Comments on: Andrew & Sam Updates

By: Vix

Vix — Thu, 07 May 2009 07:16:38 +0000

TY Lpviper!

That makes sense to me, but the courts never seem to follow any real form of logic that I can tell.

By: Lpviper

Lpviper — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:30:04 +0000

Amendment 7:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I think Ian was trying to say that if the court wished to indemnify Andrew in the amount of 420 dollars, then they would need to empanel a jury to legitimately do so. Is that right?

By: charley hardman

charley hardman — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:11:00 +0000

“Confused” Where did anyone say anything about the 7th amendment?

funny.

By: Ryan Gubele

Ryan Gubele — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:05:18 +0000

I had one suggestion for Andrew:

Impeach the witness! Burke shut down a lot of your questioning because it wasn't "relevant" to the case. Impeaching the state's witnesses is always relevant, so you might get a judge to give you more leniency in your questioning if you say you're doing it to impeach the witness. "What relevance does XXX have?" "Goes to credibility your "honor" — if officer Dumbass is so stupid as to not know X, we certainly have reason to question his ability to follow policies Y and Z…"

By: Vix

Vix — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:05:30 +0000

"Confused" Where did anyone say anything about the 7th amendment?

By: charley hardman

charley hardman — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:18:15 +0000

what right would andrew rely upon to enslave a panel of jurors via the tyranny of the state? BTW, constitution stumblers (e.g., ian the law adviser), not the 7th, but the 6th amendment of the US constitution concerns andrew's case.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

By: Lpviper

Lpviper — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:51:41 +0000

No, but they sure are sexxxxy in those black dresses….

By: Ogre

Ogre — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:10:15 +0000

Don't you love when the Supreme Court decides that it can change the Constitution on a whim?

By: Curt Springer

Curt Springer — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:37:49 +0000

Here is an explanation of equity vs. common law that you might find interesting and instructive: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equ...

By: Lpviper

Lpviper — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:17:18 +0000

I'd be scared outta me knickers

Thank You Andrew, for standing up for my rights.

And Sam…wow. Before anyone says anything critical about the man, think to yourself for a moment, 'Could I stay if I could so easily be freed?'

And then, think about whether you are truly being freed by getting out of the cage.