The Curious Case of Luke Daly (Cats Kicker)

[grizfnz]

So far in your numerous manifestos on this board you've claimed that at various times in your life you've been a lawyer, a judge, a CFO, a teacher and a coach. You're either a goddamned genius, Gump, or you can't seem to hold a job. :roll: :roll:

What was interesting is that, at one point, it was all at the same time! It's been a great life. You should have tried one.

 

[AZGrizFan]

So far in your numerous manifestos on this board you've claimed that at various times in your life you've been a lawyer, a judge, a CFO, a teacher and a coach. You're either a goddamned genius, Gump, or you can't seem to hold a job. :roll: :roll:

What was interesting is that, at one point, it was all at the same time! It's been a great life. You should have tried one.

There are very few people in the world I would trade life experiences with....maybe Chris Lynn....that might be about it.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

[ Not sure why you insist on implying you think he is an idiot, or has misinformed his client about what the deal terms are.

Unlike you, I've seen them. Luke thought he was completely vindicated.

A "deferred prosecution agreement" is not the "vindication" that Luke thought it was no matter how much you want to spin this into yet another of your trolling arguments. What he thought it was, and what it was, are two different things.

Another slight of hand. It doesn't matter how many deferred prosecution agreements you have seen in the past, you haven't seen the document Luke signed. Relying on the Gazette to accurately report is another sign of ignorance. But I have no doubt you will keep making things up as you go. Only in your mind is exposing your disingenuous statements and arguments trolling. I'd like to think you are pretending you don't know the difference between a deferred prosecution and a deferred imposition of sentence, so most people on here won't know all the misinformation you have spouted, but its hard to conclude you are in fact pretending. Just admit you jumped to an unsupported conclusion and move on.

 

[tnt]

Well lost somewhere in all the legalise is the fact a semipro athlete was incapable of putting his hands in his pocket and walking away from a situation for every ones good including his child. A real man doesn't punch someone his significantly physically inferior. It's great the courts are giving him a chance but that doesn't excuse him from the consequences of very poor decisions.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Well lost somewhere in all the legalise is the fact a semipro athlete was incapable of putting his hands in his pocket and walking away from a situation for every ones good including his child. A real man doesn't punch someone his significantly physically inferior. It's great the courts are giving him a chance but that doesn't excuse him from the consequences of very poor decisions.

Except he didn't punch her. The physical evidence proved that. She was the attacker, the physical evidence proved that. She did suffer a scratch by her eye when Luke held his hand out to ward off her attack. The physical evidence proved that.

Put his hands in his pocket, drop his son and walk away? Really? You getting your info from 75's fly on the wall? He doesn't even know who called the cops.

 

[UMGriz75]

Another slight of hand. It doesn't matter how many deferred prosecution agreements you have seen in the past, you haven't seen the document Luke signed. Relying on the Gazette to accurately report is another sign of ignorance.

You probably didn't either. I relied on what Luke specifically stated: the charges dismissed, he had been "vindicated." He was going to play ball again.

I guess if your argument is that you disagree with me, Luke and the Billings Gazette, you are simply looking for an argument, as you have many times in the past.

If he had to fulfill an "anger management" program, then there was an agreement in place that gave the State jurisdiction to require it. Full dismissal of charges isn't it.

Why you feel the need to blow this up in another of your chest-thumping sessions is just another mystery. If you were as right as you need to claim you are, poor Bob Stitt earns a paltry sum, Luke will be kicking next season, we had a fabulous season, Stitt proved he's an offensive genius, our DC can beat their DC, and we won the Griz-Cat game.

Or were you hoping for just one out of six?

 

[UMGriz75]

He doesn't even know who called the cops.

WTF is the matter with you? You just fabricate shit right and left. It's one of the key things that sways a jury to a "not guilty" verdict in a case like this. Because "I know" who did, its one reason I feel he should have asked for a jury trial and got this over with once and for all, if nothing else to save himself from guys like you -- I'm being polite --running wild on the internet. And it's just my "opinion." I stated my reasons. No need to bluster, prance, and whine about it.

 

[UMGriz75]

HookedonGriz: "Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 166-67, 940 P.2d 108, 111 (1997) .... It appears to be you that doesn't understand criminal charges can be, and are in fact often ordered, dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, which is exactly what this prosecutor asserted to the reporter. State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163, 357 Mont. 114 (Mont., 2010).

Your earlier ramapage citing to court opinions somehow supporting whatever it is you are trying to say is bizarre, to say the least.

In the first, the case was whether a statute requiring misdemeanors to be brought to trial within six months could be overcome if additional statutory criteria were met for instances if a defendant was not brought to trial within the six month period. The case was resolved in favor of the state in that it had met one of the statutorily prescribed exceptions.

In the second case, the statute requiring that a defendant be brought "promptly" before a judge for the reading of charges and rights was brought into question when some poor guy sat in jail for 42 days without any such hearing, and a public defender "happened to notice" that nothing was being done. The case, then, was addressed to what was the proper remedy when a defendant has admittedly not been brought before a judge "promptly?" The State admitted he had not. In the meantime, a trial had been held and the defendant convicted. What was the remedy for the failure to initially make a "prompt" initial appearance?

In the words of the Supreme Court: "The judgment, sentence and conviction in this case are reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the information without prejudice."

Neither of the cases you pompously cited had the faintest thing to do with a plea agreement, a deferred prosecution, or a deferred imposition of sentence. Nothing relevant whatsoever.

Your legal skills are at least as good as your football knowledge.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

HookedonGriz: "Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 166-67, 940 P.2d 108, 111 (1997) .... It appears to be you that doesn't understand criminal charges can be, and are in fact often ordered, dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, which is exactly what this prosecutor asserted to the reporter. State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163, 357 Mont. 114 (Mont., 2010).

Your earlier ramapage citing to court opinions somehow supporting whatever it is you are trying to say is bizarre, to say the least.

In the first, the case was whether a statute requiring misdemeanors to be brought to trial within six months could be overcome if additional statutory criteria were met for instances if a defendant was not brought to trial within the six month period. The case was resolved in favor of the state in that it had met one of the statutorily prescribed exceptions.

In the second case, the statute requiring that a defendant be brought "promptly" before a judge for the reading of charges and rights was brought into question when some poor guy sat in jail for 42 days without any such hearing, and a public defender "happened to notice" that nothing was being done. The case, then, was addressed to what was the proper remedy when a defendant has admittedly not been brought before a judge "promptly?" The State admitted he had not. In the meantime, a trial had been held and the defendant convicted. What was the remedy for the failure to initially make a "prompt" initial appearance?

In the words of the Supreme Court: "The judgment, sentence and conviction in this case are reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the information without prejudice."

Neither of the cases you pompously cited had the faintest thing to do with a plea agreement, a deferred prosecution, or a deferred imposition of sentence. Nothing relevant whatsoever.

Your legal skills are at least as good as your football knowledge.

The first case had to do with waiving rights including speedy trial, which you didn't appear to know, the second with dismissing without prejudice, which you also didn't appear to know, both of which were provided to show how you were uninformed or deliberately trying to mislead--I simply showed how you were wrong. Most of your deflection here is about you making conclusions and offering them as valid when you haven't seen what Luke signed, know nothing about what really happened, and called Luke and his lawyer idiots in the process. Thanks for once again proving you are the idiot, not them.

 

[UMGriz75]

The first case had to do with waiving rights including speedy trial, which you didn't appear to know, the second with dismissing without prejudice, which you also didn't appear to know, both of which were provided to show how you were uninformed or deliberately trying to mislead--I simply showed how you were wrong. Most of your deflection here is about you making conclusions and offering them as valid when you haven't seen what Luke signed, know nothing about what really happened, and called Luke and his lawyer idiots in the process. Thanks for once again proving you are the idiot, not them.

Jazus, you are a complete idiot. There, now am I speaking your language?

The "speedy trial" requirement for misdemeanors is set by statute. It's on the order of a statute of limitations. Such statutes have exceptions. It was not a constitutional question, nor a constitutional "right." The State created the statutory period.

Read the dam case, State v. Luke:

A criminal defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24 of the Montana Constitution. State v. Ariegwe, 2007 MT 204, ¶ 20, 338 Mont. 442, 167 P.3d 815; State v. Stops, 2013 MT 131, ¶ 18, 370 Mont. 226, 301 P.3d 811. Distinct from that constitutional right, a criminal defendant also has a statutory right to be brought to trial on a misdemeanor charge within six months of entering his or her plea, with important exceptions discussed below. Section 46–13–401(2), MCA. In the present case, Luke has asserted only his statutory right to a speedy trial.

There was no agreement, no plea, no deferred sentence, no deferred prosecution. The fact is, a trial was held six days after the statutory deadline, because the State met an exception to the requirement. The defendant didn't waive any "right." He claimed the State violated a statute. There is nothing in the case of Luke Taylor Daly that suggests that the State violated a statute, or that Luke was deprived of any "right." It has zero to do with this case, and is proof you are blustering about stuff you actually don't know anything about, and fabricating court cases to sound all legal beagle about it.

All we actually know from your diatribes on this topic is that you know more about Luke Taylor Daly than you do about football. I'm not sure where that's supposed to take us.

 

[HookedonGriz]

HookedonGriz: "Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 166-67, 940 P.2d 108, 111 (1997) .... It appears to be you that doesn't understand criminal charges can be, and are in fact often ordered, dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, which is exactly what this prosecutor asserted to the reporter. State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163, 357 Mont. 114 (Mont., 2010).

Your earlier ramapage citing to court opinions somehow supporting whatever it is you are trying to say is bizarre, to say the least.

In the first, the case was whether a statute requiring misdemeanors to be brought to trial within six months could be overcome if additional statutory criteria were met for instances if a defendant was not brought to trial within the six month period. The case was resolved in favor of the state in that it had met one of the statutorily prescribed exceptions.

In the second case, the statute requiring that a defendant be brought "promptly" before a judge for the reading of charges and rights was brought into question when some poor guy sat in jail for 42 days without any such hearing, and a public defender "happened to notice" that nothing was being done. The case, then, was addressed to what was the proper remedy when a defendant has admittedly not been brought before a judge "promptly?" The State admitted he had not. In the meantime, a trial had been held and the defendant convicted. What was the remedy for the failure to initially make a "prompt" initial appearance?

In the words of the Supreme Court: "The judgment, sentence and conviction in this case are reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the information without prejudice."

Neither of the cases you pompously cited had the faintest thing to do with a plea agreement, a deferred prosecution, or a deferred imposition of sentence. Nothing relevant whatsoever.

Your legal skills are at least as good as your football knowledge.

Whoa man, in all your insane drivel on this board you are now attacking people who are not even arguing with you.

In the quote you used above, you attached my username to it even though I never made that post (horribil did) but somehow you tried to attach it to me. You must be officially "losing it". I have purposely not said a word to you or any of your insane posts for months as you still make me want to stab myself in the eye.

Don't attach my username or make up fake quotes when I have nothing to do with your 1,234,412th argument on this site.

 

[UMGriz75]

[
...Tthe second with dismissing without prejudice, which you also didn't appear to know, both of which were provided to show how you were uninformed or deliberately trying to mislead--I simply showed how you were wrong.

There isn't an issue here about penalizing the State for violating a statute by dismissing charges without prejudice. I'm hardly uninformed about it, but since that has nothing to do with anything here, bringing it up is just pretense and deflection. And if a case is dismissed without prejudice, then it is dismissed, Nothing binding on anybody. Nothing about bars, further offenses, anger management. And must be refiled within the appropriate statute of limitations. And, yes, if they do, they can.

In any case, my "point," which your foaming tirade seems intended only to obfuscate was to point out that any kind of "deferred" agreement opens up any young man similarly situated to being "set up" by a vindictive "ex" and offered a recent example from my own experiences. The better solution, on these particular facts, was to get a clear vindication and a trial record, for the fact that custody problems have a 17 year life span ahead of them. That's my opinion. I also doubt she would go to trial, on these particular facts, and that the matter would be dismissed ... with prejudice, a better outcome. You have a different opinion, but apparently lack the self-control to simply offer it without fabricating a bunch of statements I never made (I never called Luke or his attorney "idiots"), and citing a bunch of court cases pretending that you can cite court cases -- since they were otherwise irrelevant.

On a different set of facts, including the risk and costs of going to trial, my opinion might be different. But, we don't have those facts here, just as we don't have a case involving the State not bringing a defendant "promptly" before a judge after arrest, and we don't have a case involving the state having a trial six months and six days after his first appearance. It's nice to know that red herrings are not endangered, but it is disconcerting that they are running wild.

 

[UMGriz75]

Whoa man, in all your insane drivel on this board you are now attacking people who are not even arguing with you.

In the quote you used above, you attached my username to it even though I never made that post (horribil did) but somehow you tried to attach it to me. You must be officially "losing it".

A Freudian slip no doubt. As you rightfully and defensively point out, it should be attributed to "horribilis" and I don't blame you for being justly offended at having his remarks attributed to you.

I too would be ashamed if someone actually thought I had written his drivel, and would also demand an instant correction. People would indeed consider you a fool, an angry and deceitful fool at that. You deserve the opportunity to earn that sobriquet on your own merits, and your efforts have been remarkable many times over. But on this one, you deserve an apology.

This is it.

 

[HookedonGriz]

Whoa man, in all your insane drivel on this board you are now attacking people who are not even arguing with you.

In the quote you used above, you attached my username to it even though I never made that post (horribil did) but somehow you tried to attach it to me. You must be officially "losing it".

A Freudian slip no doubt. As you rightfully and defensively point out, it should be attributed to "horribilis" and I don't blame you for being justly offended at having his remarks attributed to you.

I too would be ashamed if someone actually thought I had written his drivel, and would also demand an instant correction. People would indeed consider you a fool, an angry and deceitful fool at that. You deserve the opportunity to earn that sobriquet on your own merits, and your efforts have been remarkable many times over. But on this one, you deserve an apology.

This is it.

Wow, miracles happen every day. Apology accepted.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Whoa man, in all your insane drivel on this board you are now attacking people who are not even arguing with you.

In the quote you used above, you attached my username to it even though I never made that post (horribil did) but somehow you tried to attach it to me. You must be officially "losing it".

A Freudian slip no doubt. As you rightfully and defensively point out, it should be attributed to "horribilis" and I don't blame you for being justly offended at having his remarks attributed to you.

I too would be ashamed if someone actually thought I had written his drivel, and would also demand an instant correction. People would indeed consider you a fool, an angry and deceitful fool at that. You deserve the opportunity to earn that sobriquet on your own merits, and your efforts have been remarkable many times over. But on this one, you deserve an apology.

This is it.

Wow, miracles happen every day. Apology accepted.

Apparently despite all his self-proclaimed intelligence and knowledge the quote function escapes him. Although not the USE of quotation marks...which he does profusely. The irony probably escapes him.

 

[UMGriz75]

Apparently despite all his self-proclaimed intelligence and knowledge the quote function escapes him. Although not the USE of quotation marks...which he does profusely. The irony probably escapes him.

Bitter little troll. How much do you think Stitt made this year?

 

[mcg]

It's the first annual Egriz mock trial competition!

Happy new year everybody.

 

[catsack]

Apparently despite all his self-proclaimed intelligence and knowledge the quote function escapes him. Although not the USE of quotation marks...which he does profusely. The irony probably escapes him.

Bitter little troll. How much do you think Stitt made this year?

Was it more or less than you?

 

[EverettGriz]

Apparently despite all his self-proclaimed intelligence and knowledge the quote function escapes him. Although not the USE of quotation marks...which he does profusely. The irony probably escapes him.

Bitter little troll. How much do you think Stitt made this year?

Was it more or less than you?

Certainly less if he gets paid by the word. :?

 

[AZGrizFan]

Apparently despite all his self-proclaimed intelligence and knowledge the quote function escapes him. Although not the USE of quotation marks...which he does profusely. The irony probably escapes him.

Bitter little troll. How much do you think Stitt made this year?

Now stating two facts is trolling. HUUUUUUUUUUGE reach there, sonny.