Merged The Roy Moore Batcrap Crazy Remark Thread/Roy Moore Is Done

[TheGoldcountry]

There's only one book she's interested in.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. Thanks for making it clear. People like her constantly bring up the Constitution, but clearly haven't read it.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Basically is the same thing. It's a common law right to refuse to answer questions, whether pre or during the trial. The Right to Silence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

"The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination."

Very similar to the US Constitution 5th amendment. Which people exercise too infrequently, IMO.

Look at the Brendon Dassey case- young kid, who was manipulated by detectives. Horrible. Keep your mouth shut, other than "I want a lawyer."

I don't understand how anyone can watch that and uphold his conviction

 

[pgwenthold]

There's only one book she's interested in.

Other than textbooks, what books do people "rent"?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Other than textbooks, what books do people "rent"?

That's why I said that I doubt she has been in a library. They "lend" people books, they don't "rent" them.

 

[Armitage72]

That's why I said that I doubt she has been in a library. They "lend" people books, they don't "rent" them.

Lend? You mean collectively share them? That sounds an awful lot like Socialism.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I thought it was "This is so without merit, why did you even bother us with this in the first place?"

It can be. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means the plaintiff can file the same suit again. This often happens if the plaintiff has not clearly stated what their claim is or what they want the court to decide, or if there are some technical problems with the paperwork. It can also happen if the plaintiff voluntarily asks for dismissal (although a voluntary dismissal could be with prejudice. For example, if I sue you for non-payment and then you pay me, the case would be dismissed with prejudice because the matter is finally resolved). A case may also be dismissed without prejudice if the judge determines that the plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to go forward, but that such evidence could become available later on.

If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the court has issued a final ruling on the matter and it may not be brought to the court again. This often occurs when the court has made a decision based on the merits of the case (although the defendant often counter-sues to cover legal fees, in which case the court may rule in favor of the defendant instead of simply dismissing the case). A case may also be dismissed with prejudice if the judge finds that the plaintiff is attempting to deceive the court, act in bad faith, or filing a frivolous case.

In this case it was dismissed with prejudice because the court does not have jurisdiction. Moore asked the court for a temporary restraining order and to order a new election. Alabama law establishes the procedures to contest and election and specifically states that a court cannot issue an injunction or order a new election. Because the court does not have jurisdiction, there is no way for the court to legally grant Moore what he is asking for, therefore the case was dismissed with prejudice.

 

[beren]

It can be. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means the plaintiff can file the same suit again. This often happens if the plaintiff has not clearly stated what their claim is or what they want the court to decide, or if there are some technical problems with the paperwork. It can also happen if the plaintiff voluntarily asks for dismissal (although a voluntary dismissal could be with prejudice. For example, if I sue you for non-payment and then you pay me, the case would be dismissed with prejudice because the matter is finally resolved). A case may also be dismissed without prejudice if the judge determines that the plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to go forward, but that such evidence could become available later on.

If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the court has issued a final ruling on the matter and it may not be brought to the court again. This often occurs when the court has made a decision based on the merits of the case (although the defendant often counter-sues to cover legal fees, in which case the court may rule in favor of the defendant instead of simply dismissing the case). A case may also be dismissed with prejudice if the judge finds that the plaintiff is attempting to deceive the court, act in bad faith, or filing a frivolous case.

In this case it was dismissed with prejudice because the court does not have jurisdiction. Moore asked the court for a temporary restraining order and to order a new election. Alabama law establishes the procedures to contest and election and specifically states that a court cannot issue an injunction or order a new election. Because the court does not have jurisdiction, there is no way for the court to legally grant Moore what he is asking for, therefore the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Well now, we can hardly expect Moore to be knowledgeable about Alabama law, now can we? Not really within his career experience.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The affidavit about the polygraph is a bit of a head scratcher. It doesn’t have anything to do with the claim of voter fraud. Moore doesn’t make a claim of slander or even say that any fraudulent accusations invalidated the election. It is just tossed in as a non sequitur. I think Moore just put it in there to get it into the public record.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Well now, we can hardly expect Moore to be knowledgeable about Alabama law, now can we? Not really within his career experience.

I think the case is more of a publicity stunt rather than an actual legal case. The complaint reads more like a bunch of mudslinging instead of a well-reasoned legal argument. I think the hope is that it will give their side of the story some importance and create a public outcry to pressure the state to put off certifying Jones. It doesn’t look like it is going to work.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

From this blog, linked in that article:


My bold. He's misspelled the N-word there.

Except that is contradictory to the evidence presented in Moore’s legal complaint. He included an affidavit by a poll worker who was checking licenses who noticed an exceptionally large number of out-of-state license, mostly from Georgia and North Carolina. The poll worker said she has worked the polls for 20 years and never seen so many. She says she verified that all of them were registered.

But, she says all of the people with out-of-state license were white. She says she noticed this because her district in Montgomery is predominantly black and that it would be unusual for so many white people to be moving into such a black area.

So Moore is claiming that a whole bunch of white people from GA and NC somehow fraudulently registered to vote in a predominantly black district in Montgomery and then came over and voted for Jones.

 

[Trebuchet]

It can be. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means the plaintiff can file the same suit again.

You've inadvertently got that backward, I think. Well, I think inadvertently, it's certainly backward.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

You've inadvertently got that backward, I think. Well, I think inadvertently, it's certainly backward.

Oops. I adversely got that inadvertently inverted.

 

[fuelair]

I fully expect Roy to sow up at the Senate on the 3rd to be sworn in by his fellow fundie Pence.

I agree - Moore is the kind I would expect to want to make it with a sow!!!!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The affidavit about the polygraph is a bit of a head scratcher. It doesn’t have anything to do with the claim of voter fraud. Moore doesn’t make a claim of slander or even say that any fraudulent accusations invalidated the election. It is just tossed in as a non sequitur. I think Moore just put it in there to get it into the public record.

The letter is very Trumpesque.

 

[quadraginta]

Basically is the same thing. It's a common law right to refuse to answer questions, whether pre or during the trial. The Right to Silence.

Simply refusing to answer questions while under oath in court is not basically the same thing as the right guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

"The right to silence in England and Wales is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination."

Yes, not being forced to give testimony which may incriminate yourself is "basically" the same thing.

Still not the same thing as merely refusing to say anything. Not in the U.S at any rate.

 

[a_unique_person]

By the way, the "By the way" lady is back on CNN. She is despicable.

 

[Trebuchet]

I believe this is the lady in question.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It can be. If a case is dismissed with prejudice it means the plaintiff can file the same suit again. This often happens if the plaintiff has not clearly stated what their claim is or what they want the court to decide, or if there are some technical problems with the paperwork. It can also happen if the plaintiff voluntarily asks for dismissal (although a voluntary dismissal could be with prejudice. For example, if I sue you for non-payment and then you pay me, the case would be dismissed with prejudice because the matter is finally resolved). A case may also be dismissed without prejudice if the judge determines that the plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to go forward, but that such evidence could become available later on.

If a case is dismissed with prejudice, it means the court has issued a final ruling on the matter and it may not be brought to the court again. This often occurs when the court has made a decision based on the merits of the case (although the defendant often counter-sues to cover legal fees, in which case the court may rule in favor of the defendant instead of simply dismissing the case). A case may also be dismissed with prejudice if the judge finds that the plaintiff is attempting to deceive the court, act in bad faith, or filing a frivolous case.

In this case it was dismissed with prejudice because the court does not have jurisdiction. Moore asked the court for a temporary restraining order and to order a new election. Alabama law establishes the procedures to contest and election and specifically states that a court cannot issue an injunction or order a new election. Because the court does not have jurisdiction, there is no way for the court to legally grant Moore what he is asking for, therefore the case was dismissed with prejudice.

I think you have one too many "with prejudice" in your post. The first mention should say "without prejudice".

Simplified version: No, it isn't saying don't bother us with this b.s. although it might amount to that. "With Prejudice" in practical terms simply means that the court won't entertain the same complaint again, while "Without Prejudice" means that you have to examine the ruling and there may be some procedural flaw that you can fix and re-file. It is to be assumed the court has properly examined both (dismissed without and dismissed with) fully and in good faith and is ruling on the merits of the case and not on how annoying they find the parties to the suit to be.

 

[Andy_Ross]

^^^^^^^^

But most of us know what it means, as we do get one or two US TV shows here.

AFAIK you can effectively do the same thing in the UK. It's just called not answering.

But the Judge can point out to the Jury that they can draw adverse conclusions from the lack of answers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just saw her interview with Anderson Cooper from three weeks ago. Not only did she not answer any questions, going off on tangents, she had this gem- "When you go to rent a book, you have to show a DL and birth certificate." I honestly wonder if she's ever been in a library.

She obviously uses one of the chain of popular book rental stores that dot the nation.