Posted on 05/19/2006 7:17:27 AM PDT by Perdogg
They would need a reason to "settle" with her.
1. They can not say we are paying her not to testify. That is illegal.
2. They can not say they are paying her because the raped her. They would then be prosecuted based on their admission.
3. So they settle any action she would have against them for calling her names.
As I said they have to have a reason to give her money.
What about a writ of prohibition?
Providing there was no rape any money that she was to get would only see more claim rape trying to get paid too.
Some may chose to 'settle' on something other than the truth but I know I could not do such a thing.
Personally, I would rather get jailtime from a jury that is out to lynch me than admit to ( or even give the appearence of admitting to) something I know I did not do.
People can arrange to take alot of things away from you but noone can steal your Honor or your Pride. Only you can give that up on your own. Imho, there is no amount of money that could substitute for either of those two things.
You may question my convictions and what they mean all you want to. You have every right to be wrong. The question is wether or not you would accept how wrong you are.
You may find it an easy choice to decide between your honor asto truth and pitching it out with money you would pay to someone accusing you of something you did not do.
I find the choice easy also.
Notice how you would chose to do that and I would not.
You may well bow to extortion at the expense of your honor and I support your choice to do that. Please understand that I would not do so and you should support my choice to do so , rather than claim I would make the same choice you would....or even that I should.
I know you think you know what you would do in their situation or a similar one. However, you are only thinking of the situation in theory. You are not in fact faced with that decision.
This is much like those of us who have never been in combat speculating on how we would do. You can hope you would perform well. You can never know how will do until faced with the reality.
Similarly, you are not faced with decades in prison. I certainly would not tell you, that you should pay the pest to go way rather than go before a Durham jury.
There are two things I think everyone should realize about such situations:
1. Settlement implies nothing about guilt or innocence.
2. We do not know with certainty what we would do in similar circumstances.
Yesterday was called "first setting" in the case mangement system used by many counties in NC. Next month's hearing will be the "second setting". This is just what I've read online and heard described by local Durham attorney Woody Vann on with Greta.
I don't know how to link directly to the pdf file, but if you go to the link below, click on Durham in "Counties", and then click on the second item under "Local Rules", you will see all the many steps which every case must follow from beginning to end there. Greta hinted that a speedier trial option might be available for people incarcerated and awaiting trial.
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Policies/LocalRules/Default.asp
See post #18. Stephens doesn't want to embarass his protege.
If I am innocent of a slanderous accusation I have nothing to settle with the accuser but the accuser has some settlement to send my way.
You say I cannot say what I would do because it is a hypothetical situation, but then you already told me you know what I would do in hypothetical situation. Think about what you said for a minute.
I have been falsely accused of many things in my life. Please know that I have never backed down and offered any settlement towards those that accused me falsely. Indeed their accusation was met with steadfast resolve.
If you pay someone to stop making false claims then you reward bad behavior that will only seek to beget more bad behavior.
What is truly hypothetical is that you would know better what I would do in a given situation than I would.
You exhibit a notion that money solves everything. You exhibit a mindset that puts truth and honor in the back seat. You have every right to live your life that way if you chose. Please do not make the mistake thinking that everyone else lives their life by these parameteres.
I have, and would again, stand tall against anyone in any situation that was making false claims against me. Let there be no doubt about that. Honor still matters to some folks. It abso-smurfly matters to me.
So was Gretta hinting around that in order to get the fairness of a speedy trial one must forfeit their freedom prior to being convicted?
Wow, this gets more devious every day.
These boys are facing long terms in prison for a crime they didn't commit and that didn't happen. Anything that can be done to avoid that possibility should be done, and other factors (i.e. going back to college, getting justice against Crystal and Nifong) should assume a lower priority. If and when this goes to trial, their fates will be in the hands of a jury that may or may not be composed of people biased against the players. Anything that will allow for the least biased jury possible should be done.
It appears that the best the defendants can hope for through the standard court system is acquittal next spring, after spending very substantial legal fees and keeping their lives in turmoil until then.
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps there are some better alternatives available to them.
It would seem that any such alternatives would involve first preparing a thorough statement of their complete legal defense.
This statement could first be presented to the DA, with a respectful request that he review it and then either dismiss the case or advise as to why he will continue.
If this approach is unwise or if the DA's response were to be unsatisfactory, then the statement could be presented to the judge or the NC Attorney General, if either has authority to act.
If none of this is viable, perhaps such a statement should be publicized generally, with the goal of causing the public informally to cause the DA to dismiss the case, upon his realizing how foolish continuing with the case would appear.
If all of these actions would be considered unwise, then another lawyer could prepare and distribute such a statement, based upon the information that has already been made public.
I realize that in most instances it is probably unwise to show one's case to the DA in advance of trial, but in this instance most of this information has already been publicized, and Reed Seligman at least seems to have an airtight alibi that wouldn't be prejudiced by this action.
Right, in the hypothetical situation you would hypothetically refuse to hypothetically pay hypothetical money to a hypothetical false accuser rather than face a hypothetical term in a hypothetical prison.
That has nothing to do with what you might do in a real situation where you would really have to refuse to pay a real false accuers real money, but possibly less than the cost of your defense, to avoid the real chance of spending many real years in a real prison.
No, most courts put cases in which the defendant is in jail in front of cases where the defendant is out on bond. The goal is to get someone who is innocent but too poor to make bond out of jail as soon as possible.
Aha! Seems that the judge and the prosecutor have a long-time relationship. I wonder how that equates to a fair trial....
Thru discovery process pretty much all information has to be shared from one side to the other prior to trial anyway.
It sure looks to me like we have a DA that went way beyond anywhere near a line he should not have ever crossed.
If this was me I would want my attorney to go public with every chunk of evidence I had to offer in my defense. If he refused to do so I would do it myself.
One reason we get into these situations is because there is such a tendency to keep things quiet.
I can say one thing, if I am falsely accused there is NO WAY I remain wuiet, much less silent. Some would say that is foolish I would just have to disagree and say I have the truth on my side so I have no reason to be silent.
Scott Peterson tried to employ this strategy, but he lost badly because he was caught in his lies.
And now, a trombone duet by Crystal and Kim ...
If I am innocent there is no real chance I would spend any time in prison. I know what i would do because I live my life that way everyday.
Nothing, including fear, will make me cower to accusations that hold no merit.
I have been in a situation where I had a gun stuck in my face. Guess what, all that did was make me mad. I do not cower in fear FRiend. I use truth and fear to empower me and drive my actions. Notice I was not shot. The real fear was experienced by the person that pulled that gun because he was taken aback that I did not cower in fear. That gave me avantage to act and it served me well.
I do know what I would do sir. Regardles of you telling me know better. You present an allof assumption whne you pose that you think you know me better than I do.
Unlike you, cost is not an issue to me when it comes to defending truth an honor, most especially when it is mine at stake. There is no cost greater than giving them up without a fight. The action of fighting back insures you will not lose either.
By your logic we should not be fighting this war on terror because it costs more $ to fight them that it would to pay them off. I hope you rethink the positions you take.
I love to do those little things in posts.
hehe
Thanks for noticing.
What the hell happened to the right to a speedy trial?
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.