No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[Noches de Passion]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

 

[Noches de Passion]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

And Jack, you surely ought to know better than to make your conclusions based solely off of a motion to dismiss. Did you know that motions like this are usually pretty one-sided? I am sure you do, but maybe you just don't want to admit it.

 

[PlayerRep]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

 

[PTGrizzly]

Are you threatening to sue people again? C'mon man, you're 60+ years old (I think, don't sue me if I'm wrong), I think it's time for you to slow down a little.

 

[UMGriz75]

But this is where you miss the point, UmGriz75. Unless you yourself are Dave Paoli or Kirsten Pabst, your views and my views are wholly irrelevant. You have read too much into presentations offered by lawyers from both the state and the alleged Defendant and believe only Paoli and Pabst to be capable of offering a truthful account. You accuse Boylan of lacking candor but don't support that with anything other than what I presume to be your belief in the motion to dismiss.

This is a flawed reading of the case. I didn't accuse Boylan of anything. The Motion to Dismiss did.

What I did was look at the synthesis of facts presented from both sides and I am aware that when the Defense "quotes" a prosecution witness in a pleading, it is likely a direct quote and there exists an affidavit or sworn testimony. I don't think Boylan was untruthful. I take everything represented as Jane Doe's testimony exactly at face value. Jane Doe did say it.

Kirsten Pabst has a different complaint; that Boylan withheld information that she knew was adverse to the complaining witness. That doesn't enter into the recitation of facts. I take what Boylan did represent exactly at face value: those statements are true. They may not be the whole truth, as Pabst asserts, but they are true to the extent that they represent Jane Doe's statements.

And this is where you misunderstand. It is BECAUSE it is represented as an accurate statement of Jane Doe that I take it as an accurate statement. And when Paoli and Pabst represent similar statements, taken from depositions taken under oath, that is likewise an accurate statement. IT IS THE CONFLICT OF THOSE ACCURATE STATEMENTS, made by Jane Doe at different times, taken under oath that is the basis of my analysis.

And that's the key: ultimately these are statements made under oath by Jane Doe. They will be compared and contrasted exactly as I have done it here.

That's how it works and that's how the synthesis of two pleadings presents a fuller factual picture.

Indeed, that's why judges ask for pleadings from both sides. That is, in fact, exactly how it works.

 

[Noches de Passion]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

LOL. I will be careful not to call you out on your BS, but there are no guarantees. I would also warn you to be careful about how you interract with students on campus, what information you expose about the alleged victim, and what concluions you draw based solely on a charging document and a motion to dismiss.

 

[UMGriz75]

But this is where you miss the point, UmGriz75. Unless you yourself are Dave Paoli or Kirsten Pabst, your views and my views are wholly irrelevant.

And that is why I specifically identified the "facts" I relied on, from the pleadings before the court, both enumerating in detail sworn statements of the complaining witness.

You have identified nothing to the contrary, even from the facts set forth by the County Attorney, so whether or not "views" are relevant or not, facts are relevant and you haven't offered a single one supporting a view or contradicting another view. It is a factless and therefore baseless view itself that there should be no "viewpoint" at all based upon a claim that you disagree with the facts but can't say how.

I spent some time identifying specific "facts" from the record to support a view. You are certainly entitled to do so, but have failed to offer any. We are different in how we approach controversial subjects.

 

[Noches de Passion]

Man, UM, you don't know anything about the legal process do you? Do you think those affidavits are admissible in court? Do you think that those two documents, the charging document and the motion, are a complete account of what happened between the two parties? That is the point. Witnesses will testify IN COURT and their ability to withstand cross examination and have their memories tested is what truly matters in a case like this.

Do you understand why our country has jury trials? It is to cess things like this out in court and let 12 normal people decide whether or not they are believeable. What matters is what happens and what is said on that day in court. Your "analysis" of the facts is no more relevant than my own, and indeed a wasted effort on either side when we don't know all of those facts.

Perhaps more of those facts will prove positive for Jordy and relieve him of any possible guilt on this charge. Perhaps not. It will be interesting to read your reaction to the two remaining response briefs.

 

[PlayerRep]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

LOL. I will be careful not to call you out on your BS, but there are no guarantees. I would also warn you to be careful about how you interract with students on campus, what information you expose about the alleged victim, and what concluions you draw based solely on a charging document and a motion to dismiss.

You may want to take care of yourself first, as I am not going to let you get away with telling lies.

 

[Noches de Passion]

But this is where you miss the point, UmGriz75. Unless you yourself are Dave Paoli or Kirsten Pabst, your views and my views are wholly irrelevant.

And that is why I specifically identified the "facts" I relied on, from the pleadings before the court, both enumerating in detail sworn statements of the complaining witness.

We are different in how we approach controversial subjects.

Indeed we are. I'm waiting to let this play out. You have formed your opinion based on a motion to dismiss. Next time you cite motions to dismiss from trial courts as "facts," let me know. That certainly will change the legal game forever.

 

[Irish Duck]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

C'mon man.. you had me until this. Now you just look like a clown.

 

[Noches de Passion]

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

LOL. I will be careful not to call you out on your BS, but there are no guarantees. I would also warn you to be careful about how you interract with students on campus, what information you expose about the alleged victim, and what concluions you draw based solely on a charging document and a motion to dismiss.

You may want to take care of yourself first, as I am not going to let you get away with telling lies.

Good luck. :roll:

 

[UMGriz75]

But this is where you miss the point, UmGriz75. Unless you yourself are Dave Paoli or Kirsten Pabst, your views and my views are wholly irrelevant.

And that is why I specifically identified the "facts" I relied on, from the pleadings before the court, both enumerating in detail sworn statements of the complaining witness.

We are different in how we approach controversial subjects.

Indeed we are. I'm waiting to let this play out. You have formed your opinion based on a motion to dismiss. Next time you cite motions to dismiss from trial courts as "facts," let me know. That certainly will change the legal game forever.

I referred to the "facts" as taken from statements of the complaining witness as set forth in the pleadings. Please let me know when you decide to honestly distinguish what I said from what I didn't say.

 

[UMGriz75]

Man, UM, you don't know anything about the legal process do you? Do you think those affidavits are admissible in court?

As impeachment or admissions against interest? You bet they are.

 

[PlayerRep]

Man, UM, you don't know anything about the legal process do you? Do you think those affidavits are admissible in court?

As impeachment or admissions against interest? You bet they are.

Talk about not understanding the legal process. Also, people providing affidavits are also available to testify in person.

 

[Noches de Passion]

Are you threatening to sue people again? C'mon man, you're 60+ years old (I think, don't sue me if I'm wrong), I think it's time for you to slow down a little.

I sort of take it as badge of honor. I'm glad to join the club of those who have been threatened with litigation.

 

[UMGriz75]

I'm waiting to let this play out. You have formed your opinion based on a motion to dismiss.

Judges form their opinions based on a "motion to dismiss" or a "motion for summary judgment." In order to rule on them, they must form an opinion one way or the other.

They can't refuse to rule, waiting for something to "play out." "I'm not going to give you an opinion!"

Well, "that would change the legal game considerably."

The facts of the case are already being brought forward, and while they may not be "all' of the facts, by that point, "key" facts are known.

And .... often enough decide the case.

 

[UMGriz75]

Man, UM, you don't know anything about the legal process do you? Do you think those affidavits are admissible in court?

As impeachment or admissions against interest? You bet they are.

Talk about not understanding the legal process. Also, people providing affidavits are also available to testify in person.

And if they testify contrary to what they have said in an affidavit, the affidavit is specifically used as impeachment or as an admission against interest. That's what they are for.

How did you get your "understanding" of the legal process?

 

[PTGrizzly]

It's fun watching 75 run circles around Noches (and the other doubters). 75, I'm enjoying your analysis. Very interesting.

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

C'mon man.. you had me until this. Now you just look like a clown.

He is a clown.

 

[Sportin' Life]

Is it as fun as when you interviewed pharmacy students about the alleged victim, or not quite as fun? I'm enjoying your slow downfall from former prominence in the Griz program. I believe our program will be better because you are not involved in it, but I do not think many of our players and alleged victims for that matter will be better off because of your internet tough guy representation.

I don't know any pharmacy students. Be careful, or you will be getting a claim against you too. Nothing you said in your post accurate. Why can't some of you jokers make a post without lying or making defamatory statements?

C'mon man.. you had me until this. Now you just look like a clown.

He is a clown.

The fact that pr hasn't yet threatened irish duck with a lawsuit for claiming he is a clown is all the proof I need that pr is indeed a clown.

Now we can skip straight to the speculation. Is it the access to kids birthday parties that makes him want to be such a clown?