No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[NorthwestFresh]

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

I'm suing over this one. You have defamed me.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

UMGriz75 just destroyed his entire credibility as a "legal expert". :lol:

Defamation is the communication of a false claim or statement of fact about another person that harms his or her reputation. This statement does not need to be made to a large group of people; you can be liable even if you make the statement to just one other person (other than the person the statement is about). There are two types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation, including things written on Internet websites, blogs and message boards. The second is slander or spoken defamation.

http://saperlaw.com/practice-areas/defamation-lawyers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a joke.

 

[PTGrizzly]

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

I'm suing over this one. You have defamed me.

Maybe you and PR are the same person...

 

[NorthwestFresh]

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

I'm suing over this one. You have defamed me.

Maybe you and PR are the same person...

Maybe 'Greenie' and I are the same person, too. :roll:

I'm knee-deep in lawyers right now thanks to a member of eGriz.

 

[Umista]

So am I. Three for me. All in business type riddle flung, if U know what I mean.

Good for you girls and guys keeping this record afloat. The NCAA along with the other crack-pot investigators read this on a "must read basis" ..... I am so proud of you and thanks.

Two were talking with some kids previously in athletics at the U. Nothing noted or unusual.

 

[UMGriz75]

Why the "new" name, by the way? What appears to be talking to yourself, and giving yourself kudos under another name, seems like it could possibly be psychotic to me. At the very least, it's creepy, and seems unstable on many fronts.

Wow, you got caught in an outright fabrication, and now you are on a vengeance mission. Put on your big boy pants and just apologize.

 

[UMGriz75]

UMGriz75 just destroyed his entire credibility as a "legal expert". :lol:

Defamation is the communication of a false claim or statement of fact about another person that harms his or her reputation. This statement does not need to be made to a large group of people; you can be liable even if you make the statement to just one other person (other than the person the statement is about). There are two types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation, including things written on Internet websites, blogs and message boards. The second is slander or spoken defamation.

http://saperlaw.com/practice-areas/defamation-lawyers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a joke.

Well, you are just a genius aren't you? A real scholar. If you practiced in this area of law, you would know that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has, for instance, defined "transitory" communications as those stored on servers, so as to exempt passive storage as a slander. Is a spoken message "published" or "broadcast" on YouTube and does it then qualify as a "slander" or a "libel"?

Even a slander must be "communicated" and "transitory media" as defined under the Federal Act appears to consider that "slander" encompasses digital communications which are not permanently published and distributed and in fact utilize broadcasting technology, not publication technology. The distinction is now somewhat arcane because of these changes as pointed out by one expert in the field:

"Newer technologies, particularly online media, have created legally fuzzy areas regarding the distinction between libel and slander. Take online chats, for example. They are clearly broadcast via a mass medium, and they are also clearly written forms of communication, so any defamatory statements that take place through online chats can be considered libelous. But the actual mode of communication in online chatting is most similar to a face-to-face conversation or phone call, which would only qualify as slander if such communications were published or broadcast. Court decisions may one day help form the legal definitions of defamation on this shaky ground, but so far, they have not."

The concept of "transitory" appears to be controlling; even emails cannot be "disappeared" whereas comments on a forum like this are the very definition of "transitory" and may not be here tomorrow; which hardly qualifies as "published," which implies a permanent communication.

So, I use the word "slander" advisedly and with some thought to its meaning. You can disagree all you want; but I used it with a specific eye to federal legislation and the likely evolution of the law in that regard.

I am sure that this is all a nice distraction from the fact that you made a false accusation on this thread, was expose for it, and can't seem to "man up" enough to just simply say you were wrong.

It is interesting to me how those who are negative to JJ's position in this overall tragedy are willing to resort to all sorts of tactics to derail direct conversation and discussion of the merits of the case so far available in the public record.

 

[bigkid]

I believe I know the answer to what is probably a dumb question but doesn't the prosecutors office have a copy machine so the defense can look at these texts? I realize that discovery would indicate that the defense is only able to look at what the prosecutors use but at some time wouldn't the defense have the ability to look at the texts in they're entirety. Wouldn't it make sense that JJ would be able to face his accuser with all the information. All this seems a bit to convienient to me as the judge would be able to either admit or not any evidence submitted. Is the prosecution stonewalling? The actual event was back in Feb for petes sake.

 

[GrizPony]

I believe I know the answer to what is probably a dumb question but doesn't the prosecutors office have a copy machine so the defense can look at these texts? I realize that discovery would indicate that the defense is only able to look at what the prosecutors use but at some time wouldn't the defense have the ability to look at the texts in they're entirety. Wouldn't it make sense that JJ would be able to face his accuser with all the information. All this seems a bit to convienient to me as the judge would be able to either admit or not any evidence submitted. Is the prosecution stonewalling? The actual event was back in Feb for petes sake.

The prosecution is stonewalling....why would they do that if the texts supported the charges?

 

[UMGriz75]

The Missoula County Attorney's office has an "open file" policy on criminal cases. Ordinarily defense counsel can go and look at the entirety of the County's file, including statements, reports, and anything else that is in there. The problem comes where the County itself has not obtained a given piece of evidence and that's where the system can become a bit problematic. The County doesn't obtain everything on the planet that might be related to a case; on the other hand, they may not be "asking" for certain information or evidence from witnesses or other sources to keep it out of the file. I don't happen to think that they "play" that way, nor that they have any incentive to do so in this case, but stranger things have happened.

What is interesting is that in the County's Response to the Motion to Dismiss, the County did not specifically rebut any of the key factual contentions raised by the Defense. The Response was primarily addressed to legal issues of whether or not probable cause existed. The standard is so high that I doubt the Defense can prevail on the Motion.

Not contesting the factual allegations is suggestive, however, that the Defendant's recitation of the facts are likely true; indeed, failing to specifically contest them can become a "judicial admission."

 

[UMGriz75]

But what the heck, you have by now established yourself as one who makes blatantly false accusations, with a notable unwillingness to apologize ... you "real man" you.

I'm suing over this one. You have defamed me.

I retract the accusation. You are not a "real man."

I apologize for any confusion on that point.

 

[AZGrizFan]

The most disgusting part of this thread is that one poster is taking everything that the defense claims as the truth, while dismissing anything claimed by the accuser.

That's because the "accusers" claims/story have changed 2-3 times...which one is REALLY the truth? Or are ANY of them the truth?

 

[GrizMusician]

I can't wait to see what's in those text messages...

 

[bigkid]

Those text messages will probably roast Jane Doe!

 

[GrizMusician]

Those text messages will probably roast Jane Doe!

I'm hoping for the truth more than anything. I believe those text messages will hold the answers we are looking for.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

UMGriz75 just destroyed his entire credibility as a "legal expert". :lol:

Defamation is the communication of a false claim or statement of fact about another person that harms his or her reputation. This statement does not need to be made to a large group of people; you can be liable even if you make the statement to just one other person (other than the person the statement is about). There are two types of defamation. The first is libel or written defamation, including things written on Internet websites, blogs and message boards. The second is slander or spoken defamation.

http://saperlaw.com/practice-areas/defamation-lawyers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a joke.

Well, you are just a genius aren't you? A real scholar. If you practiced in this area of law, you would know that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has, for instance, defined "transitory" communications as those stored on servers, so as to exempt passive storage as a slander. Is a spoken message "published" or "broadcast" on YouTube and does it then qualify as a "slander" or a "libel"?

Even a slander must be "communicated" and "transitory media" as defined under the Federal Act appears to consider that "slander" encompasses digital communications which are not permanently published and distributed and in fact utilize broadcasting technology, not publication technology. The distinction is now somewhat arcane because of these changes as pointed out by one expert in the field:

"Newer technologies, particularly online media, have created legally fuzzy areas regarding the distinction between libel and slander. Take online chats, for example. They are clearly broadcast via a mass medium, and they are also clearly written forms of communication, so any defamatory statements that take place through online chats can be considered libelous. But the actual mode of communication in online chatting is most similar to a face-to-face conversation or phone call, which would only qualify as slander if such communications were published or broadcast. Court decisions may one day help form the legal definitions of defamation on this shaky ground, but so far, they have not."

The concept of "transitory" appears to be controlling; even emails cannot be "disappeared" whereas comments on a forum like this are the very definition of "transitory" and may not be here tomorrow; which hardly qualifies as "published," which implies a permanent communication.

So, I use the word "slander" advisedly and with some thought to its meaning. You can disagree all you want; but I used it with a specific eye to federal legislation and the likely evolution of the law in that regard.

I am sure that this is all a nice distraction from the fact that you made a false accusation on this thread, was expose for it, and can't seem to "man up" enough to just simply say you were wrong.

It is interesting to me how those who are negative to JJ's position in this overall tragedy are willing to resort to all sorts of tactics to derail direct conversation and discussion of the merits of the case so far available in the public record.

It amazes me that people still seem to be fooled by your obvious latest name change. Again, giving yourself props with another name is very weird. Then again, senior citizens hanging out with 18 year-old men seems weird to me, too.

 

[MrTitleist]

It amazes me that people still seem to be fooled by your obvious latest name change. Again, giving yourself props with another name is very weird. Then again, senior citizens hanging out with 18 year-old men seems weird to me, too.

PlayerRep and UMGriz75 are not the same person. I even double checked before I posted this. Carry on.

 

[tgreseth]

It amazes me that people still seem to be fooled by your obvious latest name change. Again, giving yourself props with another name is very weird. Then again, senior citizens hanging out with 18 year-old men seems weird to me, too.

Not even close to the same voice. The suggestion is disingenuous at best.

 

[EverettGriz]

It amazes me that people still seem to be fooled by your obvious latest name change. Again, giving yourself props with another name is very weird. Then again, senior citizens hanging out with 18 year-old men seems weird to me, too.

PlayerRep and UMGriz75 are not the same person. I even double checked before I posted this. Carry on.

Well, you have to cut NWF some slack. His multiple personalities always lead him to believe that others have similar issues.

 

[Ashley B. Schaeffer]

It amazes me that people still seem to be fooled by your obvious latest name change. Again, giving yourself props with another name is very weird. Then again, senior citizens hanging out with 18 year-old men seems weird to me, too.

PlayerRep and UMGriz75 are not the same person. I even double checked before I posted this. Carry on.

Those fellas don't have even one Stonewall Jackson's thread of a thing in common, pard. Hell, I think it's downright noble that you set these fellas straight on the deal.