Posts by Katalyst

. said:

No, he owns a ton more than you.

. said:

Its like 2 hobo's arguing about who has a better street corner

Your grammar is atrocious.

Mascara said:

This could be a modern Aesop's Fable. A remake of "The Ant and the Grasshopper".

The ant works its ass off to make money to buy food, but hasn't been to the store because he has been so busy making money. But he has the money to buy food, so he is not worried.

The grasshopper would be replaced with a dung beetle, who has been spending all his time on F2 (instead of singing like the proverbial grasshopper) and now the dung has all washed away, leaving him without food.

. said:

fuck off faggot

. said:

I guess hot nubile trannies are a little high maintenance and won't trouble themselves with the grocery shopping. Might break a nail.

. said:

Kind of funny to see the tardfarm going on and on about jemby, moviewhore so hungy etc, feeding his kids etc bragging about having bare cupboards.


Its almost like there is a lesson in there somewhere.

Mascara said:

Apparently, we're being transposed again tonight. My apologies.

. said:

So you need to put on the sockpuppet to bump your dull threads.

What an asshole

madelf. said:

we'll really miss you that half hour you're gone for

. said:

Individuals are weak. Groups are strong. Troof.

. said:

Okay. Cool. I didn't know you were a expert on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Can you cite to a case that proves your assertion? TIA.

"The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to criminal proceedings to issue an arrest warrant, a search warrant, or a summons, to preliminary examinations in criminal cases, such as hearings on motions to suppress evidence, to proceedings for extradition or rendition, to sentencing hearings, to probation hearings, or to hearings to set bail. Nor do the Federal Rules of Evidence generally apply in grand jury proceedings."

Lunch break.

. said:

Only if it were relevant. I'm telling you its very hard to get that type of evidence admitted. Character evidence is almost never relevant. Sorry.

. said:

What kind of shit-head gets hauled into court anyway?

. said:

No. Racism is character evidence and that is almost always excluded unless the Defendant introduces it.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5390166_rules-evidence-rule.html

. said:

I've seen it happen more than once. In the US the evidence admitted at a criminal trial is pretty restricted.

. said:

Evidence of racism would be inadmissible as overly prejudicial in a criminal crime unless it was a hate crime.

No prosecutor would even bother trying to introduce it as it would be a waste of time.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-403.htm