Chicago Barn to Wire
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


November 27, 2014, 12:55:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Here We Go Michael Jackson, just for Supernaut  (Read 1354 times)
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« on: March 17, 2006, 01:12:37 PM »



         
     Supernaut:

     Since you choose to critique my every word, allow me to explain myself.  First off, I started this thread because I said I would not make another post on the Doc Narotsky thread where you raised this issue, and I will stand by that decision.

     My mention of Michael Jackson was just that, a mention.  Now, you tell me where did I say that Michael Jackson was guilty of anything by that remark?  Can you read and comprehend? I have been down this road with you before.  You seem to have an anger problem with the legal system and want to pass the brunt of it my way, well too bad for you.

     Okay, let's look at exactly what I said.  QUOTE by me, "You could not be more wrong than Michael Jackson in an amusement park", end of quote.  Where the FUC* does that say Michael is guilty of anything?  NOWHERE!

    Since you seem to know so much Mr. Hotshot, let me tell you a thing or two.  In the first Michael Jackson sexual molestation allegation, there was a $6 million dollar out-of-court settlement paid to the victim’s family.  The courts view out of court settlements as such as a form of guilt.  If you remember correctly, in Jackson’s latest case, his attorney argued high and dry that the state should not be allowed to use the out-of-court settlement in the first case as evidence at the second trial.  Jackson’s attorney lost that argument and it was allowed in as evidence. That is the true reality of how the legal system works, Mr. know-it-all.

     Secondly, my remark was made based on that out-of-court settlement and implied that it would be MORALLY wrong for Mr. Jackson to be around unsupervised children that are so often present at amusement parks around the country.  It has ZERO to do with Mr. Jackson's recent acquittal so yes, you are wrong for saying what you did.  If you can read and are able to comprehend my posts, then you should understand that I never said Michael Jackson was guilty of anything. 

     And, if you understand the criminal justice system as much as you profess, you would completely agree with the not guilty decision of Mr. Jackson's latest trial.  The state simply did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, thus the decision of not guilty.  Do you understand now how the system works, now?

     I never said Jackson was guilty of anything and in fact, feel quite the opposite about Mr. Jackson and would gladly argue that he is the victim of a racists society and being treated unjustly by the media and folks like yourself.   Get your story right about what I post if you’re going to accuse me of anything, okay?  Read and understand my post before you wish to debate something with me about Michael Jackson, and may I remind you, I am very well informed on the Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson trials.

     It appears that you have an axe to grind with me and I'm sorry you feel that way, but get over it. 

     The bottom is that I NEVER said Mr. Jackson was guilty of anything like you tried to imply.  Jackson made an out-of-court settlement in the first sexual molestation case against him; you can interpret anything you wish to about that.  End of story and good day to you, sir.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel for Life)
Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
supernaut
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2006, 03:14:10 PM »

I'm not the one who IMPLIED that Michael Jackson was guilty of ANYTHING. YOU, my friend, DID, with the comment about the amusement park. I did NOT start off that comment. YOU did. And I hardly think that you made that comment thinking about morality. Correct me if I'm wrong(which I'm not) but weren't you the one who was going only by the law and WAS NOT worried then about morals?? I believe the comment was- he was not convicted so he did not do it. And since you are so worried about morals, is it morally correct for a lawyer to take money from a known and convicted felon??? It is legally, but is it morally??? It is not a stretch to think that some of these people got their money illegally?? But somehow lawyers can distance themselves from this by saying -MAYBE they came by it honestly, or by just ignoring that fact altogether or pretending not to know. And if Michael Jackson was not guilty, why should he worry about being in an amusement park?? He is a freeperson and has every right to go anywhere he pleases. Amusement parks included. And as for his trial, I would have no way of knowing if he was guilty or not. I was NOT a member of his jury so I did not have privy to any of the evidence to make an educated decision.
You seem to pick and choose when to side with morality and when to side with the law.
Kind of like wanting the cake and eating it too. Let's see-Narotsky and tw-guilty, Anybody I like-innocent. Doesn't quite work that way. I NEVER thought that I'd be sticking up for the Snake racing secretary. Yeah, he wanted to make a HUGE score at 3/5- he can retire on that.You make a huge deal about the horse not being eligible and that it was his fault. If he wanted the horse in the race that badly, he would have written a AE CONDITION TO GET THE HORSE IN. Am I the only one who has seen THIS happen?Huh? The races at Spk were the absolute worst written races in the history of racing. 
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that it this complaint about Katie Bell must be racist because there was a black guy who cashed on her. And after all, nobody white wants to see some black guy cash.........................
Report to moderator   Logged
abtruth
Full Member
***
Posts: 135




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2006, 03:17:05 PM »

mikel jackson is a looser who tuches yung boys.that is fact.know matter how much hush monie he pays it wont change the fact.they sleep in his bed and know he flu too arabia to molest more.truth
Report to moderator   Logged
Dan Nance
Guest

« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2006, 03:34:27 PM »

Does anyone know where Michael can get a loan for $316,000? That's what he owes the workers at Neverland Ranch and has been ordered to pay.

    Has anyone seen " Joe The Hat "?
Report to moderator   Logged
Rollinsmolin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 533




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2006, 03:35:33 PM »

joe "the hat" last time i seen him was at hawthorne lol
Report to moderator   Logged

loved by many hated by most rollinsmolin aka bobby
TC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4183




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2006, 03:37:06 PM »

Joe's at Maywood just about every Friday.  Who needs $500 for a week ?   trotter  TC
Report to moderator   Logged
Rollinsmolin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 533




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2006, 03:39:11 PM »

who needs $4000 for a week
Report to moderator   Logged

loved by many hated by most rollinsmolin aka bobby
Dan Nance
Guest

« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2006, 03:39:40 PM »

Joe's at Maywood just about every Friday.  Who needs $500 for a week ?   trotter  TC

Somebody should tell Michael where to find Joe " the hat ". Joe can send Wacko to the right people.
Report to moderator   Logged
njhorseman
Guest

« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2006, 03:40:00 PM »


    Since you seem to know so much Mr. Hotshot, let me tell you a thing or two.  In the first Michael Jackson sexual molestation allegation, there was a $6 million dollar out-of-court settlement paid to the victim’s family.  The courts view out of court settlements as such as a form of guilt.  If you remember correctly, in Jackson’s latest case, his attorney argued high and dry that the state should not be allowed to use the out-of-court settlement in the first case as evidence at the second trial.  Jackson’s attorney lost that argument and it was allowed in as evidence. That is the true reality of how the legal system works, Mr. know-it-all.



Joe, Joe, Joe, that isn't how it works.

First, no one, but no one, agrees to an out of court settlement without inclusion of the condition that the settlement does not reflect any admission of guilt, fault or wrong-doing. Remember Joe, the settlement was of a CIVIL, not a criminal case.

Second, the court's ruling that the settlement could be used as evidence in the trial does not mean that " The courts view out of court settlements as such as a form of guilt." It merely means that the court believes it is relevant to the case being tried, which is by no means the same as being a "form of guilt".
Report to moderator   Logged
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2006, 04:10:59 PM »

I'm not the one who IMPLIED that Michael Jackson was guilty of ANYTHING. YOU, my friend, DID, with the comment about the amusement park. I did NOT start off that comment. YOU did. And I hardly think that you made that comment thinking about morality. Correct me if I'm wrong(which I'm not) but weren't you the one who was going only by the law and WAS NOT worried then about morals?? I believe the comment was- he was not convicted so he did not do it. And since you are so worried about morals, is it morally correct for a lawyer to take money from a known and convicted felon??? It is legally, but is it morally??? It is not a stretch to think that some of these people got their money illegally?? But somehow lawyers can distance themselves from this by saying -MAYBE they came by it honestly, or by just ignoring that fact altogether or pretending not to know. And if Michael Jackson was not guilty, why should he worry about being in an amusement park?? He is a freeperson and has every right to go anywhere he pleases. Amusement parks included. And as for his trial, I would have no way of knowing if he was guilty or not. I was NOT a member of his jury so I did not have privy to any of the evidence to make an educated decision.
You seem to pick and choose when to side with morality and when to side with the law.
Kind of like wanting the cake and eating it too. Let's see-Narotsky and tw-guilty, Anybody I like-innocent. Doesn't quite work that way. I NEVER thought that I'd be sticking up for the Snake racing secretary. Yeah, he wanted to make a HUGE score at 3/5- he can retire on that.You make a huge deal about the horse not being eligible and that it was his fault. If he wanted the horse in the race that badly, he would have written a AE CONDITION TO GET THE HORSE IN. Am I the only one who has seen THIS happen?Huh? The races at Spk were the absolute worst written races in the history of racing. 
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that it this complaint about Katie Bell must be racist because there was a black guy who cashed on her. And after all, nobody white wants to see some black guy cash.........................
Supernaut:

     Wrong again.  Just as I thought, you cannot provide any type of proof that would show I said anything about weather or not Michael Jackson was guilty in my post.  Talk about someone wanting to have his or her cake and eat it too, have a good look in the mirror.  LOL  I never said Michael Jackson was guilty and you know it.  If you wish to imply things by reading my posts, that is on you my friend.  Don't tell me what I was thinking when I wrote that remark because you haven't a clue and it makes you look like a jackass.

     How the FUC* do you know if I was making that remark based on morality or not?  Once again, you’re wrong.  You don't, so stop acting like you know the criminal justice system and what people are thinking, because you don’t.

     You're wrong again; I was in fact concerned about not only the law, but morals as well.  Do you even know what a not guilty verdict means?  If you do, then you should have a better understanding of the criminal justice system, and it is painfully evident that you don’t so I'll tell you Mr. Know-it-all.

     A not guilty verdict simply means the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not mean someone is innocent of the charges.  Know and understand this, my friend. Furthermore, the courts view an out-of-court-settlement as in the first Jackson case, a form of guilt. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOW??

     It is not against the law for an attorney to accept money from a known or convicted felon.  As a matter-of-factly, attorneys represent felons in criminal proceedings on a daily basis.  As I told you before, nobody is willing to work for free, yourself included, and it is not an attorney's job to find out where the method of payment came from, or if it was morally or legally obtained.  In addition, it is not an attorney's obligation to try and guess if the monetary payment they received is legal or not.  Of course if a felon says that he obtained money illegally the attorney has an obligation to report them to the proper authorities at once.  What is your beef with attorneys, anyway?  Were you done wrong somewhere by an attorney and now you're pissed at the entire legal community?  Please explain.    

     Nobody said Michael Jackson himself should worry about being in an amusement park, its people like the first victims family that should be concerned.  After all, they were the recipients of a $6 million settlement from Jackson.  Of course, maybe Jackson was just helping out the poor by sharing his wealth with a down and out young boy and his family.  You see, I never said Jackson was guilty of anything because that would be a lie.  If he is guilty of anything, its race discrimination being placed upon him by the media and folks like yourself.

     I don't have to pick and choose morality and law when it benefits me.  Attorneys have a code of ethics that they must adhere to at all times, plain and simple.  As far as Tom Wendt's guilt, if somebody is found guilty at his or her trial, I don't know what that means by your standards, but they are a criminal according to the criminal justice system and in the real world.  

     It does not matter what you or I think about Michael Jackson’s guilt, now does it?  You have some kind of complaint against the legal system and African-American people. You might try some sort of intervention to help combat your anger that you display.  I am not going to argue with you about anything because it is a waste of time and non-productive.  

     Maybe try going to law school so you can get a better understanding of how things work in the criminal justice system.  Let me know when you do because I would love for you to teach all about how things work in the REAL WORLD.  Good luck to you and have a wonderful day.  

PS- On another thread, I already admitted that I was wrong and that Doc Narotsky is a wonderful race secretary who would never do anything illegal or immoral.  It is my fault that the program line on Katie Bell was fraudulent and I will accept full responsibility for it.  I apologize to you for the program mistake that was my error and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Doc Narotsky had nothing to do with it.


Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel for Life)

Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
Dan Nance
Guest

« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2006, 04:25:12 PM »

Can anyone teach me to do the " moonwalk "? Or teach me how to walk in and out of a courtroom looking like I have a bad back? Can someone also tell me where to get the proper PJ's to wear to a courtroom?

     
Report to moderator   Logged
John Doe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1123




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2006, 04:34:12 PM »

Joe, Joe, Joe, that isn't how it works.

First, no one, but no one, agrees to an out of court settlement without inclusion of the condition that the settlement does not reflect any admission of guilt, fault or wrong-doing. Remember Joe, the settlement was of a CIVIL, not a criminal case.

Second, the court's ruling that the settlement could be used as evidence in the trial does not mean that " The courts view out of court settlements as such as a form of guilt." It merely means that the court believes it is relevant to the case being tried, which is by no means the same as being a "form of guilt".

New Jersey Paul, Paul, Paul;

     Not true.  When an out-of-court settlement is reached, the party that is paying the settlement has no say on weather future court proceedings will use the settlement agreement or not.  There can be many different amendments attached to the settlement, like not speaking to the media, or the terms and conditions of the settlement asking for outrageous things, but the courts have the authority and power to raise the issue of that settlement if they feel it pertains to the case at hand, and they DO consider an out-of-court settlement an admission and guilt, PERIOD.  I know this because this issue was discussed more than once in my criminal law class and my friend who is a circuit court judge in Nevada has also confirmed it.  Some of my field trips have included trips to the courts and speaking with judges in their chambers, and Judge’s have repeatedly told me time and time again that out-of-court settlements can and will be used at the time of trial, so you can take this information to the bank.

     Of course the attorney that represents the party that must pay the money will do everything in their power to have the opposing party sign their life away with confidentially agreements and such, but a judge will decide what and if that evidence is allowed in a trial or not.

     Paul, remember one thing, Judges have the power to allow evidence in based on oral arguments presented or through the use of their discretionary power on if the settlement is pertinent in the case at hand, and they will do what they are constitutionally bound to do.     

     As it relates to trial, the state often uses the out-of-court settlement against the defense question why and raising integrity arguments about guilt associated with the settlement.  Just ask any Judge how the courts view these settlements.  I agree with you that very often there are terms that accompany these types of settlements in trying to sweep them under the carpet, but they are in fact considered a form of guilt in today’s courtroom.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel for Life)

« Last Edit: March 17, 2006, 04:39:01 PM by JDakuras » Report to moderator   Logged

AND NOW, HERE ARE YOUR UNLV 1990 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS:
                       GREG ANTHONY
                       ANDERSON HUNT
                       MOSES SCURRY
                       STACEY AUGMON
                       LARRY JOHNSON
THE BEST COACH EVER, JERRY "TARK" TARKANIAN
THIS IS HEAVEN
Dan Nance
Guest

« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2006, 04:42:00 PM »

New Jersey Paul, Paul, Paul;

     Not true.  When an out-of-court settlement is reached, the party that is paying the settlement has no say on weather future court proceedings will use the settlement agreement or not.  There can be many different amendments attached to the settlement, like not speaking to the media, or the terms and conditions of the settlement asking for outrageous things, but the courts have the authority and power to raise the issue of that settlement if they feel it pertains to the case at hand, and they DO consider an out-of-court settlement an admission and guilt, PERIOD.  I know this because this issue was discussed more than once in my criminal law class and my friend who is a circuit court judge in Nevada has also confirmed it.  Some of my field trips have included trips to the courts and speaking with judges in their chambers, and Judge’s have repeatedly told me time and time again that out-of-court settlements can and will be use at the time of trial, so you can take this information to the bank.

     Of course the attorney that represents the party that must pay the money will do everything in their power to have the opposing party sign their life away with confidentially agreements and such, but a judge will decide what and if that evidence is allowed in a trial or not.

     Paul, remember one thing, Judges have the power to allow evidence in based on oral arguments presented or through the use of their discretionary power on if the settlement is pertinent in the case at hand, and they will do what they are constitutionally bound to do.      

     As it relates to trial, the state often uses the out-of-court settlement against the defense question why and raising integrity arguments about guilt associated with the settlement.  Just ask any Judge how the courts view these settlements.  I agree with you that very often there are terms that accompany these types of settlements in trying to sweep them under the carpet, but they are in fact considered a form of guilt in today’s courtroom.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel for Life)


Guess what guys? I don't care what the verdict was because I think Wacko is as guilty as sin, and so do most people. Why don't all of you just admit it too that you feel he's a sicko and he got off for the reasons OJ got off.

    Michael is a finished product just like Chicago harness racing. The man shouldn't even be allowed in a sand pile let alone an amusement park.
Report to moderator   Logged
SUPERMAN
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1120




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2006, 06:30:24 PM »

       What does this have to do with harness racing??? Sheesh!!! thumbs down
Report to moderator   Logged
njhorseman
Guest

« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2006, 08:03:20 PM »

New Jersey Paul, Paul, Paul;

     Not true.  When an out-of-court settlement is reached, the party that is paying the settlement has no say on weather future court proceedings will use the settlement agreement or not.  There can be many different amendments attached to the settlement, like not speaking to the media, or the terms and conditions of the settlement asking for outrageous things, but the courts have the authority and power to raise the issue of that settlement if they feel it pertains to the case at hand, and they DO consider an out-of-court settlement an admission and guilt, PERIOD.  I know this because this issue was discussed more than once in my criminal law class and my friend who is a circuit court judge in Nevada has also confirmed it.  Some of my field trips have included trips to the courts and speaking with judges in their chambers, and Judge’s have repeatedly told me time and time again that out-of-court settlements can and will be used at the time of trial, so you can take this information to the bank.

     Of course the attorney that represents the party that must pay the money will do everything in their power to have the opposing party sign their life away with confidentially agreements and such, but a judge will decide what and if that evidence is allowed in a trial or not.

     Paul, remember one thing, Judges have the power to allow evidence in based on oral arguments presented or through the use of their discretionary power on if the settlement is pertinent in the case at hand, and they will do what they are constitutionally bound to do.     

     As it relates to trial, the state often uses the out-of-court settlement against the defense question why and raising integrity arguments about guilt associated with the settlement.  Just ask any Judge how the courts view these settlements.  I agree with you that very often there are terms that accompany these types of settlements in trying to sweep them under the carpet, but they are in fact considered a form of guilt in today’s courtroom.

Best Regards,
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel for Life)



Joe:

 
I realize that " When an out-of-court settlement is reached, the party that is paying the settlement has no say on weather future court proceedings will use the settlement agreement or not ", but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

Last I checked, in a jury trial the judge decides what can be admitted into evidence, under the Rules of Evidence and based on its relevance to the case being tried, but the jury ultimately decides what constitutes proof of  guilt.

You might want to check the following article, which presents a good plain language explanation of what evidence was allowed at the Jackson trial:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0328051jacksonpast1.html

If you do an internet search on the phrase "prior bad acts as evidence",  you'll find many interesting rulings and explanations of when and why such evidence may be admissible.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2006, 09:18:46 PM by njhorseman » Report to moderator   Logged
HANK3849
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 328




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2006, 10:17:04 PM »

You guys just don't get it. George W. Bush did it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.249 seconds with 17 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy