Last active
3 years, 9 months ago
  • JThomason commented on the blog post Emptywheel Leaving Firedoglake

    2011-07-12 12:02:28View | Delete

    Ah yes. The next hurrah. Will be looking forward to your new digs.

  • Well of course thank you for receiving this in good humor, but it is not reporting, merely cheap satire.

  • OK, now I think I know what happened. DSK paid $37.50 for a blow job after walking out of the shower and finding the chambermaid in his room. He ejaculated prematurely on the carpet and the chambermaid left in disgust to clean the next room, but stopped short in the hall having hit upon an idea. Remembering seeing a Rolex on the table she came up with a scheme to extort big money. The chambermaid hit herself in the vagina and slammed the door on her shoulder. She then went back into the room and smeared semen on the wall. She then called her supervisor and reported a violent attack.

    Little did she know that she had inadvertenly aided in the looting of the Greek nation by greedy foreign capitalist. But the full bounty of this laignappe did not fully escape her attention as droves of how powered DC lawyers sought her out to aid in advancing her cause. Realizing what the boon would mean she gleefully called her boyfriend in an Arizona prison to announce happy days are here again, a rich guy had raped her and she was all lawyered up. Cy Vance tosses and turns night after night with his deep imprints of diplomatic entitlement haunting him. And then lo and behold as young Vance suits up to do his duty and take the case by the horns it unravels before his very eyes the hysterical scheming contradictions and lies of the chambermaid being astonishingly indefenisible. Well yes, there was the discharge, the bruised vagina, the injured shoulder the confessions of the defendant of a sexual encounter, oh but what a web of tangled lies the chambermaid had weaved. And so it would be, another sordid tale of the imperial city shrouded in the cloak of reverberating accusations and counter accusations, ruined countries and semen stained walls. DSK’s wife had warned him about keeping is Rolex in the view of wanton chambermaids when travelling. The French Presidency was lost but DSK still had a nice retirement before him in, a provincial retirement, much fruit and wine and cheese, yes and French chambermaids.

    Alas, he thinks, would pawn his Rolex and cancel that cruise in the Cyclades.

  • Its a good question, for which I don’t have much of a reply, but even the least among us …. KSD made his bed, etc., etc., etc. I am running out of platitudes and cloudy ideas.

  • Its hard to argue with that. I guess it all goes to show that sex with strangers, consensual or not, hardly ever is a good thing.

  • I really started in talking about 404 concerns and asked whether the case could be prosecuted without her testimony above. Stepping aside from the particulars of the rule I really think its important to remember the nature of the alleged crime. Its really not such a golden opportunity to celebrate questions of whether the case is lock down. An act of violence may yet underly the story here. I am simply cautioning against a rush to judgmeent and trying the accuser’s character first.

    Suggestions of malpractie are apparently easy to throw around as well. So much relies on the presumptions of what the trier of fact will or would ultimately do which at this point is an unknown.

  • Yeah, I just looked at it. Still the door has to be opened with respect to 404 concerns regardless of the rape shield provisions. I think instinctively I think the order of prosecutorial review would be 1. can a case be proven on the physical evidence 2. If the character of the alleged victim is suspect is her testimony necessary or can it be limited. A gloss justifying non-prosecution on character issues alone seems to me to be needlessly sensational.

    Obviously inconsistencies around her statements concerning the issue merit scrutiny. An instinctively many of her statements have sounded plausible and understandable, though I do understand how one could come to attribute some aspects of doubt.

  • Well they are for the sake of being prepared but assuming that they be admitted at trial the face of rules like the one’s sited cautions against trying the character of the accuser ab initio.

  • I probably overstate the matter, but the question of prosecutorial conduct once again comes to the fore.

  • Right, why did the prosecutor’s defer, in their considerable discretion, to the possibility of a media circus rather using any rape shield law and the rules of evidence as they stand, to isolate the trial to the facts arising of the alleged incident. These rules are intented to protect women by taking their character out of the equations in matters such as this one.

    Of course the media is not bound by these. Not all discovery and Brady material is as a matter of course admissible at the trial of the ultimate issue. As powerful as certain media outlets are in influencing public opinion who can say the doubt that is suggested would not infect a trial, but where is the protection of law in a circumstance like this. The alleged victim has become someone who Vance and company may easily abandon. But it is not because legal process has been fully enjoyed.

  • We could take Vegas odds, but at least in that event one would hope the game would actually be played.

  • You’re right the NY criminal rule may be different. And rape shield laws tend to be legislatively driven in their permutations from state to state.

    But even in a criminal matter I would think that the prosecution would have to “open the door” before the material would be admissible.

  • I don’t know the answer to the Brady question in the light of rape shield provisions. The phone conversation to the Arizona prison pertains to this allegation too.

  • This refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 404:

    When Character Evidence is Not Admissible
    During a civil trial, character evidence is never admissible to prove a person’s conduct on any particular occasion. In a criminal case, the prosecutor cannot be the first to introduce evidence of the defendant’s character to prove his conduct. Under Rule 404(a), there are no exceptions to either situation.

    Also, character evidence of a rape victim at the accused’s trial is inadmissible. Rule 412, also known as the Rape Shield rule, protects a rape victim and prevents the victim’s character and conduct from being brought out during the trial of her alleged assailant.

    Read more: Rules of Evidence Rule 404 | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5390166_rules-evidence-rule.html#ixzz1Qy8Hp53q

    Yes its ehow, but its a quick reference.

  • Marcy, I haven’t looked at it in along time but the rule of evidence is that this pattern is inadmissible unless the witness testifies as to her own reputation for honesty.

    This might not get much practical play but its what the principle of evidence concerning past false statements has been.

    My memory maybe wrong and I think inconsitant statements about the alleged crime should be allowed but the cherry picking seems suspect.

  • Doesn’t the door have to be opened on the stand by her vouching for her own reputation for honesty before she could be impeached by lies not pertaining to this matter. Trial by press obviates this. Not the scrutiny for sources that we saw with the Libby trial here.

    So the rule is lie once about rape and lose all legal protection against rape in the future?

    No hearing, no trial, no testing the demeanor of the witnesses, just call it all in.

  • JThomason commented on the blog post The Quiet Death of Habeas Corpus

    2011-06-12 18:31:53View | Delete

    Nicely done piece and impressive comments. I wish I could take comfort in a notion of a certain resilience in these lost principles. Where is the voice of Jameson in this discussion? Surely there is a material relational instant giving rise to the claustrophobic jursiprudence stemming from the DC Circuit we see exposed and reviewed here.

    @18 touches on this, yet empire is not an historical novelty to the Eastern Mediterreanean notwithstanding any vernal delusion. As for the concern for the public expressed @11 this is by and large a media issue where the public is hopelessly bombarded by syndicated ficticious dramas lionizing the police state and the constant drone of corporately groomed reporters steeped in sensationalism. Idyllic America, where even the “Dauphin” might take a leisurely river float in the forgiving frontier wilderness sharing the natural respite with drunks and evangelists peopling the river’s edge, is lost in the energy of our conpsicuous grandiosity, pervasive artifice and over stimulation. Anyone know of any good fishing streams or naturist retreats? The gates of Guantanamo will still be locked come Bastille Day.

    Perhaps the hegemony of Constitutional Law is inversely proportional to the general availability of air conditioning, cheap booze and high definition media. I for one hope the corporately dictated mass produced food supply does not collapse. Can you hear me Major Tom?

  • Load More