, it would have been through official channels, from the official investigation team. When the case goes to court, the prosecuting team has to present the evidence. Whether the President was or was not informed of the investigation has no bearing on the validity of the evidence.

Whether the President made remarks that prejudiced any evidence is up to the court to decide. The court does not need to know where the President got his information from in order to determine whether any remarks about it were prejudicial. Especially, the President doesn't need to be put on the witness stand even if the court does need to know that, because they just have to ask the prosecution who did it.

Your pathetic attempts to smear the President with your vile misinformation about legal procedure and ordinary human discourse are just that: pathetic. (I really can't come up with a better semi-polite word to describe it accurately so I'll just have to rely on good ol' redundancy).



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join