Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: fireman15

When the prosecutor publicly states that he had assured Cosby that he would not prosecute Cosby if he testified in the civil case proceedings, that is a contract. Whether it is written or not; it makes no difference.

Absent that public statement by the Prosecutor, Cosby and his attorney would have never agreed to testify or be deposed in the civil case.

If the Prosecutor had not made a public statement, Cosby and his attorney would have insisted on a written agreement to not prosecute.


100 posted on 07/12/2021 10:21:20 AM PDT by WASCWatch ( WASC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: WASCWatch
When the prosecutor publicly states that he had assured Cosby that he would not prosecute Cosby if he testified in the civil case proceedings, that is a contract.

When the a prosecutor publicly states that he had assured Cosby that he would not prosecute Cosby if he testified in the civil case proceedings, that is a contract... NO, that is ridiculous. There was no agreement made, there were no negotiations, there was only a statement that in one prosecutor's opinion the case was not strong enough to proceed at that time...

What is a legal definition of a legally binding contract? "The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

What Cosby had was one prosecutor's opinion and no guarantee that another prosecutor would not pursue the case when more evidence came to light. How many other women testified in the trial that Cosby did the same thing to them? And how many more have come forward since? Cosby did not get immunity from prosecution forever from a poorly worded press release from an idiot. Only a partisan political body masquerading as a judicial body and you would confer such privilege to a monster. But I am so proud that you are willing to vigorously defend the "constitutional rights" of a habitual offender in a protected class. How very "woke" of you. You are my virtue signaling hero of the day. Unfortunately your idiotic interpretation supporting a shameful decision by a partisan body undermines the already waning confidence in our misfiring judicial system and encourages others to take matters in their own hands.

101 posted on 07/13/2021 8:06:47 AM PDT by fireman15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: WASCWatch

I did not realize what WASCWatch stood for and I salute your efforts. I apologize for flying off the handle.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court is probably not quite as bad as the situation that we have here in Washington.


102 posted on 07/13/2021 8:20:00 AM PDT by fireman15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson