Ponderable

xav10 said:
WRONG. Clinton was civil contempt, Arpaio was criminal contempt. Big difference as you know.
Click to expand...

Really?

Judge Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court
By Roberto Suro and Joan Biskupic
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 13, 1999; Page A1

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order.

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.

Wright, who personally presided over Clinton's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to "protect the integrity" of the judicial process.

"Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote.

Wright had the option to order more severe penalties under her civil contempt authority and had the power to summarily find Clinton guilty of criminal contempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm
 
Lion Eyes said:
Really?

Judge Finds Clinton in Contempt of Court
By Roberto Suro and Joan Biskupic
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 13, 1999; Page A1

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order.

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern.

Wright, who personally presided over Clinton's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case, acknowledged that no court had ever taken such action against a president but said it was important to act to "protect the integrity" of the judicial process.

"Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president's misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system," she wrote.

Wright had the option to order more severe penalties under her civil contempt authority and had the power to summarily find Clinton guilty of criminal contempt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm
Click to expand...
Yes, really. Civil contempt for which "sanctions" can issue from the court. Arpaio was "criminal." OJ got off in criminal court but lost in civil. Big difference.
 
xav10 said:
Yes, really. Civil contempt for which "sanctions" can issue from the court. Arpaio was "criminal." OJ got off in criminal court but lost in civil. Big difference.
Click to expand...
They should be giving him a medal for keeping the illegal alien criminals out and protecting your dumb ass.
 
xav10 said:
Yes, really. Civil contempt for which "sanctions" can issue from the court. Arpaio was "criminal." OJ got off in criminal court but lost in civil. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Well counselor, you are aware that Arpaio was found in civil contempt by one judge and second judge changed that finding to criminal contempt....
There are those that believe Arpaio would have had that finding overturned on appeal.

"Bolton handed down her decision roughly one year after she approved a federal contempt charge against Arpaio. The charge had originated with a civil contempt finding by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow in Melendres v. Arpaio, a class action lawsuit backed by the ACLU that accused the sheriff and his officers of racial profiling."

Wondering, what type of law do you practice?
Criminal, civil, tax law? Copy right infringement? Family law? Admiralty law? Personal Injury? Real Estate? Labor law?
 
Lion Eyes said:
Well counselor, you are aware that Arpaio was found in civil contempt by one judge and second judge changed that finding to criminal contempt....
There are those that believe Arpaio would have had that finding overturned on appeal.

"Bolton handed down her decision roughly one year after she approved a federal contempt charge against Arpaio. The charge had originated with a civil contempt finding by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow in Melendres v. Arpaio, a class action lawsuit backed by the ACLU that accused the sheriff and his officers of racial profiling."

Wondering, what type of law do you practice?
Criminal, civil, tax law? Copy right infringement? Family law? Admiralty law? Personal Injury? Real Estate? Labor law?
Click to expand...
So you checked and saw that he had a criminal contempt conviction, unlike President Clinton, who was convicted of no crime. I'd rather not divulge my specialty...I don't go to court though, I am a transactional lawyer.
 
xav10 said:
So you checked and saw that he had a criminal contempt conviction, unlike President Clinton, who was convicted of no crime. I'd rather not divulge my specialty...I don't go to court though, I am a transactional lawyer.
Click to expand...
Checked? I don't make shit up x10
The judge changed the civil contempt to criminal.
The judge could have found Clinton in criminal contempt, rather than civil contempt.
Judges wield great power and discretion. They do what they want. Often times it's turned over on appeal.
Clinton was found in contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Arpaio was found in contempt of court for “flagrant disregard” for another federal judge’s order that halted his immigration round-ups.

Tell me counselor, what is the difference between "willful failure" & “flagrant disregard”?
 
Lion Eyes said:
Checked? I don't make shit up x10
The judge changed the civil contempt to criminal.
The judge could have found Clinton in criminal contempt, rather than civil contempt.
Judges wield great power and discretion. They do what they want. Often times it's turned over on appeal.
Clinton was found in contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Arpaio was found in contempt of court for “flagrant disregard” for another federal judge’s order that halted his immigration round-ups.

Tell me counselor, what is the difference between "willful failure" & “flagrant disregard”?
Click to expand...
See my OJ example. One was civil and one was criminal. I assume the wording was much the same, as it was here. So you can feel good about your original post, that they were found guilty of the same thing, if you want to obfuscate the distinction between a criminal conviction and a civil finding. You can say it could have been the same or whatever you want if you don't want to correct your initial misstatement.
 
xav10 said:
See my OJ example. One was civil and one was criminal. I assume the wording was much the same, as it was here. So you can feel good about your original post, that they were found guilty of the same thing, if you want to obfuscate the distinction between a criminal conviction and a civil finding. You can say it could have been the same or whatever you want if you don't want to correct your initial misstatement.
Click to expand...

Simpson is guilty of murder. Do you think Simpson is somehow less guilty because he was convicted in a civil suit rather than the criminal trial?
Clinton and Apaio were held in contempt by Judges.
No miss statement, the judge in Clinton's case COULD have found him guilty of criminal contempt, she decided not to.
The judge in Arpaio's case decided to change the civil contempt to criminal contempt. The fact that you don't see the similarities is amusing.
Clinton was disbarred and fined $90,000.00.
Arpaio was pardoned.
End of story.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Simpson is guilty of murder. Do you think Simpson is somehow less guilty because he was convicted in a civil suit rather than the criminal trial?
Clinton and Apaio were held in contempt by Judges.
No miss statement, the judge in Clinton's case COULD have found him guilty of criminal contempt, she decided not to.
The judge in Arpaio's case decided to change the civil contempt to criminal contempt. The fact that you don't see the similarities is amusing.
Clinton was disbarred and fined $90,000.00.
Arpaio was pardoned.
End of story.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. An assortment of opinions interwoven with misstatements and ignorance of facts and legal distinctions. We begin in order.

1. Simpson was found not guilty by a jury of each criminal count in his first California trial in criminal court.
2. Simpson was subsequently found liable in his second California trial, in civil court, for the unlawful deaths of the two victims of the same set of actions that a previous criminal court jury found him not guilty. The liability was measured at $33m, which I recently saw stands at approximately $70m through interest since it was awarded, and virtually none of it has been recovered by the victims' families through the various nefarious actions Simpson undertook since that civil judgment was entered.
3. Simpson's nefarious conduct that led to his third trial, a criminal court matter in Nevada, stemming from his willful conduct in leading an armed robbery to illegally obtain property, resulted in his conviction and incarceration in Nevada.
4. Nevada was among the worst states in the country to undertake his robbery, from his perspective, because it has nowhere near the caselaw that California has, in terms of precedent. So he was hammered in the sentencing. No problem for me. I would never have paroled him, and I am saddened Nevada appears to not have a Governor's power to overturn a parole board decision. California, thankfully does. As you may recall, the dastardly villain, Gov. Brown nixed the recent parole of one of the Manson women.
 
Regardless of jury nullification anyone with a brain knows Simpson is guilty of murder.
Period.
Perhaps before you comment you might want to read the entire conversation?
Bye.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Regardless of jury nullification anyone with a brain knows Simpson is guilty of murder.
Period.
Perhaps before you comment you might want to read the entire conversation?
Bye.
Click to expand...
All of the blathering the usual suspects post are generally opinions. Opinions are not facts. I don't give a hoot about informed or uninformed opinions.

But you offered a statement of fact that is not true. The California criminal court did not convict that heinous butcher of murder. But he got some measure of justice by being so arrogant and stupid as to commit a crime in one of the last remaining "old west" states.

But feel free to inaccurately weave misstatements of fact and fiction into your opinions. Most of the country does it all the time. Kinda like most of your Clinton perjury thoughts.
 
xav10 said:
See my OJ example. One was civil and one was criminal. I assume the wording was much the same, as it was here. So you can feel good about your original post, that they were found guilty of the same thing, if you want to obfuscate the distinction between a criminal conviction and a civil finding. You can say it could have been the same or whatever you want if you don't want to correct your initial misstatement.
Click to expand...
Who gives a shit, our country was a little safer from what Arpaio did. Just say thank you and STFU.
You would side with illegal aliens over our own people, you are pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top