Jim Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, garfield said: No, you're not. Obviously, the CA courts agreed with you. And I do, too. See there’s hope after all. Garfield you made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One n Done Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Terri Schehr said: Absolute truth is a defense. Truth, yes. Rage and indignation, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 For what it's worth, there is that saying just because one is found "Not Guilty" in a court, it doesn't mean they're necessarily innocent of committing that crime. The justice system can be imperfect. How one handles those things afterwards, that's well, kind of what is being hashed out here, I guess. No real perfect answers, unfortunately. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, One n Done said: Truth, yes. Rage and indignation, not so much. I’m not sure rage and indignation are grounds for libel civil suits. And that’s what you’re suggesting? Correct me if I’m wrong. I was threatened by a drum corps six years ago for informing DCI and DCA that there was a lifetime registered sex offender marching and teaching in their corps. I don’t take kindly to threats. I went to my attorney, he said that defamation suits are extremely hard to prove and schooled me in the absolute truth defense. It was very enlightening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said: See there’s hope after all. Garfield you made my day. Something here gave you the impression to the contrary, and I don't think it was me. I think it was other posters twisting my words into appearing I'm on the other side of this discussion from you. I'm not. But I will insist - FOREVER - that our laws are not bastardized by personal opinion that's not backed by law. When that breaks down, we are doomed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) I thought we were moving on. I'm thinking of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where the gangster says to Bugs - "Shut up shuttin' up, rabbit!" Edited May 3, 2018 by HockeyDad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 3 hours ago, cowtown said: Generally, people assume Hoppy is going to slink away and it’s a done deal. Guilty. Depending on if and what charges come , I’d expect him to fight back. Could be very ugly and could go against the court of DCP opinion and it will be the law. This side show issue that was tried in court really detracts from the current issue. A lot of people are undermining their own outrage This is unfortunately often true in this type of situation, in my experience. If YEA gives GH a cause of action, I would expect him to sue. Wrongful termination or defamation are probably the two most likely complaints - after all, GH has not been charged with or convicted of any crime to this point. I'd certainly expect that the new BoD's counsel is advising them very carefully on what they can and cannot say. So far, all of their public statements have been well-vetted, and they should definitely continue that way. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: I went to my attorney, he said that defamation suits are extremely hard to prove and schooled me in the absolute truth defense. It was very enlightening. Not to mention the counter suit. That shut them up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said: I do understand that there will be those who believe these people didn’t do anything thing wrong and defend it with narrative directed to demean an opposing viewpoint. Unlike some here, I’m not insisting that anyone agree with my assessment or judgment on the matter, but unless I missed the DCP memo or meeting, I’m entitled to my opinion. of course, you have a right of course, you haven't said others have to agree with you ( I think) I'm talking about words toward a poster which some on DCP love to use. It doesn't move the conversation forward it turns into pages and pages of back and forth. That's all 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, garfield said: No, you're not. Obviously, the CA courts agreed with you. And I do, too. Just to clarify, it appears that his conviction was set aside as a matter of legal procedure, not lack of evidence or merit. Specifically, CA code 1203.4. As I read it (admittedly, from a very lay point of view), if you’re convicted of this type of misdemeanor, serve out your sentence (in this case, 30 days in jail, minus 1 days credit, plus 3 years of probation, to have begun in June of 2004, if I’m reading it correctly), and don’t screw up any more, you can later petition to have it set aside. Which was done in 2016 in this case. [Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I may not have all the exact details correct, but I believe I have the gist of it right. If not, I welcome any corrections] Some see what he was convicted for as an innocuous mistake, others not so much. edit: I’m not sure if the original sentence, including probation, was carried out. (If the linked court documents mentioned it, I missed it.) re-edit: Fixed one link to make it less confusing, added another Edited May 3, 2018 by year1buick clarity 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts