Author Topic: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'  (Read 11004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #90 on: October 11, 2010, 07:47:51 PM »
Quote
So, obviously the 2nd judge is lying, per Bt's defensive parameters of the 1st judge

Why would the second judge lie?

Remember accepting or rejecting pleas is up to the discretion of the judge.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #91 on: October 11, 2010, 08:23:53 PM »
Never said otherwise.  For folks that have paid attention, they will have known precisly what was said by me, which would NOT include that the 1st judge was lying, or that he unlawfully denied a prearranged plea deal
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #92 on: October 11, 2010, 08:59:24 PM »
According to you the judge was reacting on a gut feeling.

Not so.

Tom Ridge while Governor of PA commissioned a study to evaluate Racial and Gender bias in the judicial system. Their findings:


Quote
At the same time, the Committee?s findings demonstrate that racial, ethnic, and gender bias does exist and that it infects the justice system at many key points in both overt and subtle ways.
Even when controlling for other factors such as economic status, familial status, and geographic diversity, the studies demonstrate that racial, ethnic, and gender bias still emerge as significantly affecting the way an individual (be it a party, witness, litigant, lawyer, court employee, or potential juror) is treated.

http://www.friendsfw.org/PA_Courts/Race_Gender_Link.pdf

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #93 on: October 11, 2010, 09:09:20 PM »
lol....which again has been addressed by the fact that a subsequent judge accepted said plea.  Noting bias, is not what this Judge said.  He was very specific, and used very specific rhetoric, minus the needed support to his "perception".  NOT that he was required to show support (just in case you were going to pull that again)

Sorry Bt, still no legs.

Oh, you may have not known this, racism still exists in this country.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #94 on: October 11, 2010, 09:38:43 PM »
What part of the 2nd judge accepted the plea based on the defendants clean record do you not understand?

The second judge said nothing about the first judges claims, in essence, neither confirming them or denying them.

However the Report on Race and Gender Bias does agree with the first judge.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #95 on: October 11, 2010, 09:53:58 PM »
More on Judge Williams:

Common Pleas Judge Joseph K. Williams III, 57, of Penn Hills, will appear on both ballots. Judge Williams, who had a private law practice in Manchester, has served in the court's criminal division since November, when Gov. Ed Rendell appointed him to fill a vacancy. He was rated "highly recommended" by the bar association and endorsed by the county Democratic Party.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960736-455.stm#ixzz126Lyekrs

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #96 on: October 11, 2010, 10:01:56 PM »

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: White judge rejects plea deal for 'blackie'
« Reply #97 on: October 12, 2010, 12:59:59 AM »
Quote  from: BT on Today at 02:47:26 PM
Once again, please explain how something can be unlawful and lawful at the same time.




This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.


Quote
This would be the case at any time that there was an ambiguity or contradiction in the law.

Is the 14th amendment ambiguous or contradictory?

Both ,
 What is the unambiguous definition of a person?
How does the 14th admendmendment apply to perceived statistical diffrences in enforcement?

Is a Judge useing due process if he perceives a trend in plea bargans and refuses to accept one or another on a stitistical basis(especially if he is not relying on evidence presented by the due process)?

During the entire "Jim Crow" era laws contradictory to the 14th admendment were passed and enforced. At present huge laws contradictory to the 9th and 10th admendment are enacted or being proposed.Laws contradictory to the second admendment are in flux.



Quote
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution