President Obama, Please Take The Witness Stand!

“Beer here!  Get your ice-cold beer!  How about you sir?  Or you?  Beer?  Please?  Maybe a nice sparkling wine?”

Unless you have been breathing fresh air and enjoying the forgotten frivolities of life over the past week, in one way or another, you’ve made some sort of stand and are caught in the middle of the pop-off at the Cambridge Corral.  President Obama is set to meet with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley on Thursday for beers at the White House.  All three are poised to shoot the breeze about race relations and learn from this very “teachable moment.”  Ironically, the one person who might be taught a lesson in the law of unwittingly becoming a witness is President Obama.

In this not so tepid climate concerning race relations, police misconduct, and alleged unpleasantness hurled at an officer’s “mama,” there is one kernel of veracity everyone can agree on — President Obama is already in the unique position of personally speaking with both parties.  Without question, Mr. Obama is a witness to statements made by both Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates.

This raises a somewhat novel question left unaddressed by every major and minor media outlet in the world (yes, this is a Cube exclusive) — will Obama have to produce sworn testimony as a witness at some point should the legal napalm drop?  Yes.

The president is privy to conversations which would absolutely be relevant to any sort of lawsuit launched by either party.  Crowley stated he is contemplating suing Gates for “defamation.” Certainly, Gates has a plethora of options if he decides to sue Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department.

The constitutional implications of a sitting president being compelled to testify as a non-party witness (in deposition, interrogatories, or actual live testimony should a trial ensue) are, at a minimum, murky. Issues with regard to immunity would probably arise at the behest of any White House Counsel worth a darn, however, this is not a case where the President is being sued or charged with a crime — he is a witness.  This much, one can easily conclude.  Furthermore, whether his testimony is taken during or after his term is not an issue.  At some point, should a lawsuit hit the court files, President Obama will be a witness.  Statements by the parties are unquestionably discoverable under the rules of civil procedure (both federal and state).

As luck would have it, we can look to the case of William Jefferson Clinton v. Paula Courbin Jones for some guidance.  In fact, we can go all the way back to the treason case of Aaron Burr when he popped a cap in Alexander Hamilton and killed him in a pistol duel to the death.  While not on all fours and barking, Clinton v. Jones speaks to this and other matters concerning the sworn testimony of a sitting president.  Justice Stevens cites a few examples of such in our rich history:

[I]t is also settled that the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances. Although Thomas Jefferson apparently thought otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall, when presiding in the treason trial of Aaron Burr, ruled that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). 38 We unequivocally and emphatically endorsed Marshall’s position when we held that President Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena commanding him to produce certain tape recordings of his conversations with his aides. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). As we explained, “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” Id., at 706. 39

Sitting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty. President Monroe responded to written interrogatories, see Rotunda, Presidents and Ex Presidents as Witnesses: A Brief Historical Footnote, 1975 U. Ill. L. F. 1, 5-6, President Nixon–as noted above–produced tapes in response to a subpoena duces tecum, see United States v. Nixon, President Ford complied with an order to give a deposition in a criminal trial, United States v. Fromme, 405 F. Supp. 578 (ED Cal. 1975), and President Clinton has twice given videotaped testimony in criminal proceedings, see United States v. McDougal, 934 F. Supp. 296 (ED Ark. 1996); United States v. Branscum, No., LRP-CR%96-49 (ED Ark., June 7, 1996). Moreover, sitting Presidents have also voluntarily complied with judicial requests for testimony. President Grant gave a lengthy deposition in a criminal case under such circumstances, R. Rotunda & J. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law �7.1 (2d ed. 1992), and President Carter similarly gave videotaped testimony for use at a criminal trial, ibid.

In sum, “[i]t is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.” Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 753 -754.

So, what can we take from the lesson of President Clinton and his tryst with the effervescent Ms. Jones?  Well, unlike Clinton, Obama is not being sued.  He is a witness.  Just as Chief Justice Marshall compelled items from President Jefferson for purposes of the treason case and Aaron Burr, it is not too far a stretch to argue Obama could be compelled to testify, at some point, in the matter should civil suits fly.  For purposes of this hypothetical, it does not matter when the president testifies — only that he is a witness that could testify.  Why his attorneys allowed these conversations to take place and are allowing for future evidence to surface during the Obama Beer Festival is simply beyond me from a legal point of view.  From a political point of view however, I think we all get it.  Maybe.  Obama is in a tough spot at a minimum.  A spot, he put himself into.

Think about it.  It does not take a lawyer to realize that Obama has critical and relevant information.  The lawyer for Crowley would be an utter fool to not attempt to secure that evidence.  Likewise, the attorney for Gates would be derelict in his duties to ignore the statements Crowley made to the president.  The Clinton case provides examples of other presidents over the course of American history either testifying or at some being compelled to produce items (that’ what a subpoena duces tecum is).  President Jefferson apparently had some item or document The United States Supreme Court demanded.  Carter, Ford, George H.W. Bush, and other Presidents have provided evidence — or in the case of Nixon, provided evidence because he was too stupid to destroy it.

Regardless, President Obama is a witness.  Should civil cases come to fruition — people are going to want to know what was said in every phone conversations.  Lawyers will completely dissect each and every moment of the Big Beer Brew Ha Ha.  It is not patently absurd to surmise that Crowley and/or Obama will stick their guns and stubbornness.   Unlike the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, disputes are settled in court (at least that’s where they are supposed to be resolved) and not with the quick draws from the likes of modern day Doc Hollidays and Wyatt Earps.  Whether the president would have to testify while he sits in office is not really pertinent to this discussion.  The only conclusion one can justly reach is simple:  The President is now a potential witness.

That being said, Obama is trying to avoid this situation.  Society, as most would claim, is too litigious as it is, and the president’s intent is novel and healthy.  The problem with the aforementioned premise is it assumes people have benevolent motives and are mentally healthy. If this conundrum deconstructs and the lawyers come marching in, Obama’s gonna be cryin’ for his “mama.”

Quite possibly, Mr. Obama’s political maneuver could very well blow up… in his face.

Share!

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

33 Responses to “President Obama, Please Take The Witness Stand!”

  1. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    they could all get so drunk that not one would remember anything the next morning.

    • Cube Says:

      That’s actually interesting. They wouldn’t get drunk, but, if a case surfaces ever, alcohol will be a huge issue to hit Obama on. E.G. “So, you think you can solve relations with a BEER?” I can imagine the cross.

  2. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    well he and michelle solved that stuffy british monarchy problem over a few hi-balls with the windsors.

  3. Splash Says:

    That was great Cube!

    Questions: Has God ever been forced to testify before? Doesn’t he just decide? Isn’t he immune from all judgment? What did he say to Job? “Who are you?”

    The Big O put himself in a pickle when he used the word ‘stupidity’ and leaned, if not towards the black man, at least towards his friend. Then he made it worse when he tried to fix it. That’s it … pour alcohol on your problem. Hell, it works for me.

    Of course, I agree with Louie. I think this case was closed when the case of beer was opened.

  4. Cube Says:

    I think in all likelihood, civil suits will not fly Splasheroo. This was a hypothetical. Obama’s intent actually is good. I also agree with Obama that the police conduct was stupid (beyond stupid if you can separate out all the politics). The beer fest probably stymied that. But, even before the beer, he made himself a witness. The conclusion is not really relevant (whether a suit flies or not). The issue is whether it is wise for a president to risk becoming a witness in a civil suit.

    This raises larger issues. I would have liked to see Gates sue. Crowley has no cognizable suit for “defamation.” We can criticize the government. I have a case right now where the cops just got caught, on tape, doing this. Unfortunately, it happened a day or so after I wrote this. Rarely is there a smoking gun. In this instance, it’s more police and their egos. The “Thin Blue Line.”

    Cooler heads are prevailing. But for Obama stepping in, there would have been a suit. Ironically, Obama saved Crowley.

    We all know you ought not pop off ot a cop (assuming that’s what Gates did). But, police are trained (and I help train them) to walk away.

    This case is disgusting. I’m reminded of Godfather II. IN MY HOUSE! WHERE MY WIFE SLEEPS! AND CHILDREN PLAY WITH THEIR TOYS.

    Also, the statute of limitations has not run. I don’t know what it is for the variety of “causes of action” for Gates. The problem is politics muddied up a huge problem — Cops sticking together. Gates did nothing wrong as a matter of law and shouldn’t have been arrested. At most, he offended a cop. Not a crime. Not even offensive in my book. It blinded society as to a completely false arrest where someone went to jail.

    That being said, Obama’s actions, from a philosophical perspective, were noble. From a legal perspective, incredibly questionable.

    • PCL Says:

      Great post and follow-up comment, Cube. And I couldn’t agree more with you on this situation.

    • Splash Says:

      Cube -

      Although my blog buddy agrees with you, I find it amazing that you join The Big O in claiming that the police acted stupidly when you both agree you have incomplete facts. Simply amazing. Would you go to court with that? It didn’t appear that The Big O would as he backed off and offered the guy a beer.

      I’m no lawyer, but I could not find a statue for False Arrest; maybe you could post that for us. I read your other article and, without all the facts, my only conclusion was that Crowley followed protocol. He was walking away; Gates fucked up, black, white or otherwise.

      Maybe you should, as an experiment, walk up to a cop and start cussing him out and, when he walks away, follow him, keep cussing and see what happens. I’d be interested to know how that works out for you.

      Of course, you are the lawyer so clear me up on the false arrest stuff. Is it really a crime or does it simply open the local PD and arresting officer to civil action. You said Crowley broke the law; I assumed you meant criminal, but maybe you only meant civil and in that case who really gives a hoot?

      There are plenty of things far more disgusting than this. Plenty.

      • Cube Says:

        Not just stupidly, illegally. Go read the previous article where I detail the elements and provide case law for disorderly conduct. Nothing to do with race there. You simply don’t understand or ignore a case where there was no probable cause to arrest, a person was arrested, and went to jail. Assuming everything said in Crowley’s report was true, not a crime. You ignore centuries of case law, but, that’s alright. Explain how there is probable cause to arrest.

        I could give a fuck about the politics. My concern is for a person’s liberty. Something forgotten by hypocrites when politics are involved. No offense. You have absolutely not one scintilla of analysis in your comment to justify a lawful arrest. Perhaps we should use the subjective beliefs of a cop pf when he/she is offended, abandon case law, the Fourth Amendment, and be blinded by politics to ignore a patently unlawful arrest. You dangerously play “Mother May I” with the Constitution.

        Dude, I deal with this shit everyday. Today a cop was popped down here for molesting illegals. I have multiple cases with cops caught on video trumping up charges against a woman. Simply, you cannot make out not only a case to get to a jury for a crime of disorderly, but, you fail to make out (as did the cop as the police and prosecutor determined as well as virtually all legal scholars on the matter) bare bones for the elements of a disorderly. Instead, you eat the steaming pile of shit the politics feed you and forget that someone went to jail for something that cannot even be argued as a crime.

        The funny thing is, when Republicans cry about this shit in my office, they’re the one’s asking for a price break. Now I charge triple.

        There are acts which are illegal that are not crimes. For example, a case where someone is interrogated without proper Miranda warnings is illegal, yet not a crime. Also, you may want to do some research on the crime of false imprisonment, however, the elements aren’t met for that. There are animals in a law called bad stops, bad arrests, bad searches, bad seizures, etc. It’s contained in centuries of case law on the Fourth Amendment as well as substative criminal law on disorderly conduct. Oh, it’s also in the Constitution under the strictest construction of the Fourth Amendment.

        You may also want to look up what a 1983 claim is as well as the cases under it for… false arrests. Or perhaps, b/c you’re not a lawyer, trust me on this one.

        Lastly, I’ve cussed at cops plenty of times. Also, point to me the crime of cussing at cops. Also, you assume Crowley speaks the gospel in his report. Again, look at the previous article. I love it. You always think the fuzz tell the truth in their reports? The fucking charge is laughable. I train cops. I teach them how to testify in trial. They are trained to walk away. They might not do that. They don’t do that. It ain’t legal. Fuck ‘em.

        Ironically, if you come clean, you will agree with me. You have a right to tell a cop to suck your dick, call his or her mom fat, etc… Those aren’t crimes unless basically you pose a “clear and present danger” or cause a riot as contemplated by a disorderly statute.

        Do you see that?

        That was your argument being blown to smithereens. Now, I know you can’t find law, that’s because you don’t know it. Or your rights apparently. You’re the guy who consents to a cop searching your car when you have the right to tell them no. Same guy who lets ‘em in the house.

        Problem with a ton of people: They don’t know their rights. Look at what you wrote. For a conservative or whatever, you sure are in favor of a cop being able to go in a home, with no warrant, arrest for a crime, on someone’s property, for at most, insulting a government official.

        What a joke. You assume. Was I insulting? Perhaps. But, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about. If I’m pissed it’s b/c I make a living defending the rights of people for bad arrests. Like this one…. CAUGHT ON TAPE. Which is what you pretty much need to get the bad ones.

        Guess you’d need a smoking gun like I caught to ever disbelieve the government huh? They make up a story about a fucking cat and some girl gets arrested for a DUI that never happened. I have these cunts on at least 6 cases now. It can be proven that they lied on the report now. The charges were dropped, now I’m gonna fuck them up in court. Think we always have this? Nope. Does it happen a lot? Yes. Do some research.

        One day, it might be you, a friend, or a loved one. Then, you’ll remember back the warped view of law you espouse for the sake of scoring brownie points against Obama. A different issue. If I had said it, and not him, the world would agree. Stupid is an understatement. Unlawful. Illegal procedure. A fucking cop who let his emotions blind him to what the prosecutors and Cambridge Police themselves agree was no crime.

        Oh. I forgot. Show me all the witnesses from the community who had their peace disturbed and began to “brawl” or “riot” per statute and case law. DOC’s are limited for drunk fuckers usually who are causing problems in public… like fighting, brawling, rioting, disturbing peace.

        Nice try.

      • Splash Says:

        Cube, buddy, bubba -

        Do you have a screw loose? Did I try to score points on Obama? All I said was he, LIKE YOU, said he did not have all the facts and yet you BOTH call Crowley’s actions stupid. Great. Stupid is not against the law. The Big O backed off stupid; you called him yellow. You, on the other hand, called it illegal. Where I come from, that means it is a crime. So I asked you to post the statute that says false arrest, that is arrest without probable cause, is indeed a crime.

        You are correct that I am not a lawyer and therefore had trouble finding the law at all, and thus I asked for your help. I may not be a lawyer, which I fully admitted in my previous comment. I may not know what I am talking about. However nothing I posted said that I did. I asked for your help. So, if false arrest is a crime, rather than a tirade, post the fucking statute. If it is not a crime, just tell me that what you meant to say was that it was an actionable offense and that Gates remedies are only civil, which WHEN I DID THE RESEARCH you said I should do is all I could discover – civil.

        I remember being woken at about 6am one morning and told to get my family into the car, back out of the garage and leave the neighborhood because there was a hostage situation next door. Apparently the single woman next door had been held captive by her estranged husband and repeatedly raped throughout the previous night. Had Crowley responded to a break in call next door and asked the estranged husband outside, whose license, incidentally, still showed next door as his current address, and he got belligerent, I would have hoped that the man would have been cuffed and arrested for my neighbors sake. I can tell you if the Crowley just let the estranged husband alone based on the fact that his license address matched the house address there would have been hell to pay for letting the estranged husband go back to raping my neighbor.

        In my humble opinion, based on the facts that are known, no matter how much you deal with this shit every day, Crowley followed protocol and was justified in arresting a boneheaded fool who thought he was more than he was. Even Colin Powell said so (even though I disagreed with his premise). DAs drop charges every day as their burden of proof to convict beyond any reasonable doubt is far more stringent than the probable cause required to make an arrest.

        Sorry dude. If there was more to Gates claims of racial profiling then there would already be a lawsuit. There is more to this than meets the eye and the bigger man in this case is Crowley who was ready to walk away from both Gates and this case from the get go.

        You teach police, well so does Crowley. What makes you better? That you are a lawyer? You can fit the credibility that gets you in a thimble (and you should know that). Not that the police are a bag of instant credibility, but everyone is so willing to insist that they don’t have all the facts while wasting no time to condemn Crowley with facts that are admittedly incomplete. That, as far as I am concerned robs you of the thimble of credibility you had left.

        I like you Cube, but your argument is as empty as you say mine is, although your other article, which I did read FIRST (if you had really read my comment you would know that), sounded great without rebuttal from an equally talented opposing attorney. If you had to post their argument in defense of Crowley I have a feeling that your article, Crowley Should Be Fired, would not be so case closed.

        Anyone can shoot baskets in a game of Around The World. It is much more difficult when you have to dribble, shoot and rebound past, over and around another player bound and determined not to let you.

        I liked your articles, this one and the previous one, but just because they were well written doesn’t mean you were right – just persuasive. There is a difference.

      • Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

        splash,
        cube’s point is that even if crowley’s report is true (and it probably is), what gates did wasn’t a crime.

        my point is, in real life police are supposed to difuse situations,
        and if they can’t, and someone gets shot, then they’re supposed to plant a gun on the dead guy.
        niether scenario was fulfilled in this situation.
        old man with cane wins.

      • Splash Says:

        Louie -

        That is only half of Cube’s point. His other 1/2 is that what Crowley did was not only stupid, but illegal and deserving of termination. I disagreed and asked him to post the statute for false arrest (if there is one) so that we could determine if what Crowley did was, in fact, illegal.

        And I could have guessed your point without your help, but thanks, my friend. Thanks.

  5. Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

    what is up with republicans? why should white people even care what black people say. nobody ever cared before.
    now all of a sudden anything a black person says is all over the news and fox, too.
    what’s up with those whiggers?

  6. Cube Says:

    Like Brownturd, I can answer that question in 4,356 points.

    • Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

      yeah, what happened to the real america? it is vanishing because of the MSM. I remember a time when all the news was about white people. nowadays you can barely find a news story about white people. It’s gotten so that the only time Elvis is ever mentioned in the news is if they’re talking about Michela Jackson. the MSM is racist and biased against white people.

  7. Cube Says:

    Splash, you simply don’t either want to understand what a “false arrest” is. Quickly, it’s a colloquialism used when the police violate the Fourth Amendment. It is used for a lay person. Since I assume you are not a lawyer, I tried to make it easy for you. I don’t intend that as an insult, but, you’re not listening to plain language.

    For example, if the police search a someone, without probable cause, consent, or some other exception, and a bag of weed is found, that shit gets tossed out because of the false arrest, search and seizure. When someone is arrested without “probable cause,” the “bad” or “false arrest” leads to a dismissal or the charges being dropped.

    Read Wong Sun… US Supreme Court. Don’t get fired up, I think you misunderstand. I have no reason to lie to you. You happen to be wrong in terms of plain language. Look at the language the court use. Even Scalia agrees with this and it has been settled law forever.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=371&invol=471

    That is the seminal case concerning the “exclusionary rule.” If you get past the “headnote,” good luck. There are a lot of Japanese names floating around.

    If you go back, what you need to do is compare the statute and elements and see if there is p.c . for each element. This is basic 4th amendment analysis. When I say go back, go look at the case law I posted in the previous post from Mass concerning DOC as well as the statute which incorporates the Model Penal Code.

    There is also a suit under Fed. Stat. 1983 for a “civil rights” violation (not in the sense you think) for violation his fourth amendment rights. If Gates had sued, that’s the statue and he would have claimed a false arrest for lack or probable cause.

    I’m not spinning and could care less about Obama. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the arrest was valid as a matter of law. If not, an administrative pane is hearing the issue.

    Theoretically, there is a substantive crime for “false imprisonment.” Civil too with the same name. Although, this would be a tough case to prosecute. There is also a substantive crime for filing a false police report. That is not as serious in criminal law and neither will be pursued.

    The false arrest is a consideration of criminal procedure and substantive crim. law. Does the arrest comport with the 4th. It’s something analyzed all the time, in many different contexts.

    Just as an example, assume Crowley is a sadistic asshole. That he made everything up. Think there’s a crime for that? It could be a variety of things. Offshoots of perjury, filing a false report… etc..

    So, to be clear, a false or bad arrest occurs anytime and is illegal (but not necessarily a crime) anytime the Fourth is violated.

    Why do you think I’m making that up? Go to law school. Your argument really doesn’t make sense but I will argue in the alternative now, from your side.

    There is no substantive crime exactly called “false arrest” therefore, the police officer did nothing illegal.

    Assume for argument’s sake that is true. The logic doesn’t follow. It is black letter law that an officer, when he/she violates the Fourth Amendment, acts illegally. This is very basic. The 4th states we are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also contains a “warrant” requirement. What you are doing is ignoring the entire realm of a category of law called “criminal procedure.” This is different than “criminal law.” You are confusing the two. You misconstrue the meaning of the word “illegal” in a variety of fashions. If police have no warrant, no pc. and enter a home just to investigate a crime without an “exigent circumstance” that is a false arrest. Or just, illegal. Not a crime necessarily, but illegal. That is the part you are, respectfully, missing.

    Now, without burning my id., i published an article on this that has been cited by a variety of schools over a decade ago. I have published subsequent articles.

    But, go look at John Turley’s blog, and he’ll say the officer did not have pc to arrest. You are hung up in lingo.

    So, I would have liked to see no presidential involvement and a lawsuit. What Statute, again, 1983. It’s federal. To prove up that case, one must show (by a preponderance of the evidence” that a false arrest happened and that the cop violated “clearly established law.” This suit will never happen. A false arrest happens and “clearly established law” is violated, when the fourth (in this instance) is violated. Other areas of law are always implicated under 1983.

    An officer can be fired in an administrative mechanism. That’s ongoing but nothing will happen here b/c of politics. As a colloquialism, false arrest would be why he would be fired if I were the panel. Why? He violated centuries of case law and the Const.

    There is a case called Terry v. Ohio. In florida for example, that was codified into something called the “Stop And Frisk” law. Every state has different lingo but the US const guides all basically. If you violate stop and frisk or terry, the stop is bad. If the stop is bad, evidence obtained as a result of the bad stop is “suppressed.” Confessions, bodies, etc.

    Dude, I can’t go on. You simply don’t get it. Assuming everything Crowley said is true, it is a false arrest. Or bad arrest. Or illegal arrest. Or the arrest violates the fourth amendment. They are synonymous.

    OK? Now, that the semantics gymnastics are brushed aside, b/c this is not the issue, show me how the arrest was lawful? Or Valid? Show me how there is probable cause to arrest for each element of the crime of DOC. The statute and case law is in the other article. I think you misunderstand the point as Louis points out. It has nothing to do with any party. Take away the players in the party? Is there PC to arrest? If not, what would you like to call it, a “ham sandwich?” That would be fine.

    Here’s a bit on Fed Stat 1983 b/c I think you might shoot yourself after Wong Sun and the cases it cites as well as future cases that cite to it. I think another PC case is called Spinnelli but can’t remember.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html

    I promise you sir, you misunderstand. No harm no foul. Would I prosecute crowley? No. I’d fire his ass though. Again, the issue is this, assuming all said is true under his report, is that a “false arrest? Or an illegal one? Yup. Look at the case law. If it were dismissed (it got dropped immediately), why do you think that would be? If I filed a motion to dismiss and the state didn’t drop it, but the judge considered the motion and granted it, why do you think that would happen? Because of unlawful police conduct. The elements of the crime were not met for purposes of probable cause.

    That being said, I hope you will believe me b/c I’m right. I also don’t lie (on this). You need to be aware of your rights. The politics are a different story. Even the prosecutors I hang with say it’s bullshit. Actually, they don’t even give a fuck. Wait, the prosecutors in Mass thought there was no p.c. to prosecute a crime. They have better things to worry about than a dude getting arrested without p.c. for a second degree mm for a case where egos got out of control at most — not a crime.

    Oh, the hostage crisis… A good lawyer can argue in the alternative. Without me explaining, why do you think the “hostage” issue is not analagous to a burg. where the alleged perp is in his own home and shows id? Hint: Not a soul argues something called “exigent circumstances.” Hint 2: Once the “bare suspicion” of burglary dissipates, what do you think happens? Hint 3: Does Crowley himself state in his report an answer to this?

    • Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

      state troopers tell me thay are trained to spot dealers not small time wiggers. (not whiggers)
      so they don’t even bother doing a probable cause on the wiggers unless the wigger looks totally used with a lot of mileage.

  8. Cube Says:

    Technically, we’re on the wrong thread, but, since I didn’t catch it until now Oh well. We should have put this in the thread specifically about that. This was a thread about a witness..

    Also, I’d like not to fall into the trap of turning this into a manifesto blog. I did.

    Therefore, I object to myself. Twice. MANIFESTOS SUCK! INCLUDING ALL OF THESE. C’MON. NO ONE READS THE WHOLE THING ANYHOW. SHITTTTTTTTTTTT. IT’S CALLED A COMMENT SECTION FOR A REASON.

    That being said, on with the irrelevant manifesto in the wrong article…

    Either tom. or Thurday I’ll do a show. I’ll explain it there. You can call in if you’d like. Ok? I don’t mean to offend you, but, you are simply wrong. One can rationalize an arrest, does not mean the arrest was legal.

    You watched the video above with the case I have now. The girl was on the Today show this morning. That cop, Pressley, is done. So are about 5 other cops. How often do you think we get that? Rare. Cops should have cameras always, but, it’s impracticable. Because they are stupid fucks, they got busted. Mind you, this happened after I wrote both articles.

    Check out what happened last night here…

    “You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a jar of lube. Cop arrested for molesting illegals” http://bit.ly/gGAda

    • Splash Says:

      Hey Cube –

      I saw this comment after I wrote my last manifesto. LOL! Very funny. ost people commenting on your blog are laypeople, not lawyers. I am definitely a layperson as I try to get laid frequently.

      You are still cool in my book. Thanks for the debate and you know, if I can, I will call in to your show, as usual.

  9. Splash Says:

    Cube -

    You didn’t offend me. So what you are saying is that what Crowley did is not a crime. Thanks.

    You still base all of your conclusions on an incomplete set of facts; not very lawyer like. I never said you made anything up. I asked you to post the statute or confirm that Gates remedies were merely civil and so you have. If that is what you meant by illegal, then cool.

    As a layperson (which is by no means an insult to me) I take illegal to mean a crime was committed and Actionable Offenses to be civil. For example, Fraud is an actionable offense with only civil remedies, whereas Criminal Fraud is illegal and carries criminal penalties. If illegal encompasses both then excUuuUuuUzze me; I can certainly see where it does since even in a game one can make an illegal move, take an illegal turn or illegally flip the board when they are losing. Again, the reason I asked you for CLARIFICATION; not riddles, not hints, not articles about Supreme Court cases to long to read. Just clarification.

    As per the DA dropping the charges, perhaps Gates called The Big O and Big O called the DA. Perhaps the DA received an “A” from Gates in Law School in exchange for future favors subsequently called in on the night of Gates’ arrest. Perhaps the DA was Gates gay lover and rather than recuse himself from the case he dropped the charges to save Gates and/or himself embarrassment. Perhaps there wasn’t enough to convict even though there was enough to arrest (don’t go ballistic; the police report is not the end all of factual revelation). ALL OF THIS, of course, is speculation as STILL neither I nor you, have all the facts. Maybe we never will. The Big O now has more facts than you or I, but you are right, his involvement is too (actually completely) political.

    As far as you being right, perhaps you are. But I believe I am pretty safe in saying that, as a whole, lawyers lose 50% of the time, so the courtroom chances of your argument are 50:50, especially since you rely a) on incomplete facts and b) on the police report alone. However, ON THE POLICE REPORT ALONE, you are right (if it makes you feel any better), Crowley did not have probable cause.

    Happy?

    I hope so. If not, then this is for you:

    Of course those are ALL incomplete facts. Here is the rest of the facts so that you may see just exactly whose fault it is that my request for clarification morphed into your need to be combative:

  10. Cube Says:

    It’s illegal.

    Now, I will take it as an insult when you simply do not understand Constitutional law and can’t rely on an expert opinion.

    But the internet is full of opinions. People with keyboards can make up facts. So, I may be of the opinion you have a vagina. That doesn’t make it so. Or does it? hahahaha.. Look, I find it funny you can’t believe me. You have yet to refute the legal analysis I provide. I assume all of Crowley’s report is true. It does not rise to the level, as a matter of law, to the definition of Disorderly Conduct.

    Explain to me how it does. First, why not articulate what probable cause means. Then, apply it to each element of the offense.

    You do a disservice to your readers if you spew it. Experts look at your drivel and laugh. Now, on to the dominatrix.

  11. Cube Says:

    That young republican clip was most informative. Oh. Your presumptions on lawyers wins and losses is another mistake you make. Like, that makes no sense. But, have an opinion.

    Can you not admit you’re wrong? Do you want to bullshit your readers? Go read Turley’s blog.

    Let’s apply your standard to probable cause. We’ll call it, Splash’s fucked up view of the Constitution that is against every Conservative or Libertarian principle ever. Limited government? The mutherfucker was in his house. Make the players unknown variables Like X and Y. You’re that dude who who sucks the government’s balls and doesn’t know your rights or give a fuck about others liberty. You use the constitution only when it’s convenient.

    Frankly, this is a matter of law and liberty. Your views sicken me b/c they are objectively wrong, unsupported by the law, and, you will lead others down a path of bullshit.

    Anyone can type. A wise one admits when they are wrong or provide evidence and expert opinions to show otherwise. Remember, liberty and a person’s home and property are the most sacred areas of the Constitution. One you claim to support. Unless it’s inconvenient. You keep talking about Obama. This has nothing to do with him. It is the law. You have yet to refute the argument. Please don’t write in this section without some game — specifically, one case to support your argument. One. I have provided several.

    Here’s why you care: Obama. Not law. Not liberty. Not the precious constitution you wouldn’t even know how to strictly construe if a gun were put to your head. It’s the law of Splash. Where you ignore all reasoning.

    Seems like a pattern with you.

    Bring the game to the floor. Not some stank video I could give a fuck about. Explain with law and reasoning. Find some article explaining the law of DOC.

    PS. This is an article about Obama making himself a witness. It would have been nice for you to look at the case law and statute from the other article.

    Bring it. You have shit for evidence and I think you fill the internet with horseshit. Your mama. Angry? Follow the law.

    • Louis IX KingofFrawnce Says:

      my uncle was sheriff for 20 years, I know for a fact that you can insult a police officer and they can make your next few hours hell, but it’s not a crime.
      in fact if some old crazy yo-yo is just insulting them, they usually feel like they’d prefer the free time to loaf around than have to deal with arresting them.
      however,
      one day my grandpa was walking thru downtown with they guy who was sheriff then, and they saw some BLAAAACK guy that they had told to never be seen in downtown again, so the sheriff shot him dead.
      when I asked what for, grandpa said that they had told him to stay out of downtown.
      so I pressed and asked why,
      then grandpa said, “Oh he was always hanging around on the sidewalk, talking loud and drinking.”

  12. Cube Says:

    Louis, you 100 percent right. Thank you. Splash? WTF man? You’re being intellectually dishonest. C’mon. You would love to have me defend you if you needed it. People shouldn’t act all afraid of the cop. They create that atmosphere. Go rent or try to find a documentary called “The Thin Blue Line.” This is a teachable moment.

  13. Cube Says:

    Splash, I’m wiping the slate clean. Not deleting, but, is it ok if I just go into insult comedy mode. Like a roast? C’mon. I like you. That’s why it pains me to destroy your arguments. But seriously, when a cop pulls you over, and you want out of the ticket, would you tickle his nads for a shot out of the speeding ticket?

    But seriously, like I know you care for the constitution and all, but, maybe a cops false opinion of your gun ownership would make it ok for him to arrest you and then shoot you in your typing fingers. Like, would you bang out a Canine to prevent a drug sniff (I would). Let’s take your kiss ass view of law to the extreme. Maybe you’d let him have anal with yo mama. I kid, I kid.

    But, if I said that to a cop… think that’s a crime? No. It’s called a funny moment that pisses a cop off which will probably lead to an arrest that is not a crime.

    Remember the 2 Live Crew Cases Down Here? Watch this song sung in front of a white audience. Disorderly Conduct? Look at their faces. This cause more of a reaction than Crowley. Cops were there. SCOTUS INVALIDATED THEIR ARRESTS ON 1ST AMENDMENT GROUNDS. SAME WITH NWA FUCK THE POLICE PLAYED LIVE IN FRONT OF COPS. old dude with cane in home mumbling to no other witnesses identified cased a riot thought right? Do you know what a Disorderly is? Dude, look up the law… in the meantime enjoy this conduct deemed not disorderly. And the cocksucker Sheriff arrested them down here when I was in high school. WEnt to the trial. Went to SCOTUS. Not “offensive.” Unlawful arrest.

    FACE DOWN ASS UP THAT THE WAY YOUR ASS GETS FUCKED!

    I’m an aristocrat.

    • Splash Says:

      Cube -

      You promise to go into insult comedy mode and that is all you’ve got. I’m getting goose bumps from your obsession with my as and desire to watch me fondle a cop.

      Please, Cube. My view is hardly about The Big O. It is about liberals (your true depth) and particularly the black community (of which The Big O is a part) and their tendency to jump to conclusions about the actions of a cop with knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) fashion. I’m sorry you cannot see that, but would rather continue jumping to conclusions based on, yet again, admittedly limited, incomplete information.

      If this was, as you say, a false arrest then there would have been no beer. There would have been NAACP, ACLU, protests and Jesse J thrusting his ugly mug[shot] into the pictures. Look at the pic in my article, Powell Makes an ASS out of U and ME and tell me: Who looks relaxed and who is leaning forward intently listening?

      But Cube is always right. Anyone that opposes him is wrong and … what did you say? … oh yeah … intellectually dishonest. So your an expert. In my book and ‘ex’ is a has been and a ‘spert’ is a slow annoying drip, so bully for you. Represent me? I do a considerable bit of that myself and have lost once and it felt like a win. Sorry dude, your Constitutional arguments are no more than liberal meltdowns hiding behind “Who are YOU to question me?” But thanks for the offer; it’s nice to know a criminal lawyer and I am sure you would do a fine job on my behalf.

      By the way, before you delete anything, this may be an article about The Big O as a witness, but it is invariably intertwined with the previous article in subject matter and so nothing you or I have commented here is off thread. You might want to be a little more flexible and forgiving with yourself.

      I do remember Two Live Crew and how the Religious Right made them into a 2 hit wonder. One problem … Crowley/Gates was in Massachusetts. Were those law elements you posted even from MA law? I hope so.

      I like you too, Cube, but I asked you some simple questions and you went on some tirade over how uninformed, unintelligent, unConservative and basically wrong I was, puffing up your chest with claims of expertise. I asked a question. Do I really need to go to law school to get the answer? Couldn’t you, a lawyer, answer just answer the question.

      Is what Crowley did a crime? The shorter answer would have been “No” and this whole crisis over your need to prove that your dick is bigger than mine (even if ever so slightly) could have been averted.

      Now THAT was a roast. ;-)

  14. Splash Says:

    Cube -

    All your screws are loose man. First of all, I NEVER said I was right. I asked for questions and clarifications admitting that I was a layperson. It was not for me to disprove your argument, but rather for you to answer a few simple questions. Your need to take it as a full on assault by Splash is a) flattering and b) a sign of insecurity or c) probably both.

    As far as my readers go, they can see through bullshit, call me on it and, from time to time, I admit that I am wrong. I ate lots of crow when The Big O won and won Big having placed much more emphasis on the Bradley/Wilder Affect than I should have. That’s the way the cookie crumbles for those of us that are willing to go out on a limb.

    Ah, my presumption about lawyers. In nearly every case (with the exception of those brave/poor enough to represent themselves) one lawyer is pitted against another. One wins, the other loses. Chose any knife in the kitchen to cut it any way you like – it’s 50% winners, 50% losers.

    The only one here with an opportunity to admit that he is wrong is you, because you are the only one who has insisted that he is right. The facts are incomplete. You made your desire to fire Crowley upon those incomplete facts. You won’t admit that, in a courtroom, the prosecution is not limited to the facts on the police report. You won’t admit that DAs drop charges for many other reasons besides a potential false arrest. ou have more reason to admit you are wrong than I can enumerate; I have none.

    However, let me say it again. Without having heard the rebuttal argument and based on THE POLICE REPORT ALONE you are correct. Crowley had no probable cause to arrest Gates.

    Again I ask you: Are you now happy?? If not, here’s another one; the last line is especially for you:

  15. Cube Says:

    Dude, if you want to be a delusional birther, go to a site and write wrong legal analysis.

    Like, you got booted by Tommy, Caleb, yet I took you in. I’ll tel you what. I don’t want this drivel here. It’s not your blog. Go write a fallacious blog on your site. Here, your stuff doesn’t wash. I don’t want to do what Caleb or Tommy to you. C’mon. Enough. Your blog allows for ramblings that are patently wrong. Do what you want, but, this is my blog. Not yours. I do see why those guys got pissed at you. You now have the Right Center and Left writers who think you cross the line at times. I don’t want manifestos here. You love that shit. Always have. This is a comment area. For the life of me, I don’t get it. You are like a birther. No matter how much evidence is provided, you will ignore it and spew falsehoods.

    I can’t have that here. I want posts that are insightful. Not posts, comments. You are the king of rambling.

    And again, you bring no proof to the table. You don’t even attempt to define probable cause or the elements of disorderly conduct.

    You have a vagina. You have a vagina. You have a vagina. Does not mean you have one. But if I write that all day long, that’s sort of how you write. You can’t admit you are wrong. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Certain things are facts. Like 4th Amendment Crim Pro. Analysis. I’ll tell you what. Drop a few hundred grand into a legal education, then you will be able to call yourself an expert. You won’t pass the bar b/c you don’t think in the alternative. Which I did.

    Assume every fact in Crowley’s report is accurate. Does that equal a crime. You have not refuted that.

    Now, I know how you get. You freak out. Think things need to be done your way. No. I like you. I’ve backed you before in the face of people getting pissed at you. However, you are insulting my intelligence. Took a long time getting a law degree. I can’t argue with someone who won’t accept case law or constitutional analysis that you have not disputed.

    I roast you to prove a point btw (a bit of satire you don’t get) roasting is not enough to be a disorderly. Sorry you missed it. Really, your analysis is insulting in that you don’t believe me, when I’ve stated over and over again (even wrote a huge hypothetical in the previous post taking out all the actors pretty much). Go read about the veil of Ignorance. Take out the actors.

    For me, and virtually all lawyers including the experts I’ve cited aside from myself, (look here), or Joe Scarborough (a Republican lawyer who flat out says there was no pc to arrest and he shouldn’t have been arrested) or go to law school. This is virtual insanity.

    In fact, this was (Until once again you hijacked a post) a blog about OBAMA’S MISTAKE YOU TROLL!

    You argue unfairly. I provide evidence, law, other experts who agree etc. You provide hot air. And this is a pattern. C’mon. If you’re gonna post here, keep it short, or to respond to an argument do it right.

    I know you’re not a lawyer, but seriously, your analysis is wrong. And it’s not Pacino shit. In fact I bent over backwards in the first article (which clearly you haven’t read) to take all politics out of the equation.

    Nice that you don’t even mention the “veil of ignorance,” the professor who wrote that, the school he went to, or any of the analysis IN THE PREVIOUS ARTICLE. GO READ IT AND POST THERE.

    You’re like a birther on this one. No amount of case law or anything would satify you. Contrary to what you might think, the law is not supernatural with satan and keeanu reeves. If that’s your best argument, the next time you have a legal matter, go pro se. (represent yourself). Make shit up. tell it to a judge. See where it gets you.

    Do you not know who Turley is? Or Scarborough? Try finding an article on the internet that says there was probable cause to arrest here. One with legal analysis. Go to the law blogs. Not poltical ones.

    What irks me, is it is clear you missed the entire point of this post. This was about why Obama made himself a witness. You have chosen (again) to make it about what you want. Now, I engage you b/c of what I wrote before. However, all I ask is that we try to be topical. So, since none of our discussion has to do with this post, I will bring up the other one and you can read the law for yourself. Since you have yet to even define disorderly conduct, perhaps seeing the definition from Mass Statute etc…will help.

    I am now moving the discussion to the area it belongs. Read the law. It’s there. It’s now clear to me you have not. This is evident by virtue of the fact you don’t provide law. Not the law of probable cause, the mass case law on disorderly, the model penal code, mass statute, and you did not read about the veil of ignorance.

    This is strictly a crim pro issue. And, there are right answers. You don’t even argue the right way from your side. The right way from your side is to apply the statute to the facts. You don’t even quote the police report as I did. In the other article, with law you don’t mention or touch. Because, you can’t. Now, I’m going to put a note in the article you should be reading. This requires clicking on links, reading case law, and statutes. If you don’t do that, and provide evidence to support your thoughts, why would anyone listen? It’s not rational. I’m sorry, I don’t get you. If you had read the other article, that’s where you would be posting. Or at least, using the statutes, case law, and other materials I provide to take a stance.

    That you do not provide evidence and merely bluster shows me you are writing unfairly. A real man admits his mistakes and shows deference to an expert in the field. I work far too hard and have saved far too many lives than to be distracted by someone without analysis or evidence or the pedigree to argue. I tried making this not such a legal blog or argument.

    Now, go to the other thread and read the law. Since you refuse to even quote ONCE THE LAW OF DOC and case law or the Model Penal Code. I can’t argue with you anymore. You’re simply wrong.

    Watch, in the article I wrote (which is a hypo) there is law right there for you. Why haven’t you even touched it once? You have it right there to use. You don’t. Unreal. Are you that far gone?

    Splash.

    Tommy,

    Caleb,

    and now, myself have all had this problem with you. I put up with you out of respect. YOu show a lack of respect by continuously ignoring requests. The request here was to back your shit up with law. You have not done that. You post videos of movies.

    Face down ass up — the white people — some were jurors. Other 2 live cases went to scotus. Not offensive. Not disorderly. Supreme Court ruling under GW the first. C’mon dude. PLEASE READ THE LAW AND BE HONEST.

  16. Splash Says:

    Fair enough.

    Incidentally, I invite you to our little Oasis to debate with any member (including myself) any issue you chose on any thread on which you chose to do it. You are that welcome there.

  17. Michelle Says:

    ok…can see this got hot and contested…

    and I didn’t read every entry…but I get the gist…

    Is someone saying that cops don’t lie under oath??

    I have first hand experience, that they do. At least ONE has. Seems plausible…that others have also.

    Im just sayin’

    Cube…can I come home…even if I bust threads????

    I miss you.

    =)

  18. ckirksey Says:

    Hi:
    I came accross your site researching the Crowley-Gates incident. I know it maybe a dead horse but I was looking for a good discussion of the leagl issues. I am not interested in the racial/political issues. What concerned me the most was a simple question: Was officer Crowley in Professor Gates house legally? If so I found this to be scary. I have found looking at “rational” blogs some LEOs and lawyers say yes.

    My simple legal analysis (I am retired in Tampa and have plenty of spare time. I am also a Taurus!!!) indicates that Crowley had no legal right to be in the house absent explicit permission from Gates. How this would impact any DC charge is unclear unless Gates was essentially berating a trespassing LEO.

    Would Gates win a 1983 lawsuit? I think so.

    Care to comment?

  19. Cube Says:

    Not a dead horse here. I think absent political bullshit, a 1983 suit would be a perfect vehicle.

    Whether Crowley was lawfully inside the home is an issue as well. We know Gates refused to go outside. At some point Crowley is inside. Assuming consent, the 1983 case would be for “violating clearly established law” for purposes of probable cause as it relates to the elements of disorderly conduct.

    If you read this article or the other one, you’ll see it’s pretty clear there was none. However, we’ll in all likelihood never find out. There’s some link that shows that. I forget where. Politics gutted some important legal questions. The cop didn’t have a warrant. There was no “exigent circumstance” alleged since Gates showed i.d.

    Would he win? In a hypothetical land of reasonable people, yes. In fact, I point out that Obama unwittingly saved Crowley. Any other shmo would have a nice lawsuit under 1983. I think he would win. Yes. Even in the face of the politics, a good attorney could sell that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: