Lucky...

The way the dysfunctional judicial system is set up in the US, those who plead guilty are often not, and do it to save money and time. The real criminals are the prosecutors with their plea bargains (otherwise known as extortion). This allows them to win the case and keep their worthless jobs, but then again "they" are worthless people. Never personally involved with any of it, I know enough people who have and tend to side with Polanski. Apparently the judge in the case was another one of those worthless fucks. The judge was not, apparently, a "worthless fuck." Polanski describes a plea deal that he made. Judges are empowered to accept of decline a plea deal. Perhaps you are unaware of the graphic details of what Polanski did to a thirteen year-old girl. I will not post details of what that he did. But if you've got the stomach, read this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html And he fled possible prison time. Yeah, poor Roman Polanski was soooo wronged. Prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list. But in this circumstance, Polanski should have done his time. I actually took the time to read some of that...Polanski will get his... No he won't, he's as free as a bird.

The way the dysfunctional judicial system is set up in the US, those who plead guilty are often not, and do it to save money and time. The real criminals are the prosecutors with their plea bargains (otherwise known as extortion). This allows them to win the case and keep their worthless jobs, but then again "they" are worthless people. Never personally involved with any of it, I know enough people who have and tend to side with Polanski. Apparently the judge in the case was another one of those worthless fucks. The judge was not, apparently, a "worthless fuck." Polanski describes a plea deal that he made. Judges are empowered to accept of decline a plea deal. Perhaps you are unaware of the graphic details of what Polanski did to a thirteen year-old girl. I will not post details of what that he did. But if you've got the stomach, read this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html And he fled possible prison time. Yeah, poor Roman Polanski was soooo wronged. Prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list. But in this circumstance, Polanski should have done his time. And so should have Steinbrenner, Libby and several others, but I don't hear the call for time there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome Basically Rainman you're describing. Yea, Kelps a good driver, yea.

I'll quit the 'denial' when you quit the bullshit. There are so many more options besides RW, moderate, and looney left. Intelligent people actually can be in multiple categories based on the issue. Morons can only be in one. That's why I have voted Dem, Repub and indep (Perot), am mostly left but am pro-guns and anti-Aff Action (current version). And you? You've voted for how many Dems as CIC, congress? As I thought, did you just define yourself?

Just forced to resign. Maybe not even that, he probably laid his resignation on Obamas table, pleased to do it. And I don't think ANY of his troops think of the General as "disgraced"............ *** The one event that will define his career is missing from his resume? Yet Obama's citizenship is questioned? You guys crack me up. No, you guys crack me up. Won't wear a flag pin on teh lapel, beating this birther issue to death, semantic inanity vs the Republican throwing us into debt and hammering most aspects of the economy and all you can still clammer is birther BS? Anyone care that a general broke rank and verbally assaulted the CIC? I bet if a junior officer/enlistee looked cross-eyed at the good general he would have their ass, yet he feels insubbordination is ok. Can you guys be more hypocritical? You don't have to like the guy wearing the rank who is above you but you MUST respect the uniform and rank attached WITHOUT QUESTION. Start abiding by your own rules w/o selectively deciding which to administer and which to avoid.

The last real, all-around leader we had was Eisenhower, others were good fiscal leaders, others were good military leaders, a few sucked at all of it (reagan and GWB especially). As for your assertion, absolutely.

Oh come on now.... its entertaining to see the same little RW missives come across time and time again... from the Tea Party etc... it keeps SNOPES.COM in business Yea, do you expect them to actually think of original things on their own? I mean really????

So if you're a US citizen from a state that doesn't comply with AZ's driver's license requirement, and you look Hispanic, you are both NOT required to carry ID and ARE required to simultaneously. Look, just be white and there will be no problem. This, "browning of America" will be stopped, hook or crook.

There's wasn't going to be a trial - he already plead guilty. This was sentencing. The judge is not required to follow the recommendations by others, and sure as hell isn't going to care what the defendant expected. BTW, I never claimed to be moderate. The judge's essential changing of his mind and refusal to accept psychiatric evals is relevant. It sounds like a totally fucked up plea deal anyway, he was charged with 5 counts, pled to 1, I think sodomy and then a 42-day psych eval ordered. The whole thing sounds AFU to begin with; why psych eval someone unless that is the crux of your basis for sentencing? The judge should have just sentenced and been done, he was obviously pissed that the psych eval didn't render what he wanted to hear. On another related note, how bout those greaseballs: Reagan and Steinbrenner? Huh, what a great and sleezy team, one getting convicted for tax eveansion, the otehr greaser getting the former off teh hook 100% by abusing the powers of pardon. Oh yea, no comment, right? >>>>>> BTW, I never claimed to be moderate. Yea, you just say you're not RW....uh, where is there then? You're as RW as most of the RWers on here; quit the denial.

couple hundred miles, but that isn't the point. This isn't about you or me, it's about constitutional protections for Americans. Actually it was 1 rancher and a cop was shot; flesh wound. You act as tho they are daily. Cops get shot everywhere, all the time, therate there is < the average. Typical racist hype. It's agenda that conservatives have latched onto and they're running it intot he ground, as with most things they endeavor. No problem or comment on the Chandler Roundup?

You're ignoring the criticism of the law that I and several others posted in other threads a couple of weeks ago. And in a nutshell, that criticism is that the practical effect of that law will be that police will fabricate bullshit excuses (which are provided by law) as a pretext for being able to demand proof of citizenship from people of Hispanic appearance. I'm not going to re-live that debate all over again, as I'm not all that into deja vu. You know the threads. It's in there. Why would he address supported arguments that shut him down? Legally, it lowers the std of proof to teh lowest one; Reasonable Suspicion.

I'm goign to be difficult, and say that in those cases, the reason that you can be asked for your license is because of the associated activity, and not just because you're present. The difference comes when one can be asked for papers while walking down the street. And that is a change from what I'm used to in the US. Wendy P. Please point out Wendy where you've been asked for your "papers" for just being around. I will also gather from your inference that you have not actually read the Arizona law, and can tell you that there is no such provision to allow such an event to happen. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe a person is illegal, tehy can be questioned. RS is the lowest standard of proof. You have no clue of the goings on in Nazizona, if you did you would reflect on the Chandler Roundup years ago where they went to the poor area of Chandler and rounded up all brown people, went downtown and sorted them out. They paid milliosn for that one, of course it was orchestrated by Police Chief Bobby Joe Harris, teh same redneck pig who excused Officer piggy Lovelace for each of his killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_Roundup

Have you ever needed more than a license? You're a citizen right? I must show my ID, when: 1. Pulled over by the police. 2. Sometimes when making purchases on my department store credit card. 3. When filling out a credit card or loan application. 4. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport. 5. When applying for any kind of insurance. 6. When filling out college applications. 7. When donating blood. 8. When obtaining certain prescription drugs. 9. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state. 10. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel. I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is, that we citizens of the USA, ARE required to prove who we are nearly every day, multiple times a day. Now, for anyone that is a green card holder, did you know that FEDERAL law requires you to have that documentation on you at all times, and that a law enforcement officer may ask for that documentation at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. So, stop getting in a twist over the Arizona law, it actually has more protections for civil liberties than the federal precedent. As if you read it. Tell me of the part where the justification to pull over a vehicle was reduced from PC to Reasonable suspicion for brown people, or does that fuck up your argument?

Nah, why do that when I can stay here and oppose and piss of conservatards.

His US Const rights would have been violated if there was a trial / sentencing; no way to get an impartial jury after he admitted to it, then the judge decided to think about changing the agreement. But of course the Nevada OJ trial was totally filled with US Const violations too, but you don't see it as that for 2 reasons: - You like the outcome - You don't understand the US Const Guys like you don't care about constitutional rights unless we're talking about yours. Um, there was no trial because he pleaded guilty. See if you can follow along. - Polanski charged - Plea deal offered - Judge accepted - Polanski pled and admitted all - Judge started to change his mind on some conditions of the plea - Polanski fled for fear of a raw deal after admitting to the world of what he did SO if there was a trial, he would have a hard time rounding up fair and impartial jury. So he has 2 options: - Flee - Stand an unfair trial So no trial, but his rights were still violated in that the judge accepted teh deal, Poalnski pled (he would not have absent the judge's acceptance of the deal) and now face a potentially long sentence for which he didn't sign on for or a trial where he can't have an impartial jury. Of course you saw nothing wrong with the OJ trial in Nevada, so I see that you would see nothing wrong with Polanski's judge's actions.

dude, wtf. WTF is conservative people making the lame claims, that's WTF. I know, Kelp claims to be moderate; to that I say: WTF.

I think a driver's lic is sufficent to qualify for zee Nazizona papers. Of course I'm white, so racist AZ laws such as 1070 don't pertain to me, just brown people.

I didn't realize she aired at night.....guess who watches her? I actually received a formal education, you're the TV PhD. http://cppreference.com/wiki/keywords/const So you're taking this out of context; using a C++ computer languge to try to use it in a US COnstitutional sense in a thread about Polanski's extradition decision - could you be further out of context? When people need to be that abstract to make a non-point they are out of gas. Obvioulsy that is my abbreviation I've beeen using for years. Really? I guess Judge Judy doesn't use that, esp since she is in lower court and us const rights really aren't a presiding factor there; it's basically binding arbitrtion and you sign away rights when you agree to have your case heard there. His US Const rights would have been violated if there was a trial / sentencing; no way to get an impartial jury after he admitted to it, then the judge decided to think about changing the agreement. But of course the Nevada OJ trial was totally filled with US Const violations too, but you don't see it as that for 2 reasons: - You like the outcome - You don't understand the US Const Guys like you don't care about constitutional rights unless we're talking about yours.

I guess if teh truth doesn't side with you, turn to lies for fear mongering.

there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven. The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened. But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out. Who knows whatthe judge was gonna do, all we know is that he was considering rejecting the plea deal after Polanski admitted to world what happened; kinda hurts your defense strategy. The judge fucked up, the Swiss fixed it. BTW, his victim could still have asked for a pound of flesh with or w/o the settlement, that wasn't part of the deal, so the settlement is sole and seperate of the way she feels. I see, daddy, as long as you know there is only a black and a white. Polanski fucked up, but those actually think he should recieve const rights in court, not pseudo constitutionalists, feel maybe the judges indiscretions outweighed the need to run this through the courts. The AZ victims bill of rights allows a say, not with veto powers, however. And sammy the bull gravano admitted to killing 19 people, those laws are statutory too. I think you know not what you speak. A crime is against the state, but a judge can toss any and all charges as he/she wishes, so statutory means niothing. Wait, it jjust occurred to me you mean statuory rape, a very obvious and fundamental comment. However you need to state that the rape was 'statutory rape' not just statutory, as a traffic violation is statutory. Statutory, in the basic terms, means it is written as statute (law). Oh well, it's your ambiguity party, have a good time making sense by yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statutory Main Entry: stat·u·to·ry Pronunciation: \ˈsta-chə-ˌtȯr-ē\ Function: adjective Date: 1766 1 : of or relating to statutes 2 : enacted, created, or regulated by statute — stat·u·to·ri·ly \ˌsta-chə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē\ adverb The predominant definition is that it defines a law. if you say something is statutory, you're saying it's codified, saying, "The crime was statutory" means it is written as law. You need to say it's, "statutory rape" to be clear. All that means is that she didn't have the legal ability to give consent. And really the issues are deeper, Polanski druggerher or got her drunk. As for the crime, it was against the state, the state can drop it and/or the judge can toss it. Or in a legal sense, they don't have the legal mental maturity to give legal consent, regardless of what they overtly agree to. Yea, maybe the country isn't as all-out conservative crazy and wanting to hang any liberal. On an associated note, your boy Steinbrenner died today, I guess that statutory law and conviction for tax evasion from teh good ole fascist one was ok, I'm sure you're good with that. More empty bravado.

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE. Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving. I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky. Well, don't they deserve it? I'm sure you agree, no sarccasm meant. I think the military is vastly overbuilt and needs immediate downsizing, but that's a diff issue than that of vet needs and/or current military member's needs. ok, not disagreeing here... (though the definitions of vastly likely vary) Attrition; don't induct more service members for a while. Imediate doeasn't mean to chop them now, there's a transitional process for troops and for military manufacturers. Design programs to transition the gross military projects to civil projects and eventually phase away. Nothing along these lines really has an immediate effect, other than post-war chops, but I'm talking basic military ops here. As for accellerating retirement, we won't have the need for nearly as many positions, so I don't see that being a factor. I would venture to say that the biggest military costs are in teh toys, B-1, B-2, tanks, arms, etc and in military retirement pay. Active troops are a bargain sinc ethey are so grossly underpaid. Or a diff part of teh same question; I think teh 2 are intertwined. That's why I said above that there needs to be a transitional process. I have. Look at the GHWB and Clinton approach to downsizing, it worked well and didn't create a riptide. Base closures / realignment phased in and ot worked great until GWB came in and blew teh fucker open fascist Ronnie style. With attrition the way it is, it would be immediately felt. Ever been in the military? Ever seen the size of basic training facilities / number of inductees? - Base closeures / realignment based upon military need / technology - Kill teh B-1 as they are now talking about - kill any excessive / redundant programs - Get out of the M.E. - Close many bases around teh world - Early outs dependant upon MOS - Chop inductees for a while

What's a SIM? (sarcasm)

Its already banned John Besides, it's not a book in the context of this conversation. That's like calling Mad Magazine a book. Shhhesh, John.

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully: I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE. Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving. I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky. Well, don't they deserve it? I'm sure you agree, no sarccasm meant. I think the military is vastly overbuilt and needs immediate downsizing, but that's a diff issue than that of vet needs and/or current military member's needs.

there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven. The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened. But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out. Who knows whatthe judge was gonna do, all we know is that he was considering rejecting the plea deal after Polanski admitted to world what happened; kinda hurts your defense strategy. The judge fucked up, the Swiss fixed it. BTW, his victim could still have asked for a pound of flesh with or w/o the settlement, that wasn't part of the deal, so the settlement is sole and seperate of the way she feels.