Joe Rogan Thread

[spurraider21]

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

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.

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 ulative, 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.ed...ext=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 ing 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 (pltfrm of bluster) in his three ring binder for later use

[spurraider21]

[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 ing 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 bull , Counselor Coward.

[vy65]

You cited a SCOTUS case (crofl, who the 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 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] repe ive 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.ed...ext=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 cir stances, 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.ed...ext=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.

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 ed up cases, like Mike Tyson's, are when evidence of motive/intent are excluded.

[vy65]

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 ing idiot. They're edited by law students.

Crofl you are beyond ing 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 Compe ion 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 ing idiot. They're edited by law students.

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

There goes Fuzzy again talking out of his ass and here I am laughing my ass off. What a ing 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 Compe ion 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 rticle. Only a moron like you would think differently