Joe Rogan Thread

[vy65]

My understanding is that you can bring in this evidence either under the 400 rules (character) or 600 rules (credibility), then it's up to the judge to establish if it can be used or not (as any other evidence).

Cases where prior false rape accusations were allowed to be introduced as evidence include:
United States v. Stamper, 766 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (W.D. N.C. 1991) (false rape accusations go to the motive or bias of the complainant);
Phillips v. State, 545 So. 2d 221, 223 (Ala. Crim. App.1989) (evidence of prior false allegations was admissible as exposing victim's corrupt state of mind);
People v. Hurlburt, 333 P.2d 82, 86-87 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (false rape allegations are admissible as showing the complainant's animosity towards the defendant);
People v. McClure, 356 N.E.2d 899, 901 (1l. App. Ct. 1976) (since false rape allegations concerned motivation in bringing current charge, evidence of these false charges should have been admitted);
State v. Anderson, 686 P.2d 193,198-201 (Mont. 1984) (evidence of prior false rape accusations should be admitted as probative of the state of mind of the complainant)

This was mostly all lifted from here, which is a good read:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=jleg

Now, all of those cases predate the Federal Rape shield law (1994). But let's not pretend that's some new feminist wave. Almost all jurisdictions had similar rape shield statutes by the mid 70s.

FWIW, for a case post-Federal Rape shield law, check out: People v. Jovanovic, 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999)

Most, if not all, rape shield laws are legislative overrides of the 400s (relevance) and the 600s (witnesses and impeachment). That's why they're problematic.

Interesting that there's a federal rape shield law. Most rape cases are state matters (you'd need a hook for federal jurisdiction that's missing in most routine cases) which probably explains why the statute came along so late. The other cases cited either predate rape shield laws or come from jurisdictions where you wouldn't expect the most progressive rules of evidence.

The article looks interesting. Importantly, it recognizes the need to establish a rule allowing the admissibility of prior false accusations which I think is a totally good idea.

[vy65]

My understanding is that you can bring in this evidence either under the 400 rules (character) or 600 rules (credibility), then it's up to the judge to establish if it can be used or not (as any other evidence).

Cases where prior false rape accusations were allowed to be introduced as evidence include:
United States v. Stamper, 766 F. Supp. 1396, 1399 (W.D. N.C. 1991) (false rape accusations go to the motive or bias of the complainant);
Phillips v. State, 545 So. 2d 221, 223 (Ala. Crim. App.1989) (evidence of prior false allegations was admissible as exposing victim's corrupt state of mind);
People v. Hurlburt, 333 P.2d 82, 86-87 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (false rape allegations are admissible as showing the complainant's animosity towards the defendant);
People v. McClure, 356 N.E.2d 899, 901 (1l. App. Ct. 1976) (since false rape allegations concerned motivation in bringing current charge, evidence of these false charges should have been admitted);
State v. Anderson, 686 P.2d 193,198-201 (Mont. 1984) (evidence of prior false rape accusations should be admitted as probative of the state of mind of the complainant)

This was mostly all lifted from here, which is a good read:
http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=jleg

Now, all of those cases predate the Federal Rape shield law (1994). But let's not pretend that's some new feminist wave. Almost all jurisdictions had similar rape shield statutes by the mid 70s.

FWIW, for a case post-Federal Rape shield law, check out: People v. Jovanovic, 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1999)

Just as an example, here's the Texas override (meaning it's not discretionary): (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. In a prosecution for sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, or attempt to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault, reputation or opinion evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such crime is not admissible.

[vy65]

you apologize for rapists. for the most part outside of the regular Counselor Crayola schtick I have argued on merit. I'm addressing what you are saying directly. You dissembled into this semi coherent whine since I've been gone. Good job, Crayola.

You use a lot of words, but you've said nothing.

[vy65]

All I can think of when I read it is that it is the rationalizations that you tell your client when you lose.

If you cannot find jurors that find the proper significance of the court's instructions or that can grasp the legal standard then that is on you just as much as it was for your failure to make a compelling case. Hearguessing the juror's intent after the fact is very laughable. This is doubly hilarious in light of your very own obvious personal bias.

Fact is that there are well defined historical prejudices against women as relates to sex and a standard for review to protect victims of sex crimes from people like you.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Do you know how to write in coherent English?

[vy65]

All I can think of when I read it is that it is the rationalizations that you tell your client when you lose.

If you cannot find jurors that find the proper significance of the court's instructions or that can grasp the legal standard then that is on you just as much as it was for your failure to make a compelling case. Hearguessing the juror's intent after the fact is very laughable. This is doubly hilarious in light of your very own obvious personal bias.

Fact is that there are well defined historical prejudices against women as relates to sex and a standard for review to protect victims of sex crimes from people like you.

This is beyond stupid. Jurors can only evaluate the evidence before them. If material evidence (prior false accusations, prior sex acts, etc) is not admitted because the court excluded it, the jurors verdict will be affected. This has nothing to do with the courts instructions, or the charge, or voir dire. It's an evidentiary issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[ElNono]

Most, if not all, rape shield laws are legislative overrides of the 400s (relevance) and the 600s (witnesses and impeachment). That's why they're problematic.

Interesting that there's a federal rape shield law. Most rape cases are state matters (you'd need a hook for federal jurisdiction that's missing in most routine cases) which probably explains why the statute came along so late. The other cases cited either predate rape shield laws or come from jurisdictions where you wouldn't expect the most progressive rules of evidence.

The article looks interesting. Importantly, it recognizes the need to establish a rule allowing the admissibility of prior false accusations which I think is a totally good idea.

No doubt there's a high bar, and in a lot of these cases, it had to be escalated to appeal courts. But there is precedent, and as long as the facts of the case align with it and you can make a compelling argument, there's no reason not to try.

Ultimately, justices always make these determinations on evidence, even the SCOTUS. What gets heard doesn't always paint the whole picture. It's a complicated balance between expediting justice and making sure the important stuff makes it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dubdubdub

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is beyond stupid. Jurors can only evaluate the evidence before them. If material evidence (prior false accusations, prior sex acts, etc) is not admitted because the court excluded it, the jurors verdict will be affected. This has nothing to do with the courts instructions, or the charge, or voir dire. It's an evidentiary issue. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fact is that women that are portrayed as promiscuous are not given an impartial jury. The republic passed a law addressing it. There is also standard for review for exceptions as has been pointed out for all your whining over rejection. Whether you made a poor argument to the judge or do not know how to convey things to the layman is besides the point. In addition that that whine, you were still whining about the behavior of jurors that you supposedly took part in selecting and then argued with background known. Sorry if I combined your examples of failure.

I will say that you have so far argued one point I have made and that was one you knew you were right. Your intellectual cowardice speaks clearly about your position on what you ignore.

[vy65]

So the problem is jury bias? Or is it the lawyers fault for failing to convey things properly to the lay juror? Can't have it both ways fuzzy?

And again, the issue has nothing to do with voir dire, or appeals, or what's argued to the judge. It's about the admissibility of a certain kind of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about

[vy65]

Do you talk like you post in real life? Seriously, every time you post you sound like one of those annoying people in undergrad philosophy who tried way too hard. do your everyday interactions take three times as long because you talk like one of those pretentious douche bags at your local college coffee shop and no one understands a god damn word you say?

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I can read a ducks post once and understand what he trying to say, FuzzyLumpkins three times minimum.

[TheSanityAnnex]

its not my fault you no one can understand my stream of consciousness style of writing

[vy65]

The illegal Mexican dude who cuts my grass speaks better English than Fuzzy.

[Ginobilly]

Lol joe rogan:lmao
50 year old, wannabe MMA washed up c-list celebrity who couldn't make it in Hollywood.:lmao
Telling Kids it's cool to smoke dmt and you people put this faggot on a pedestal.:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The illegal Mexican dude who cuts my grass speaks better English than Fuzzy.

What part specifically did you have a problem understanding? I've been hammering grandma's reading ability for years now and so that explains that hard on but you? Just seems like more lack of creativity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol I will say that now the dig on me is that I write at a higher level than a 5th grader, you people look like poorly educated halfwits. Good job.

[Blake]

destr:lolyed

Right, if you're good with rape shield laws....and it looks like you are.....you destroyed yourself.

Lol Joe Rogan

[Blake]

If you're capable of engaging in "adult talk," prove it.

Boyfriend and Girlfriend have been dating for a year. Sometimes they have rough sex. Girlfriend enjoys it when Boyfriend "takes her against her will." They've had aggressive sex where this scenario plays out several times. The relationship goes forward with no problems. Girlfriend then catches Boyfriend cheating on her (or she gets angry at him for any other reason, take your pick). Girlfriend and Boyfriend have aggressive/rough sex, just like they always have. The following week, Boyfriend gets arrested for rape. Should the couple's past sexual history be excluded from evidence?

attorney to girlfriend: Have you ever had rough sex

Girlfriend: no

attorney: did he rape you

Girlfriend: yes



that's how its probably gonna go

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the problem is jury bias? Or is it the lawyers fault for failing to convey things properly to the lay juror? Can't have it both ways fuzzy?

And again, the issue has nothing to do with voir dire, or appeals, or what's argued to the judge. It's about the admissibility of a certain kind of evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about

'The problem?' Sorry but we are discussing your whines. You complained about jurors choosing as they want. The issue of societal bias and the basis for rape laws as a constitutional issue in its own right is something else. One is an example of your bungling. The other is the basis for legislation and society as a whole. Yours is a false equivalence. I would say 'the problem' is your incompetence.

I know that federal law as evidenced by EN's earlier post has exceptions because of amongst other things constitutional conflicts and a standard for review to adjudicate it. I don't think you have shown an aptitude with Texas law such that you can be considered an authority to say that Texas has no similar provisions much less other states. Frankly you are critiquing the law and not mentioning the cases that argue constitutionality over the past say 50 years since rape shield laws were passed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol I will say that now the dig on me is that I write at a higher level than a 5th grader, you people look like poorly educated halfwits. Good job.
Proof this faggot clicks and reads the posts of those he has on ignore. Ultimate loser move.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Rule 412. Evidence of Previous Sexual Conduct in Criminal Cases

(a) In General. The following evidence is not admissible in a prosecution for sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, or attempt to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault:
(1) reputation or opinion evidence of a victim’s past sexual behavior; or
(2) specific instances of a victim’s past sexual behavior.
(b) Exceptions for Specific Instances. Evidence of specific instances of a victim’s past sexual behavior is admissible if:
(1) the court admits the evidence in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d);
(2) the evidence:
(A) is necessary to rebut or explain scientific or medical evidence offered by the prosecutor;
(B) concerns past sexual behavior with the defendant and is offered by the defendant to prove consent;
(C) relates to the victim’s motive or bias;
(D) is admissible under Rule 609; or
(E) is constitutionally required to be admitted; and
(3) the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.
(c) Procedure for Offering Evidence. Before offering any evidence of the victim’s past
sexual behavior, the defendant must inform the court outside the jury’s presence. The
court must then conduct an in camera hearing, recorded by a court reporter, and
determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible. The defendant may not refer to
any evidence ruled inadmissible without first requesting and gaining the court’s approval
outside the jury’s presence.
(d) Record Sealed. The court must preserve the record of the in camera hearing, under seal,
as part of the record.
(e) Definition of “Victim.” In this rule, “victim” includes an alleged victim.

Here's Texas. http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/pdf/backview/1205/201405515-1.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The notion that the previous case speaks to the "nature of the accuser" demonstrates quite clearly how it is prejudicial. At best you have a conflict between what you claim and an impartial jury. Perhaps if you could substantiate how in that particular case the differences would have made meaningful difference. All you do is beg the question. You of course are speaking from a position of gross ignorance to the facts of any of the cases.

I just see you being vicariously threatened really.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_412

412 for the feds is much the same.

[Blake]

I do think that victim's prior sexual history (off limits per rape shield laws) is highly relevant in rape cases. Don't you?

Oh shit lolol...You actually disagree with rape shield laws

Good lord you're a jackass and an idiot. Lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

vy just wants to badger rape victims on the stand.

[Clipper Nation]

Proof this faggot clicks and reads the posts of those he has on ignore. Ultimate loser move.
FaggyBlumpkins trying to bury ^ this ^

[Clipper Nation]

vy just wants to badger rape victims on the stand.
FuzzyFeminazi just wants to send men to jail based on a woman's false accusations.

[Winehole23]

In some state's, they do.

Do you have any proof of your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion that judge's hands are tied is overstated, counselor?This response is proof you did. Care to specify which jurisdictions tie the judges hands?

[Winehole23]

Still waiting on your response to this WHYou've already admitted there's no blanket bar to such information and that judges hands aren't completely bound by rape shield laws. Judges decide whether evidence is germane or prejudicial, and that's as it should be. There may be cases where evidence is improperly excluded, and that's what you're there for.

[vy65]

You've already admitted there's no blanket bar to such information and that judges hands aren't completely bound by rape shield laws. Judges decide whether evidence is germane or prejudicial, and that's as it should be. There may be cases where evidence is improperly excluded, and that's what you're there for.

This is incorrect. In some states, the laws render the whole swath of evidence inadmissible. It's not discretionary -- i.e., the Mike Tyson case. That some states have exceptions is besides the point, although you'll surely claim otherwise.

[vy65]

This response is proof you did. Care to specify which jurisdictions tie the judges hands?

The response is proof of nothing.

Again, do you have any proof for your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion is overstated? Should be a simple enough question to answer.

[Winehole23]

This is incorrect. In some states, the laws render the whole swath of evidence inadmissiblebe specific if you can. you've already backpedaled significantly.

[Winehole23]

The response is proof of nothing.

Again, do you have any proof for your assertion that my "thinly supported" opinion is overstated? Should be a simple enough question to answer.you suggested upstream that rape shield laws tied judges hands and excluded information wholesale. that was overstated. if you won't accept your own posts as testimony against you I'm afraid I can't help.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is incorrect. In some states, the laws render the whole swath of evidence inadmissible. It's not discretionary -- i.e., the Mike Tyson case. That some states have exceptions is besides the point, although you'll surely claim otherwise.

Texas and the feds do. Where do you practice law? From what I was reading Texas' 412 is more stringent than most.

I get the impression that you are completely misrepresenting who and what you are.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you suggested upstream that rape shield laws tied judges hands and excluded information wholesale. that was overstated. if you won't accept your own posts as testimony against you I'm afraid I can't help.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

In Olden v Kentucky, the federal court guaranteed a persons 6th amendment right even in the case of a rape shield law that did not allow for a motive exception in 1998.

I think vy is lying to us.

[Winehole23]

I think he's overstating his case. No doubt there are rulings at trial that, from time to time, abrogate people's rights.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think he's overstating his case. No doubt there are legal rulings here and there that do abrogate people's rights.

Well, he certainly does not practice in Texas because we quite clealry have the motive, consent, and constitutional catchall clauses as does the federal statute. I know that CA, OH, and the feds do too. I'm looking up IN right now cause that is where Tyson was tried.

Ultimately though even if a state has no such provisions, one can appeal with precedent to the feds. He's full of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/evidence/evidence.pdf

IN does not have a motive exception but it does have the constitutional catchall. It does have exceptions for consent and plausible other.

[vy65]

you suggested upstream that rape shield laws tied judges hands and excluded information wholesale. that was overstated. if you won't accept your own posts as testimony against you I'm afraid I can't help.

In some cases they do. Do you deny that?

Do you have a link to me saying all rape shield laws exclude the same evidence in all jurisdictions?

Again, what evidence do you have that my "thinly supported" opinion is overstated. You've been grasping at straws for a while now.

[vy65]

I think he's overstating his case. No doubt there are rulings at trial that, from time to time, abrogate people's rights.

So basically you're gut tells you something. Thanks for giving us all the FYI.

[vy65]

Keep shepherdizing dem cases fuzzy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So basically you're gut tells you something. Thanks for giving us all the FYI.

He's reading the state's rules of evidence that I have posted and Oden V KY which makes you look ignorant as fuck, Crayola.

You clearly do not practice in Texas. They have the exceptions you've been crying for. Tyson had them too. He could argue for his 6th amendment rights in the IN courtroom under their procedure.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Keep shepherdizing dem cases fuzzy

As opposed to you grandstanding on a platform of bluster?

I have linked 1 case, dimwit. It was the one where the feds guaranteed the right nationwide you claimed people didn't have.

Other than that it has been states rules of evidence and explicitly stating their exceptions.

I don't think you are really a lawyer for these reasons. You clearly have no clue.

[vy65]

You clearly do not practice in Texas. They have the exceptions you've been crying for. Tyson had them too. He could argue for his 6th amendment rights in the IN courtroom under their procedure.

Fuck man, I guess you're right. I don't know how I or Alan Dershowitz missed this.

Shit Fuzzy, I can't believe you outwitted the Former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at HLS -- someone who's recognized as one of the pre-eminent civil liberties lawyers in America.

[vy65]

As opposed to you grandstanding on a platform of bluster?

I have linked 1 case, dimwit. It was the one where the feds guaranteed the right nationwide you claimed people didn't have.

Other than that it has been states rules of evidence and explicitly stating their exceptions.

I don't think you are really a lawyer for these reasons. You clearly have no clue.

You think you know what that case says. But you really don't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck man, I guess you're right. I don't know how I or Alan Dershowitz missed this.

Shit Fuzzy, I can't believe you outwitted the Former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at HLS -- someone who's recognized as the pre-eminent civil liberties lawyers in America.

So you appeal to someone else's authority? You're supposed to be a lawyer, Crayola.

I'm not arguing with Dershowitz. I'm arguing with you. You have anything else or is this all you have?

I do like the schmarmy cultist routine though. 'I know what it means but I won't tell you.' What a putz.

[vy65]

So you appeal to someone else's authority? You're supposed to be a lawyer, Crayola.

I'm not arguing with Dershowitz. I'm arguing with you. You have anything else or is this all you have?

I do like the schmarmy cultist routine though. 'I know what it means but I won't tell you.' What a putz.

I appeal to Alan Dershowitz's opinion on the matter.

Funny you say you're not arguing with Dershowitz, because his argument and my argument are the same.

And again, you think you know what the case says -- but you couldn't be more incorrect.

[vy65]

For the record, I've been arguing that Rape Shield Statutes can prevent evidence of prior false rape accusations. The Mike Tyson case is an example.


Dershowitz argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally barred admission of evidence that would have acquitted Tyson: allegations that his accuser, a nineteen-year-old woman, had previously falsely accused another man of rape to avoid angering her father about her sexual activity. Because such evidence related to the victim's past sexual history, it was ruled inadmissible.

Fuzzy, you claim that the Olden case stands for the proposition that:


I have linked 1 case, dimwit. It was the one where the feds guaranteed the right nationwide you claimed people didn't have.

Other than that it has been states rules of evidence and explicitly stating their exceptions.

"Guaranteed the right nationwide." Which is funny because Olden's holding had nothing to do with the Kentucky Rape Shield Law:


The court specifically held that evidence that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of trial was not barred by the State's rape shield law. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 510.145 (Michie 1985). Moreover, it acknowledged that the evidence in question was relevant to petitioner's theory of the case. But it held, nonetheless, that the evidence was properly excluded as "its probative value [was] outweighed by its possibility for prejudice." App. to Pet. for Cert. A6. By way [488 U.S. 227, 231] of explanation, the court stated: "[T]here were the undisputed facts of race; Matthews was white and Russell was black. For the trial court to have admitted into evidence testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews." Judge Clayton, who dissented but did not address the evidentiary issue, would have reversed petitioner's conviction both because he believed the jury's verdicts were "manifestly inconsistent," and because he found Matthews' testimony too incredible to provide evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict. Id.

In reality, the court held that excluding evidence of cohabitation was reversible error. Not because such evidence was allowed under the RS statute -- the Supreme Court didn't disturb the state court's holding that the RS statute wasn't involved -- but because such evidence was required to be admitted under the 6th amendment.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong.

[vy65]

But I dunno ... into to philosophy 101 super student/pothead Fuzzy is probably right

[Clipper Nation]

But I dunno ... into to philosophy 101 super student/pothead Fuzzy is probably right
:lmao

What is it with libtards and being faux-intellectual and thinking they're the expert on everything?

[spurraider21]

But I dunno ... into to philosophy 101 super student/pothead Fuzzy is probably right
:lol like this gem?

As opposed to you grandstanding on a platform of bluster?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I appeal to Alan Dershowitz's opinion on the matter.

Funny you say you're not arguing with Dershowitz, because his argument and my argument are the same.


For the record, I've been arguing that Rape Shield Statutes can prevent evidence of prior false rape accusations. The Mike Tyson case is an example.


be specific if you can. you've already backpedaled significantly.

:lol


On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that Kentucky's rape shield law5"did not absolutely bar evidence of Matthews and Russell's living arrangement.5 The court found, however, that while the proffered evidence was relevant to the defendant's theory of the case,' the potential prejudice of the evidence outweighed its probative value,6 and held, therefore, that the trial court properly excluded it.62 The court reasoned that the admission of testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial "may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews."6

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Kentucky Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for an assessment of whether the trial court impermissibly infringed upon the defendant's Sixth Amendment64 right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him,"65 including the right to conduct reasonable cross-examination.66 The Court held that the relevant factors in making this assessment included "the importance of the [victim's] testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating ... the [victim's testimony] ... the extent of crossexamination otherwise permitted, and ... the overall strength of the prosecution's case."67 In considering these factors, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the restriction on the defendant's right to confrontation was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt. 68

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

You were saying, Crayola? Just because you can cherry pick one portion of the decision does not preclude other things being in there too. Youre as bad as most of the other simpletons about mutual exclusivity. That's a published law review.

Anyway you've backtracked to saying basically nothing here. The work is done.

[vy65]

He doesn't get it ... this is fucking priceless

[vy65]

crofl platform of bluster ... I bet fuzzy goes to coffee shops, smokes cloved cigarettes, and when he's not annoying people with some inane idea about Wittgenstein writes sweet spurstalk dissess (pl:loltf:lolrm of bluster) in his three ring binder for later use

[spurraider21]

:lmao

[vy65]

Fuzzy, take a look at Federal or Kentucky Rule of Evidence 403 and let us know if either is the same thing as a Rape Shield Statute, ok?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He doesn't get it ... this is fucking priceless

I've been talking about the standard for review to judge between the right to an impartial jury of the victim and the right of a defendant to confront his accuser from the beginning. What you don't seem to get is the high court outlined what was required in said review in that decision. I just quoted the substantive portion of it.

I get that you have been reduced to saying that it 'can' exclude that evidence and reduced to the simpleminded tripe. Grandma and the troll brigade our going to cheer against me whatever you say so you really don't need to front with bullshit, Counselor Coward.

[vy65]

You cited a SCOTUS case (crofl, who the fuck says "high court") that did not involve a rape shield statute to argue that said statutes have exceptions for consent, motive, confrontation, etc.. Again, the case you cited has nothing to do with a rape shield statute other than to say that said statute was not involved. And your using said case to argue that rape shield laws have exceptions.

As you'd say, its nothing more than simpleminded tripe built on a platform of bluster . . .

[spurraider21]

Fuzzy is on a platform of bluster tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, take a look at Federal or Kentucky Rule of Evidence 403 and let us know if either is the same thing as a Rape Shield Statute, ok?

403 is a universalization of a statute that is written into the other 412s ie the federal, TX, CA, and IN rules that I have already posted.

What I get is the central argument that you have complained about is that men's 6th amendment rights are not being honored. Still waiting for said state.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You cited a SCOTUS case (crofl, who the fuck says "high court") that did not involve a rape shield statute to argue that said statutes have exceptions for consent, motive, confrontation, etc.. Again, the case you cited has nothing to do with a rape shield statute other than to say that said statute was not involved. And your using said case to argue that rape shield laws have exceptions.

As you'd say, its nothing more than simpleminded tripe built on a platform of bluster . . .

I cited a law review discussing rape shield laws that agrees with me too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In recognizing a defendant's right to present evidence of the victim's motive, the Supreme Court realized that the trial court may impose limits on the defense's inquiry into the complainant's potential bias.72 The Court concluded that the limitations should be applied to take into account such factors as "harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that [would be] repetitive or only marginally relevant."73 In essence, the Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 403"4 dictated the limitation on a defense counsel's inquiry. However, in applying these limitations to Olden, the Court concluded that the limitations imposed on the inquiry "[were] beyond reason. 15 In Olden, the Supreme Court recognized that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause to prevent a defendant from presenting testimony that tends to show a victim's motive to fabricate, even if the testimony is of the victim's prior sexual conduct.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

[vy65]

403 is a universalization of a statute that is written into the other 412s ie the federal, TX, CA, and IN rules that I have already posted.

What I get is the central argument that you have complained about is that men's 6th amendment rights are not being honored. Still waiting for said state.

Incorrect. 403 is a rule of evidence that codifies a common law rule. Explain what "universalization of a statute" means. That's not english.

The central argument is that the law, in specific circumstances, disenfranchises men yet women concerned with gender equality don't seem to care.

You've been given a specific example of the sixth amendment violation up thread. Re-read.

[vy65]

I cited a law review discussing rape shield laws that agrees with me too.

So you didn't even cite the SCOTUS case saying the rape shield statute wasn't at issue, ok.

[vy65]

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

Sweet, so you're quoting a law review article from a bankruptcy clerk who didn't read the case. Got it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sweet, so you're quoting a law review article from a bankruptcy clerk who didn't read the case. Got it.

:lol ad hominem

What do peer review mean?

We have the Cleveland State Law Review and we have you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The KY high court rejected the evidence on the basis of rule 412. But because SCOTUS brings up 403 then that makes it all about that and nothing to do with the evidence the court had excluded on the basis of said rape laws? It's so stupid its sad.

[vy65]

On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that Kentucky's rape shield law "did not absolutely bar evidence of Matthews and Russell's living arrangement. The court found, however, that while the proffered evidence was relevant to the defendant's theory of the case,' the potential prejudice of the evidence outweighed its probative value,6 and held, therefore, that the trial court properly excluded it. The court reasoned that the admission of testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial "may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews.

Olden had nothing to do with a rape shield law.

Case said it was improper to exclude evidence that some **** was cucking a guy from a rape trial because it went to the ****'s motive for truth/falsity. This has nothing to do with evidence - like prior false rape accusations - which are barred by rape shield statutes. If anything, it goes to show how fucked up cases, like Mike Tyson's, are when evidence of motive/intent are excluded.

[vy65]

:lol ad hominem

What do peer review mean?

We have the Cleveland State Law Review and we have you.

No not ad hominen. I don't trust non-practicing lawyer's opinions in law review article.s

Crofl I've never heard of Cleveland State Law School. Crofl.

Law reviews aren't peer reviewed either you fucking idiot. They're edited by law students.

Crofl you are beyond fucking stupid. You should just go back to your Nat Sherman's and Either/Or.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you didn't even cite the SCOTUS case saying the rape shield statute wasn't at issue, ok.

They said that 403 superseded it, dimwit. It's written directly into most other 412s that I have seen.

[vy65]

The KY high court rejected the evidence on the basis of rule 412.

Please direct me to the page of the KY supreme court decision excluding the evidence under KRE 412.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

'Regan Kreitzer LaTesta won the 1998 Manos Competition for this article. Ms. LaTesta received her undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia and her J.D. from the
University of Baltimore School of Law. Currently, Ms. LaTesta is clerking for the Honorable James F. Schneider in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.

What awards have you won? And clerking for a federal district court is a bad thing now?

What credentials do you have that trump that?

[Big Dog]

Law reviews aren't peer reviewed either you fucking idiot. They're edited by law students.

Crofl you are beyond fucking stupid. You should just go back to your Nat Sherman's and Either/Or.
:lmao There goes Fuzzy again talking out of his ass and here I am laughing my ass off. What a fucking fraud and idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please direct me to the page of the KY supreme court decision excluding the evidence under KRE 412.

That is not necessary for proof. You don't set the standard, Crayola. I am going to look up the Manos Competition though.

[vy65]

What awards have you won? And clerking for a federal district court is a bad thing now?

What credentials do you have that trump that?

She's clerking for a bankruptcy judge. Not a federal district judge. Again, you have literally zero idea what you're talking about.

I've been practicing for a lot longer than whatever this **** was doing when she wrote this article.

Every lawyer would take someone with actual experience over some student who wrote an :lolrticle. Only a moron like you would think differently

[Struggle Wilson]

Fuzzy's favorite shoes:

http://i.imgur.com/MI0DjPL.jpg

[vy65]

That is not necessary for proof. You don't set the standard, Crayola.

It absolutely is. That's how the law works you idiot.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol It's hilarious seeing FaggyCuckins act like he has any expertise about anything other than cheap shitty weed and hiding from the real world at college your whole life.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao There goes Fuzzy again talking out of his ass and here I am laughing my ass off. What a fucking fraud and idiot.

You wait for a mistake and swoop in. How cavalier of you!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

She's clerking for a bankruptcy judge. Not a federal district judge. Again, you have literally zero idea what you're talking about.

I've been practicing for a lot longer than whatever this **** was doing when she wrote this article.

Every lawyer would take someone with actual experience over some student who wrote an :lolrticle. Only a moron like you would think differently

http://www.mdb.uscourts.gov/

So anyway, its down to your word against my award winning law review. Troll squad is coming in now and bringing his NFL forum alts. This I was actually hoping for. Thanks.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It absolutely is. That's how the law works you idiot.

We're not in court, dimwit.

[vy65]

We're not in court, dimwit.


That is not necessary for proof. You don't set the standard, Crayola.

This is literally the dumbest thing you could possibly say. Cases cite other cases for authority. That's how the law works. That's what stare decisis is. It's what our common law system is.

If you can't cite authority, it means you're full of shit.

You have honestly zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Frankly, I'm the bigger idiot here for wasting my time with some djarum smoking moron who's smoked so much shitty weed and fried what few brain cells he had to begin with.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You would think that an award winning law review that is so wrong would be easy to find something to discredit it and corroborate what you claim. Your inability is telling.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is literally the dumbest thing you could possibly say. Cases cite other cases for authority. That's how the law works. That's what stare decisis is. It's what our common law system is.

If you can't cite authority, it means you're full of shit.

You have honestly zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Frankly, I'm the bigger idiot here for wasting my time with some djarum smoking moron who's smoked so much shitty weed and fried what few brain cells he had to begin with.

then it becomes my word and the word of my pusblished award winning law review against your word all by itself.

I was speaking more along the lines of presumption and the like. You're not even arguing anything substantive but rather chasing your tail looking for minutiae I get wrong.

[vy65]

Jesus. The author won the award. Not the law review. The award is given by the school no one has ever heard of.

[SocialJusticeWarrior]

I agree with you, Fuzzy! Legal precedent is a tool of the patriarchy. We need to listen and believe... all court cases should be decided by our feels!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree with you, Fuzzy! Legal precedent is a tool of the patriarchy. We need to listen and believe... all court cases should be decided by our feels!

That's not what I said. I said he doesn't set the standard. That is it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Jesus. The author won the award. Not the law review. The award is given by the school no one has ever heard of.

That the article got the award does not help your point in the least. recall what I said about minutiae? forest trees bad lawyers.

[SocialJusticeWarrior]

That's not what I said. I said he doesn't set the standard. That is it.
Standards are also a tool of the patriarchy. Stop triggering me, you cis-male shitlord!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

SocialJusticeWarrior
Listen and Believe.
This message is hidden because SocialJusticeWarrior is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

[Big Dog]

From my experience, most libtards like Fuzzy are pissed off Law school rejects.

[SocialJusticeWarrior]

SocialJusticeWarrior
Listen and Believe.
This message is hidden because SocialJusticeWarrior is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
Ignoring me is racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic. Haven't you heard of the progressive stack?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From my experience, most libtards like Fuzzy are pissed off Law school rejects.

From my experience people that have no leg to stand on hide behind multiple accounts and make up stories about their opponent.

[Big Dog]

From my experience people that have no leg to stand on hide behind multiple accounts and make up stories about their opponent.
Sounds like I touched a nerve..every post and you identify close to a 30+ year old once proud poly sci major who failed to get into Law school and now emanates a jack of all trades schtick to cover a built in misery..


&&&& What multiple accounts?..my other account was banned and I gave rogues back to Harlem..you can't seem to get the most simplest of ideas correct:lol..

[Big Dog]

Ignoring me is racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic. Haven't you heard of the progressive stack?
He's sooooooo intolerant of other people's views..

[vy65]

Seriously, Fuzzy got so demolished in this thread he was reduced to Cleveland State School of Law Award smack.

Shoulda studied harder for the LSAT fuzz

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sounds like I touched a nerve..every post and you identify close to a 30+ year old once proud poly sci major who failed to get into Law school and now emanates a jack of all trades schtick to cover a built in misery..


&&&& What multiple accounts?..my other account was banned and I gave rogues back to Harlem..you can't seem to get the most simplest of ideas correct:lol..

What I take from this is that since you are flailing to come up with a disparaging characterization makes me think you must feel disparaged. If that is a nerve then okay. You have always struck me as one of those zero sum emotional midgets.

Nice misdirection attempt. Makes me think of all the times you criticized me for 'trying hard.'

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lmao this thread delivers. I've never witnessed a blowhard blustering faggot as stupid and ignorant as FuzzyLumpkins. If only he were actually trolling it'd be brilliant.

My favorite part about the whole thing is how when anyone disagrees the cowardly faggot puts them on ignore.

:lol @ having to scroll through an entire page to find one readable post because of:



Differing Opinions
Believe.
This message is hidden because Differing Opinions hurts my faggoty feels and is on my ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously, Fuzzy got so demolished in this thread he was reduced to Cleveland State School of Law Award smack.

Shoulda studied harder for the LSAT fuzz

I can always tell when you give up when you do this. You were the one denigrating the school. Anyway this has now devolved enough. ciao troll squad.

[spurraider21]

SocialJusticeWarrior
Listen and Believe.
This message is hidden because SocialJusticeWarrior is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
these posts are virtually meaningless, considering it's already been confirmed that you read all the ignore list messages anyway

[TheSanityAnnex]

these posts are virtually meaningless, considering it's already been confirmed that you read all the ignore list messages anyway
Yeah he's slipped up a few times and outed himself. It must eat him up inside not being able to reply while pretending not to read them. Stupid faggot should just man up and take everyone off ignore. Although I do find it funny 3/4 of the page he's reading is filled with ignore messages. That must really fuck up the message board reading experience.

And thats right Fuzzy I know you reading this :lol stupid fuck.

[vy65]

I can always tell when you give up when you do this. You were the one denigrating the school. Anyway this has now devolved enough. ciao troll squad.

:lol The guy rolling with "she won an award in law school" is telling the practicing lawyer who's done.

I'm more than happy to explain how your other legal opinions are incorrect too

:lol even wrong about who gave up

[vy65]

SocialJusticeWarrior
Listen and Believe.
This message is hidden because SocialJusticeWarrior is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

[spurraider21]

It must eat him up inside not being able to reply while pretending not to read them.
:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

So is there precedent for challenging evidence that's been disallowed under rape shield laws or not vy?

[vy65]

What do you mean by precedent? Have there been challenges to Rape Shield Laws? Is there a constitutional, or otherwise, basis for challenging those laws? Are there other bases for introducing evidence otherwise excluded by a RSL? You gotta clarify.

[Th'Pusher]

What do you mean by precedent? Have there been challenges to Rape Shield Laws? Is there a constitutional, or otherwise, basis for challenging those laws? Are there other bases for introducing evidence otherwise excluded by a RSL? You gotta clarify.

Yes, yes and yes.

[vy65]

Yes, yes and yes.

Why don't you look it up?

[Th'Pusher]

Why don't you look it up?

I did. I want to hear you answer the question since you've been whining about how unfair rape shield laws are for the last couple of days.

[spurraider21]

do rape shield laws also apply for men being raped by women? is the man's promiscuity admissible evidence? :lol

[vy65]

I did. I want to hear you answer the question since you've been whining about how unfair rape shield laws are for the last couple of days.

Then by all means tell us.

[Th'Pusher]

Then by all means tell us.

I don't think I can be anymore clear. I want to hear you answer the question since you've been whining about how unfair rape shield laws are for the last couple of days.

[spurraider21]

I don't think I can be anymore clear. I want to hear you answer the question since you've been whining about how unfair rape shield laws are for the last couple of days.
he told you to look it up and you responded with "I did." So i think he (and the rest of us) want to hear your findings.

[vy65]

I don't think I can be anymore clear. I want to hear you answer the question since you've been whining about how unfair rape shield laws are for the last couple of days.

:lol thinking I'd answer because that's what you want.

You did the research, tell us what you found.

[Th'Pusher]

he told you to look it up and you responded with "I did." So i think he (and the rest of us) want to hear your findings.
I don't give a fuck what you want to hear. He knows the answer, but he's too much of a pussy to answer it. I'm fine with that.

[vy65]

:lol asking you to tell us what you found = pussy?

[Th'Pusher]

:lol asking you to tell us what you found = pussy?
You asked me to clarify what I meant by precedent. I did, then you told me to look it up. That's pussy.

[vy65]

Why won't you show us what you got slurper?

[vy65]

:lol this is like the worst bait job ever

"I totally looked it up, I swear, but I need YOU to say it ..."

[vy65]

And :lol me not wanting to do legal research at home when I've been at work for 11 hours = pussy.

[Th'Pusher]

Why did you ask me to clarify what I meant by precedent? Why not just tell me to look it up right off the bat? Did you think you might feel like it after your 11 hour day, then decide you were too tired?

[vy65]

This is retarded. Either show us what you got or shut up.

No one cares about the google search you may or may not have done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You asked me to clarify what I meant by precedent. I did, then you told me to look it up. That's pussy.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

This article is well annotated and thorough. It talks about major cases regarding rape shield laws in the SCOTUS and a half dozen state supreme courts. His response has been that the author is a law clerk that went to a bad school. He gives nothing of his own credentials of course.

He is not very brave. I give you that.

[Th'Pusher]

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

This article is well annotated and thorough. It talks about major cases regarding rape shield laws in the SCOTUS and a half dozen state supreme courts. His response has been that the author is a law clerk that went to a bad school. He gives nothing of his own credentials of course.

He is not very brave. I give you that.

I know what the answer is. He knows what the answer is, but he's too much of a pussy to answer it, because it flies in the face of what he's been whining about.

[vy65]

You do realize that a pussy wouldn't have asked you 5x to tell us what you researched, right?

[Th'Pusher]

You do realize that a pussy wouldn't have asked you 5x to tell us what you researched, right?
That's exactly what a pussy would do and did do. Especially considering you know the answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know what the answer is. He knows what the answer is, but he's too much of a pussy to answer it, because it flies in the face of what he's been whining about.

It looks like he's been hanging around like territorial pissing will make a difference since I've been gone. I like how he says he's been at work for 11 hours too. He was arguing with Winehole 11 hours ago.

[Th'Pusher]

It looks like he's been hanging around like territorial pissing will make a difference since I've been gone. I like how he says he's been at work for 11 hours too. He was arguing with Winehole 11 hours ago.
The internet lawyer who's never won an argument.

[vy65]

Slurper is a weird dude. It's like he wants to have an internet fight about who's a pussy rather than discuss what he found ...

[Th'Pusher]

Slurper is a weird dude. It's like he wants to have an internet fight about who's a pussy rather than discuss what he found ...

What I found was posted in this thread. So, I'll asK again, but rephrase my question as you seem to be struggling. If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

[spurraider21]

What I found was posted in this thread. So, I'll asK again, but rephrase my question as you seem to be struggling. If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?
:lmao so basically your sorry-ass excuse for "research" = reading through this thread :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao so basically your sorry-ass excuse for "research" = reading through this thread :lmao
I didn't claim to do any research. I guess claiming I looked it up was a bit of a stretch, but it was a direct question.

i read it, somewhere.

[Clipper Nation]

What I found was posted in this thread.

So you plagiarized Fuzzy's shitpost, then?

[Th'Pusher]

So you plagiarized Fuzzy's shitpost, then?
No. But I read what both he and ElNono posted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Slurper is a weird dude. It's like he wants to have an internet fight about who's a pussy rather than discuss what he found ...

yeah you are using the xmas routine now. lovely.

[spurraider21]

Why don't you look it up?


I did.


I guess claiming I looked it up was a bit of a stretch.
:lmao what a faggot

[Clipper Nation]

No. But I read what both he and ElNono posted.
Really? Because according to you, I was "plagiarizing" when I looked something up to answer a question you asked. By your own logic, you just "plagiarized."

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao what a faggot
Seriously? Have a bit of intellectual honesty. You're turning into as shitty a poster as Godor Xeer.

[Th'Pusher]

Really? Because according to you, I was "plagiarizing" when I looked something up to answer a question you asked. By your own logic, you just "plagiarized."
Oh Fuck. You don't know what plagiarizing is. Quote my post where I plagiarized what I'd read as you did when you started referencing Godord and Xeer.

[Clipper Nation]

Seriously? Have a bit of intellectual honesty. You're turning into as shitty a poster as Godor Xeer.

Sure thing, Cleveland State Law School Award. :tu

[Clipper Nation]

Why don't you look it up?


I did.


What I found was posted in this thread.


http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1525&context=clevstlrev

This article is well annotated and thorough. It talks about major cases regarding rape shield laws in the SCOTUS and a half dozen state supreme courts.

:lmao Th'Plagiarist

[Th'Pusher]

Sure thing, Cleveland State Law School Award. :tu
Ad hominem

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao Th'Plagiarist
Go further upstream and read what ElNono posted.

[Clipper Nation]

Ad hominem
So is calling me "Godord Xeer" for having the nerve to research the answer to a question. :tu

[Th'Pusher]

Unfortunate the bitch ass lawyer had to go to bed after 11 hrs of practicing law.

[vy65]

Unfortunate the bitch ass lawyer had to go to bed after 11 hrs of practicing law.

:lol

So we have one idiot who thinks law review articles are peer reviewed and another who thinks "looking something up" = reading this thread and calling someone a pussy for not doing legal research.

What a bunch of faggots

[Th'Pusher]

So is calling me "Godord Xeer" for having the nerve to research the answer to a question. :tu
Researching was fine. The fact that you neglected to cite your work was why you were deemed a plagiarist.

What at was really funny was that as a libertarian, you couldn't reference a single successful libertarian society without googling to find the great societies of Godord and Xeer. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

:lol

So we have one idiot who thinks law review articles are peer reviewed and another who thinks "looking something up" = reading this thread and calling someone a pussy for not doing legal research.

What a bunch of faggots
Are you going to answer my question or not, pussy?

[vy65]

Sorry, I got better things to do than see you repost shit already in this thread, especially when I asked you to show us what you got for another.

Repost whatever from Nono and I'll look at it tomorrow,

Crofl slurper whining about attention like a female

[Th'Pusher]

Answer this basic question:

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

[vy65]

Are you going to answer my question or not, pussy?

I admire you for doubling down after niggas spurraider and cn went in on you

[Clipper Nation]

Researching was fine. The fact that you neglected to cite your work was why you were deemed a plagiarist.

What at was really funny was that as a libertarian, you couldn't reference a single successful libertarian society without googling to find the great societies of Godord and Xeer. :lol

What's funny is that as a so-called legal expert who knows more than the "bitch-ass lawyer," you couldn't come up with any challenge to the Rape Shield laws without pretending to Google it, giving up and just going off the same shit Fuzzy was trying to pass off as legitimate. And you still haven't cited your source, by the way, beyond saying "it was linked in this thread."

[Th'Pusher]

What's funny is that as a so-called legal expert who knows more than the "bitch-ass lawyer," you couldn't come up with any challenge to the Rape Shield laws without pretending to Google it, giving up and just going off the same shit Fuzzy was trying to pass off as legitimate. And you still haven't cited your source, by the way, beyond saying "it was linked in this thread."

Can you answer this since the pussy lawyer won't?

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

[vy65]

Answer this basic question:

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

The answer is I don't know and don't feel like doing a 50 state survey on rape shield laws at 10pm after a long day at work. I'm sorry your female brain is let down by the lack of attention, sorry honey.

[Clipper Nation]

Can you answer this since the pussy lawyer won't?

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. Shouldn't you be able to answer this yourself with all that furious Googling you claimed to be doing?

[Th'Pusher]

The answer is I don't know and don't feel like doing a 50 state survey on rape shield laws at 10pm after a long day at work. I'm sorry your female brain is let down by the lack of attention, sorry honey.

You don't have to do a 50 state survey on rape shield laws to answer the question. Stop being a pussy.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. Shouldn't you be able to answer this yourself with all that furious Googling you claimed to be doing?

You're a moron Godord.

[Clipper Nation]

You're a moron Godord.

I'm smarter than you, Cleveland State Law School Award.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm smarter than you, Cleveland State Law School Award.
:lol

[Clipper Nation]

Wow, what a great law school! That award sounds awfully prestigious:

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/crusty-turd-cleveland-marshall-college.html

[spurraider21]

damn, trusting an article "peer reviewed" by students at the 115th ranked law school in the country

[Clipper Nation]

damn, trusting an article written by students at the 115th ranked law school in the country

:cry "But, but, this law clerk got a participation ribbon. That means their article on this subject is an authoritative masterpiece." :cry

[Th'Pusher]

Wow, what a great law school! That award sounds awfully prestigious:

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/crusty-turd-cleveland-marshall-college.html

I'm Not referencing anything related to said law school.

Good old job trying to discredit and obfuscate though. It's pretty clear you're completely unable to follow what's going on. You really are exposing yourself as a wildly unintelligent man.

How ow old are you? if you don't mind me asking. I'm trying to gauge how much of this ignorance can be chalked up to your age.

[Th'Pusher]

damn, trusting an article "peer reviewed" by students at the 115th ranked law school in the country
Seriously dude? You're supposed to be in law school. Grow the fuck up.

[Big Dog]

Seriously dude? You're supposed to be in law school. Grow the fuck up.
^micro invalidator

[Th'Pusher]

^micro invalidator
What's up bitch. You wanna talk ball?

[spurraider21]

Seriously dude? You're supposed to be in law school. Grow the fuck up.
I'm not "supposed to be." I am.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not "supposed to be." I am.
Well you're intellectually immature for someone in his first or second year of law school. Completely incapable of making an intellectually honest counterpoint. You do not represent Pepperdine well.

[spurraider21]

Well you're intellectually immature for someone in his first or second year of law school. Completely incapable of making an intellectually honest counterpoint. You do not represent Pepperdine well.
I'm intellectually dishonest? You're the one who claimed to have looked up the answers to the issues you raised, when in fact, you hadn't.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm intellectually dishonest? You're the one who claimed to have looked up the answers to the issues you raised, when in fact, you hadn't.
Don't be ridiculous. I admitted "I looked it up" was a stretch. You proceeded to quote me out of context to make an intellectually dishonest point.

[spurraider21]

Don't be ridiculous. I admitted "I looked it up" was a stretch. You proceeded to quote me out of context to make an intellectually dishonest point.
i didnt take it out of context :lol.. and i specifically included you saying admitting that it was a stretch...

http://i.gyazo.com/417a70ce03dbbfe852aecaa087f4fc1a.png

[Th'Pusher]

I didn't claim to do any research. I guess claiming I looked it up was a bit of a stretch, but it was a direct question.

i read it, somewhere.

The full quote was absolutely quoted out of context. Don't be dbag.

Have some respect for for the institution of Pepperdine.

[spurraider21]

The full quote was absolutely quoted out of context. Don't be dbag.

Have some respect for for the institution of Pepperdine.
which part was out of context, specifically

[Th'Pusher]

which part was out of context, specifically
The looking it up part. He told me to look it up, which I said I did, but the reality is I didn't have to. Someone else in the thread had looked it up and I just had to read it. So, saying I "looked it up" was "a bit of a stretch", but it didn't change the point. By clinging on to the point that I admitted to not looking it up was a weak intellectually dishonest way of trying to discredit the argument.

let me ask you pointedly:

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?

[spurraider21]

The looking it up part. He told me to look it up, which I said I did, but the reality is I didn't have to. Someone else in the thread had looked it up and I just had to read it. So, saying I "looked it up" was "a bit of a stretch", but it didn't change the point. By clinging on to the point that I admitted to not looking it up was a weak intellectually dishonest way of trying to discredit the argument.
that's all i needed to hear from you to show i didn't take anything out of context. you said you looked it up, then you took it back. i quoted your posts to reflect just that. :tu


let me ask you pointedly:

If a judge deems evidence inadmissible citing rape shield law, does the defense have any avenues to challenge the decision with relevant case law to cite as precedent?
i honestly have no fucking idea. i'm taking criminal procedure this coming fall and will be taking evidence in Spring. i'll get back to you later

[Th'Pusher]

that's all i needed to hear from you to show i didn't take anything out of context. you said you looked it up, then you took it back. i quoted your posts to reflect just that.

Did you or did you not understand the subsequent posted information? If you did, you're intellectually dishonest. If you didn't, you're a moron.

[spurraider21]

i never attempted to discredit your argument. that's an assumption on your part. i was just laughing at your "i looked it up" and then "i didnt look it up" post pattern/faggotry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The 6th amendment isn't discretionary


The notion that the previous case speaks to the "nature of the accuser" demonstrates quite clearly how it is prejudicial. At best you have a conflict between what you claim and an impartial jury. Perhaps if you could substantiate how in that particular case the differences would have made meaningful difference. All you do is beg the question. You of course are speaking from a position of gross ignorance to the facts of any of the cases.

I just see you being vicariously threatened really.

I just want to point out that this is where the argument started for me. I see we are no longer discussing any of that.

[InRareForm]

I have been listening to some of the new podcasts... joe rogan isnt funny but he is a good interviewer

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan Experience #1412 - Jimmy Dore

https://youtu.be/amx14K9N5CY

[spurraider21]

Rogan is a great interviewer tbh, but i dont see anything remarkable in “his takes.” I certainly wouldn’t look to him as any kind of authority except for something like mma or marijuana :lol

Hes also among those people who for a while was overly fixated on the anti-sjw thing

[TheGreatYacht]

Rogan is a great interviewer tbh, but i dont see anything remarkable in “his takes.” I certainly wouldn’t look to him as any kind of authority except for something like mma or marijuana :lol

Hes also among those people who for a while was overly fixated on the anti-sjw thing

I heard Joe Rogan goes wherever the wind blows. My favorite moments of him were when he destroyed Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder on his show. All the Crowder fanboys were crying out to Joe for bullying and being rude to Crowder about marijuana that Joe ended up apologizing to Crowder smh.

[spurraider21]

I heard Joe Rogan goes wherever the wind blows. My favorite moments of him were when he destroyed Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder on his show. All the Crowder fanboys were crying out to Joe for bullying and being rude to Crowder about marijuana that Joe ended up apologizing to Crowder smh.
check out the segment where he and dave rubin discuss building regulations :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

check out the segment where he and dave rubin discuss building regulations :lol

Yeah I've seen it. Btw Dave Rubin is no longer an atheist :lol

Pretty soon he's gonna come out and say that he is pro-life and no longer gay. Just watch it's only a matter of time.

That Koch Brother $$$ doing miracles for him

[Winehole23]

Joe Rogan is sort of an enlightened meathead. His fans are epigones of the same.

[hater]

not a fan of rogan but he’s clearly not another brainwashed lemming like most of the “media” puppets or even most muppet posters here

:tu

[koriwhat]

not a fan of rogan but he’s clearly not another brainwashed lemming like most of the “media” puppets or even most muppet posters here

:tu

you sure? he thought soros was a saint until he finally went and watched that 60 mins interview from the 80's. he isn't as big brained as you think he is but he sure is one hell of an entertainer.

porcelain on YT made a great docu (https://youtu.be/Q5qUoElv3Sc) about rogan and his merry band of jackoffs.

[Spurtacular]

Joe Rogan Experience #1412 - Jimmy Dore

https://youtu.be/amx14K9N5CY

Chumpettes not gonna like this.

[DMC]

Did you or did you not understand the subsequent posted information? If you did, you're intellectually dishonest. If you didn't, you're a moron.


i never attempted to discredit your argument. that's an assumption on your part. i was just laughing at your "i looked it up" and then "i didnt look it up" post pattern/faggotry

Lots of facts being slung back then.

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan: I’ve Been Progressive My Whole Life

https://youtu.be/9ctTmQn8w7A
The Corruption of the Democratic Party w/Jimmy Dore | Joe Rogan

https://youtu.be/MBBha-y3-B0
Is Trump Impeachment Just a Distraction? w/Jimmy Dore | Joe Rogan

https://youtu.be/eDPe-2yT_Bo

[hater]

you sure? he thought soros was a saint until he finally went and watched that 60 mins interview from the 80's. he isn't as big brained as you think he is but he sure is one hell of an entertainer.

porcelain on YT made a great docu (https://youtu.be/Q5qUoElv3Sc) about rogan and his merry band of jackoffs.

so what?

I'm not one of the clan that believes Soros is all that is evil in the world :rolleyes

remove him and there will be 2 or 3 Soro types standing behind.

[pgardn]

^

The Washington Post has an extensive write up on the papers. Dec 9 little over a month ago.

So I guess no one knew about it or cares because the WaPo, critical of all presidents involved including Obama, is an arm of our deep state even when the paper outs the deep state and the government on a consistent basis.

So just keep watching your 5 minutes of Jimmy Dore, the expert, instead of actually reading. The minerals in Afghanistan...

[TheGreatYacht]

so what?

I'm not one of the clan that believes Soros is all that is evil in the world :rolleyes

remove him and there will be 2 or 3 Soro types standing behind.

Sheldon Adelson is just as bad tbh. He is like the George Soros of the Republican party. I want nothing to do w these two Zionist Jewish mafias. One of the Jewish mafias is responsible for all the Zionist wars in the middle east that caused the refugee crisis. The other Jewish mafia wants to open up the borders and welcome all refugees. They're both destroying America and the Western world.

[TheGreatYacht]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikePsJuice/status/1220522642253500417

[koriwhat]

so what?

I'm not one of the clan that believes Soros is all that is evil in the world :rolleyes

remove him and there will be 2 or 3 Soro types standing behind.

of course but he's still evil as fuck regardless how the media tries to paint him as a holocaust survivor and a philanthropist billionaire. i'll celebrate when that crypt keeper fucking dies! :tu

[TheGreatYacht]

of course but he's still evil as fuck regardless how the media tries to paint him as a holocaust survivor and a philanthropist billionaire. i'll celebrate when that crypt keeper fucking dies! :tu


Sheldon Adelson is just as bad tbh. He is like the George Soros of the Republican party. I want nothing to do w these two Zionist Jewish mafias. One of the Jewish mafias is responsible for all the Zionist wars in the middle east that caused the refugee crisis. The other Jewish mafia wants to open up the borders and welcome all refugees. They're both destroying America and the Western world.

:tu

[koriwhat]

:tu

i'm going to have to look up who Sheldon Adelson is because i have no clue.

[TheGreatYacht]

i'm going to have to look up who Sheldon Adelson is because i have no clue.


Sheldon Adelson in Israel regrets having worn the Uniform of the United States

https://youtu.be/d9jX7a9DFJE

[spurraider21]

:lol koriwhat and tgy have common ground.

they both hate jews who dont like trump! (albeit for different reasons)

[TheGreatYacht]

:lol koriwhat and tgy have common ground.

they both hate jews who dont like trump! (albeit for different reasons)

Sheldon Adelson is a Trump top donor. He has the Republican party in his pocket.

[spurraider21]

Sheldon Adelson is a Trump top donor. He has the Republican party in his pocket.
kw hasnt said anything about adelson yet. just soros.

because liberal.

[koriwhat]

:lol koriwhat and tgy have common ground.

they both hate jews who dont like trump! (albeit for different reasons)

i hated soros before trump became president. you living in your own make believe world is what's wrong with you and the rest of the left tbh. yall are children with great imaginations.

[koriwhat]

kw hasnt said anything about adelson yet. just soros.

because liberal.

i don't even know who he is and haven't viewed the video yet. i'm getting ready for my appointment at 2pm ya dumb bitch.

[SpursforSix]

i don't even know who he is and haven't viewed the video yet. i'm getting ready for my appointment at 2pm ya dumb bitch.

nigga, you don't need weekly prostate exams.

[spurraider21]

nigga, you don't need weekly prostate exams.
hey man, maybe it's his shrink and he's taking the right step

[koriwhat]

hey man, maybe it's his shrink and he's taking the right step

my shrink? so now i visit a shrink too huh? you = child + imagination.... just like i said previously. you're a fucking dipshit trying to be so cool on the internet. how pathetic for such a shitty lawyer like yourself.

[koriwhat]

nigga, you don't need weekly prostate exams.

:lol

[DMC]

nigga, you don't need weekly prostate exams.
I mean you can never be too careful

[koriwhat]

I mean you can never be too careful

not looking forward to my 40's... smh no no no!

[TheGreatYacht]

Jimmy Dore: Bernie Has to Over-Win Or They’ll Cheat Him

https://youtu.be/GfWuTqZNVtM
How Did Nancy Pelosi Get $100 Million w/Jimmy Dore | Joe Rogan

https://youtu.be/tnVg9mYYKcM
Trump’s Only Crime is Putting a Bad Face on American Imperialism

https://youtu.be/vUbSXqRP-0k

[DMC]

not looking forward to my 40's... smh no no no!
I don't think you get that done till your 50s unless something changes or you have a family history of colon cancer or polyps.

[SpursforSix]

not looking forward to my 40's... smh no no no!

Just ask your boyfriend if his penis feels more cramped than it used to.

[DMC]

Just ask your boyfriend if his penis feels more cramped than it used to.

Maybe has the inverse french tickler in the colon?

[koriwhat]

I don't think you get that done till your 50s unless something changes or you have a family history of colon cancer or polyps.

oh thank god!


Just ask your boyfriend if his penis feels more cramped than it used to.

lame... instead i'll ask my chick if she cares what some homo like yourself has to say. :tu

[boutons_deux]

"Trump’s Only Crime is Putting a Bad Face on American Imperialism"

Trash and his mafiya's serial obstructionism over 3 years is not imperialism.

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan Semi-Endorses Bernie & Elite Media Goons Flip

https://youtu.be/gR0KomT0XKY

[spurraider21]

you have your own thread dickwad

[TheGreatYacht]

Fake Outrage Over Joe Rogan Reaches Peak

https://youtu.be/4ihlYqdDXXs

[TheGreatYacht]

Joy Reid’s Homophobia Proves Rogan Outrage Fake

https://youtu.be/lijM_C-zOJ8

[koriwhat]

ugh jimmy snore... nerd trying to be hard in the comedy scene while doing political comedy... even more ugh...

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan Responds to Bernie Sanders Endorsement Controversy

https://youtu.be/P-KjcOQPVeI

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan would vote for President Trump over Joe Biden: 'I don’t think he can handle anything'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/04/joe-rogan-donald-trump-joe-biden-bernie-sanders

[ChumpDumper]

Joe Rogan would vote for President Trump over Joe Biden: 'I don’t think he can handle anything'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/04/joe-rogan-donald-trump-joe-biden-bernie-sandersBut Trump is killing you with 5G.

[Reck]

Yes, Rogan was gonna vote for Bernie in the end. Kind of like CC, Darrin and DMC were all going to vote for Biden at some point too. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Yes, Rogan was gonna vote for Bernie in the end. Kind of like CC, Darrin and DMC were all going to vote for Biden at some point too. :lol

What's your opinion of Joe Rogan?

[Reck]

What's your opinion of Joe Rogan?

He's trash. Try not to overthink this one, derp.

[Spurtacular]

He's trash. Try not to overthink this one, derp.

I'm not. Why's he trash?

[Reck]

I'm not. Why's he trash?

Look at his actions and what he's done and said in the past. Dude has nothing in common with my ideologue. Or Bernie's for that matter.

He just sees Bernie's supporters for what they are, suckers. Free clicks means more revenue for him. On the back of said suckers.

[Spurtacular]

Look at his actions and what he's done and said in the past. Dude has nothing in common with my ideologue. Or Bernie's for that matter.

He just sees Bernie's supporters for what they are, suckers. Free clicks means more revenue for him. On the back of said suckers.

You hate him because he's an opportunist? Everyone you like is an opportunist.

Tell us the real reason, Wreck.

[spurraider21]

Rogan is a great interviewer tbh, but he’s not a thought leader or intellectual by any stretch

[Reck]

You hate him because he's an opportunist? Everyone you like is an opportunist.

Tell us the real reason, Wreck.

I dont hate anyone. You can say I dont care for the likes of him. Nor should anyone who values their time and patience.

[TimDunkem]

Joe simply said Biden is so bad he would rather have Trump, but was pretty clear in the episode where he stands on Trump.

[Spurtacular]

I dont hate anyone. You can say I dont care for the likes of him. Nor should anyone who values their time and patience.

Tell us the real reason, Wreck.

[Spurtacular]

Rogan is a great interviewer tbh, but he’s not a thought leader or intellectual by any stretch

Who in the media is an intellectual?

[Reck]

Tell us the real reason, Wreck.

Boring, recycled postings.

[Spurtacular]

Boring, recycled postings.

You may be the most guarded reg on here. All those years hiding it from your parents n' all.

[Reck]

You may be the most guarded reg on here. All those years hiding it from your parents n' all.

Yeah maybe I should just post my real name and address and phone number to boot. Because that's what people do on troll forums. :tu

[Spurtacular]

Yeah maybe I should just post my real name and address and phone number to boot. Because that's what people do on troll forums. :tu

When have I ever asked for anyone's personal information?

You could post it and I wouldn't do sh** with it.

Frankly, I can't say the same for the assholes you run with.

[TheGreatYacht]

Joe Rogan Experience #1485 - Krystal Ball & Saagar

https://youtu.be/eA9Tpf5Uuxs

Spurtacular badass podcast

[Spurtacular]

Joe Rogan Experience #1485 - Krystal Ball & Saagar

https://youtu.be/eA9Tpf5Uuxs

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615) badass podcast

We're still on Flight 93.