"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:bm98rq$oke2@imsp212.netvigator.com... "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message news:vog86icbnrdge3@corp.supernews.com...
[...] So where is that basic and ubiquitous rule? I won't even bother with the holes in your laughable attempt to avoid the question.

For you who can read, Google "pretrial release of rape complainant's
identity" and you will get plenty of material on it. I saw a Colorado
attorney general opinion by Gail Norton who discussed the rule at length.
In addition the court probably issued an order in the case gagging the
attorneys from divulging the identity of the alleged victim. That would be
a rule too. I'm not going to do your work for you, especially if you
appear to be dumb and illiterate.

There are plenty of malignant loonies posting about the Kobe case in the
NG's. If you were a bonafide rape victim who became a complaining witness,
would you want your identity publicized so that every creep and
brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:39:56 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:

->
->"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in message
->news:bm98rq$oke2@imsp212.netvigator.com...
->>
->> "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message
->> news:vog86icbnrdge3@corp.supernews.com...
-> [...]
->>
->> So where is that basic and ubiquitous rule?
->>
->> I won't even bother with the holes in your laughable attempt to avoid the
->> question.
->
->For you who can read, Google "pretrial release of rape complainant's
->identity" and you will get plenty of material on it. I saw a Colorado
->attorney general opinion by Gail Norton who discussed the rule at length.

I posted that article quite a while ago. For those of you who can
read.

->In addition the court probably issued an order in the case gagging the
->attorneys from divulging the identity of the alleged victim. That would be
->a rule too. I'm not going to do your work for you, especially if you
->appear to be dumb and illiterate.

No it wouldn't be a rule, and neither is some feminist's opinion
a "rule."

The US constitution is a set of rules. The CO law may be a rule if
it doesn't conflict with that first set of rules, and I've posted
the CO law, which is here:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1993/sl.310.pdf

Your can prove your claim about being able to read by showing
where it says people can't use the accuser's namem and which
people aren't supposed to and when. In the meantime, feel free
to write "Kate Farber" as much as you please.

->
->There are plenty of malignant loonies posting about the Kobe case in the
->NG's. If you were a bonafide rape victim who became a complaining witness,
->would you want your identity publicized so that every creep and
->brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?
->

If you were a falsely accused guy would you want your name published
so every brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?

Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote:
Your can prove your claim about being able to read by showingwhere it says people can't use the accuser's namem and whichpeople aren't supposed to and when. In the meantime, feel freeto write "Kate Farber" as much as you please.
Audry Underhill?




----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in message
There are plenty of malignant loonies posting about the Kobe case in theNG's. If you were a bonafide rape victim who became a complaining witness,would you want your identity publicized so that every creep andbrain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?

He and "Bob" ARE the creeps and brain-scrambled psychopaths in the world
who want to do the stalking.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in message news:<00jgovgfjfdqv519hkho51oh1h92bi4qvh@4ax.com>... On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:39:56 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: -> ->"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in message ->news:bm98rq$oke2@imsp212.netvigator.com... ->> ->> "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message ->> news:vog86icbnrdge3@corp.supernews.com... -> [...] ->> ->> So where is that basic and ubiquitous rule? ->> ->> I won't even bother with the holes in your laughable attempt to avoid the ->> question. -> ->For you who can read, Google "pretrial release of rape complainant's ->identity" and you will get plenty of material on it. I saw a Colorado ->attorney general opinion by Gail Norton who discussed the rule at length. I posted that article quite a while ago. For those of you who can read. ->In addition the court probably issued an order in the case gagging the ->attorneys from divulging the identity of the alleged victim. That would be ->a rule too. I'm not going to do your work for you, especially if you ->appear to be dumb and illiterate. No it wouldn't be a rule, and neither is some feminist's opinion a "rule." The US constitution is a set of rules. The CO law may be a rule if it doesn't conflict with that first set of rules, and I've posted the CO law, which is here: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1993/sl.310.pdf Your can prove your claim about being able to read by showing where it says people can't use the accuser's namem and which people aren't supposed to and when. In the meantime, feel free to write "Kate Farber" as much as you please. -> ->There are plenty of malignant loonies posting about the Kobe case in the ->NG's. If you were a bonafide rape victim who became a complaining witness, ->would you want your identity publicized so that every creep and ->brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you? -> If you were a falsely accused guy would you want your name published so every brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?


YOU DON'T THINK KOBE IS GETTING DEATH THREATS FROM THE KLAN AND OTHER
WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUPS FOR ALLEGEDLY RAPING A WHITE WOMAN? SO WHAT
SHE'S GETTING DEATH THREATS, IF SHE FALSELY ACCUSE A MAN SHE SHOULD
GET WORST THAN DEATH THREATS, SHE SHOULD BURN IN HELL.

"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vogciuaiaqqu88@corp.supernews.com... "Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in message news:bm98rq$oke2@imsp212.netvigator.com... "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message news:vog86icbnrdge3@corp.supernews.com... [...] So where is that basic and ubiquitous rule? I won't even bother with the holes in your laughable attempt to avoid
the question. For you who can read, Google "pretrial release of rape complainant's identity" and you will get plenty of material on it. I saw a Colorado attorney general opinion by Gail Norton who discussed the rule at length. In addition the court probably issued an order in the case gagging the attorneys from divulging the identity of the alleged victim. That would
be a rule too. I'm not going to do your work for you, especially if you appear to be dumb and illiterate.

You claim there is a rule. I didn't. Its your burden to prove. Not mine.
Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Oh, and practice isn't a rule,
especially when it is against the First Amendment of your constitution. But
then I guess its the kind of rules you are willingly and willfully against.
There are plenty of malignant loonies posting about the Kobe case in the NG's. If you were a bonafide rape victim who became a complaining
witness, would you want your identity publicized so that every creep and brain-scrambled psychopath in the world could stalk you?
But you are perfectly willing to want someone who maybe a falsely accused to
have their identity publicized so that every creep and brain-scrambled
psychopath in the world to stalk him. It works both ways.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:49:51 +0800, "Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote:

->
->"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote in message
->news:vogciuaiaqqu88@corp.supernews.com...

->> For you who can read, Google "pretrial release of rape complainant's
->> identity" and you will get plenty of material on it. I saw a Colorado
->> attorney general opinion by Gail Norton who discussed the rule at length.
->> In addition the court probably issued an order in the case gagging the
->> attorneys from divulging the identity of the alleged victim. That would
->> be
->> a rule too. I'm not going to do your work for you, especially if you
->> appear to be dumb and illiterate.
->
->You claim there is a rule. I didn't. Its your burden to prove. Not mine.
->Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Oh, and practice isn't a rule,
->especially when it is against the First Amendment of your constitution.

It also violates the Sixth Amendment.

->But
->then I guess its the kind of rules you are willingly and willfully against.
->

"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in
news:bmbpmb$50o5@imsp212.netvigator.com:
You claim there is a rule. I didn't. Its your burden to
prove. Not mine. Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Oh, and
practice isn't a rule, especially when it is against the First Amendment
of your constitution. But then I guess its the kind of rules you
are willingly and willfully against.

I think you mean the Sixth Amendment, since the First has nothing
to do with trials, and as hiding the identity of victims doesn't
violate anything in the Sixth Amendment, you really don't know
what you're talking about, anyway.

--
--Robert

Do not sit next to Dennis

Robert Lee wrote: "Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in news:bmbpmb$50o5@imsp212.netvigator.com:You claim there is a rule. I didn't. Its your burden to prove. Notmine. Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Oh, and practiceisn't a rule, especially when it is against the First Amendment ofyour constitution. But then I guess its the kind of rules you arewillingly and willfully against. I think you mean the Sixth Amendment, since the First has nothing to do with trials, and as hiding the identity of victims doesn't violate anything in the Sixth Amendment, you really don't know what you're talking about, anyway.

The "Gag order" is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting ... or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press;..."

The judge, like most judges, openly and notoriously operates way outside
the law, and then expects the public to respect his court as "law and
order." He ought to be locked up for felony crimes.

Bob

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:36:39 GMT, Robert Lee
<cranchingwire@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote:

->"Huang Gang" <kongwong@yifan.net> wrote in
->news:bmbpmb$50o5@imsp212.netvigator.com:
->
->> You claim there is a rule. I didn't. Its your burden to
->prove. Not
->> mine. Don't make a claim if you can't back it up. Oh, and
->practice
->> isn't a rule, especially when it is against the First Amendment
->of
->> your constitution. But then I guess its the kind of rules you
->are
->> willingly and willfully against.
->>
->
->I think you mean the Sixth Amendment, since the First has nothing
->to do with trials, and as hiding the identity of victims doesn't
->violate anything in the Sixth Amendment, you really don't know
->what you're talking about, anyway.

You're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the
6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keeping
the accuser's name private. They violate the 1st Amendment
by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

It's purty damned simple.

Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in
news:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:
You're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the 6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keeping the accuser's name private.

Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedings
has to be open to the public."
They violate the 1st Amendment by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name in
shield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and most
outlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not the
identity has otherwise been made public.
It's purty damned simple.

Well, you are, that's for sure.

--
--Robert

But she's not afraid to die, all the people call her Alaska

Robert Lee wrote: Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in news:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:Yo u're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keepingthe accuser's name private. Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedings has to be open to the public."They violate the 1st Amendmentby "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name in shield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and most outlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not the identity has otherwise been made public.

The press has been threatened with being barred from the court if they
publish the name of Katelyn (the victim) Faber

What part of the first amendment do you think it's reasonable for the
judge to violate, or do you think it's okay to violate all of it?


" Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting .... or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

It's a shame that the judge is so illegal. No legal trial is going on
in an illegal court.

It's purty damned simple. Well, you are, that's for sure.

Yep, it takes only a short paragraph to read the law. Its a shame that
the judge is a criminal law breaker of the fundamental law of the land.

Bob

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:02:55 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Robert Lee wrote: Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in news:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:Yo u're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keepingthe accuser's name private. Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedings has to be open to the public."They violate the 1st Amendmentby "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name in shield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and most outlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not the identity has otherwise been made public.The press has been threatened with being barred from the court if theypublish the name of Katelyn (the victim) FaberWhat part of the first amendment do you think it's reasonable for thejudge to violate, or do you think it's okay to violate all of it?" Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting .... or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press;..."It's a shame that the judge is so illegal. No legal trial is going onin an illegal court.

You understand that freedom of speech is by no means absoulte. For
instance, I could not slander someone else under the protection of the
first amendment. Nor could I shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Supressing the public release of facts of a case in progress seeems to
be fairly well established as an exemption to the first amendment.

It's purty damned simple. Well, you are, that's for sure.Yep, it takes only a short paragraph to read the law. Its a shame thatthe judge is a criminal law breaker of the fundamental law of the land.Bob

Marcus Kwan wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:02:55 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Robert Lee wrote:Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote innews:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:>You're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the>6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keeping>the accuser's name private.Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedingshas to be open to the public.">They violate the 1st Amendment>by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name inshield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and mostoutlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not theidentity has otherwise been made public.The press has been threatened with being barred from the court if theypublish the name of Katelyn (the victim) FaberWhat part of the first amendment do you think it's reasonable for thejudge to violate, or do you think it's okay to violate all of it?" Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting .... or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press;..."It's a shame that the judge is so illegal. No legal trial is going onin an illegal court. You understand that freedom of speech is by no means absoulte. For instance, I could not slander someone else under the protection of the first amendment. Nor could I shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Prohibition on reporting the work of public officials has NEVER been a
legitimate restriction of free speech or the press. Its a cornerstone
of American democracy.

Supressing the public release of facts of a case in progress seeems to be fairly well established as an exemption to the first amendment.

Yep, the judges have "established" their exemption from the law, and
they all affirm each other.

By any excuse it's an illegal trial by a crimial judge operating
illegally.


Bob

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:50:40 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Marcus Kwan wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:02:55 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Robert Lee wrote:>Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in>news:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:>>>>>You're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the>>6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keeping>>the accuser's name private.>>>Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedings>has to be open to the public.">>>>>They violate the 1st Amendment>>by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.">>>The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name in>shield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and most>outlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not the>identity has otherwise been made public.The press has been threatened with being barred from the court if theypublish the name of Katelyn (the victim) FaberWhat part of the first amendment do you think it's reasonable for thejudge to violate, or do you think it's okay to violate all of it?" Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting .... or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press;..."It's a shame that the judge is so illegal. No legal trial is going onin an illegal court. You understand that freedom of speech is by no means absoulte. For instance, I could not slander someone else under the protection of the first amendment. Nor could I shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.Prohibition on reporting the work of public officials has NEVER been alegitimate restriction of free speech or the press. Its a cornerstoneof American democracy.

Operational information about the proceedings of the American
Government are classified all the time. Gag orders are used all the
time.

The constitutional rights to due process are equally germane in this
situation. Polluting a jury pool, or disrupting either the
prosecution or defenses ability to make a case compromises this right.




Supressing the public release of facts of a case in progress seeems to be fairly well established as an exemption to the first amendment.Yep, the judges have "established" their exemption from the law, andthey all affirm each other.By any excuse it's an illegal trial by a crimial judge operatingillegally.Bob

Marcus Kwan wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:50:40 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Marcus Kwan wrote:On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:02:55 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Robert Lee wrote:>>>>Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in>>news:84flov8on4tepeut02bibqt6658bsqbi7a@4ax.com:>>>>>>>>>>>You're the clueless one. The "rape shield" laws violate the>>>6th Amendment's requirement for a "public trial" by keeping>>>the accuser's name private.>>>>>>Nope. "Public trial" doesn't mean "every single aspect of the proceedings>>has to be open to the public.">>>>>>>>>>>They violate the 1st Amendment>>>by "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.">>>>>>The press is not forbidden to publish an alleged rape victim's name in>>shield cases. They just aren't given the name by the court, and most>>outlets choose to follow the shielding guidelines, whether or not the>>identity has otherwise been made public.>>The press has been threatened with being barred from the court if they>publish the name of Katelyn (the victim) Faber>>What part of the first amendment do you think it's reasonable for the>judge to violate, or do you think it's okay to violate all of it?>>>" Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting .... or abridging>the freedom of speech, or of the press;...">>It's a shame that the judge is so illegal. No legal trial is going on>in an illegal court.>You understand that freedom of speech is by no means absoulte. Forinstance, I could not slander someone else under the protection of thefirst amendment. Nor could I shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.Prohibition on reporting the work of public officials has NEVER been alegitimate restriction of free speech or the press. Its a cornerstoneof American democracy. Operational information about the proceedings of the American Government are classified all the time. Gag orders are used all the time. The constitutional rights to due process are equally germane in this situation. Polluting a jury pool, or disrupting either the prosecution or defenses ability to make a case compromises this right.

Nope. It only serves to create injustice and the appearance of injustice.

There is no justice being done in a court operating outside the law.

Bob

lone@victor.com (Lone Victor) wrote:
Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote:Your can prove your claim about being able to read by showingwhere it says people can't use the accuser's namem and whichpeople aren't supposed to and when. In the meantime, feel freeto write "Kate Farber" as much as you please.Audry Underhill?
Oh fer Christ's sake. "Everyone knew her as Nancy."




----== Posted via Usenet.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.Usenet.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---