<br />... and one more thing to research, just in case you have too much time on your hands--and can't find anything to do. :Pulling_hair: :errrr: :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:<br />
<br />We should know the US laws to answer this question.<br />Since I don't know the US laws - I can only appeal to common sense and say that IMO it should be illegal to make the witnesses play roles in a movie without their consent. <br />In Romania it is legal to take pictures/films of any person in a public space though. I don't know if a court of law can be considered a public space. <br />But even if it is, to make the witnesses testify is different from taking pictures/films of them. This means to make them part of a movie without their consent. <br />This should not be legal IMO.<br /><br />EDIT: TS, are you a lawyer :icon_cool:?<br />
Ok so I was looking for fake cases and found this (http://tamaratattles.com/2011/12/11/sheree-whitfields-fake-storyline-on-tonights-rhoa/).<br />This person, as well as others are claiming that The Real Housewives of Atlanta storyline of Sheree Whitfield in court is fake. The article goes onto explain why it is fake. <br /><br />So if this is true, well then I guess it isn't illegal to have a fake case in a real courthouse, whether the judge is a real judge of the court (in the case of CM V The People) and if you count RHOA, where a real judge presided over it (Judge Arrington is not only a real judge but a very well-known and well-respected judge in Fulton County), then it's safe to say that it is legal. <br /><br />Why the show had a fake case, is probably for a good storyline but I guess the only reason for allowing this fake case in a real courthouse would be just for the purpose of a show. But who do you have to go to anyway to allow for a fake court case to preside in front of a real judge?
little off topic, but I was thinking about old good times during CM trial here, on our forum chat..we had lot of things to discuss at that time...funny and playful judge, Ipad man, moving Mr. Pumpkin, Ed, coincidental alarms, etc...it really does not seem to be real (at least not for us) :icon_e_wink:
maybe the trial was part real and part movie<br /><br />some parts for sure felt so out of place, like MJ's dead photo.<br />and the pumpkin<br />and the elephant<br /><br />but do you guys remember the cangaroo court?<br /><br />It was planned to finish with the guilty verdict for an innocent man. This must be it.
I just don't know how there can be an "alleged victim" coupled with an "alleged date" when the victim is really meant to be dead....wouldn't it be read as only "victim" and "date" regardless of whether the Defendant was found Guilty or Not-Guilty?......unless of course the victim really isn't dead....or is someone else?<br />
<br />... and one more thing to research, just in case you have too much time on your hands--and can't find anything to do. :Pulling_hair: :errrr: :icon_e_biggrin:<br /><br />Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?<br /><br /> :icon_neutral:<br />
<br /><br />I've spent the better part of my morning looking up 'precedents'...what they are, what they mean, and what happens in cases where there is no 'precedent' (I figured this was a better angle to research than sitting here youtubing a gazillion movies with court scenes where ONE specific word was used lol). Based on what I've read so far, I'm wondering if "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" ("No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law") would/could be applied here.<br /><br />
<br />The maxim states that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of penal law as it existed at the time. Another consequence of this principle is that only those penalties that had already been established for the offence in the time when it was committed can be imposed. Thus, not only the existence of the crime depends on there being a previous legal provision declaring it to be a penal offense (nullum crimen sine praevia lege), but also, for a specific penalty to be imposed in a certain case, it is also necessary that the penal legislation in force at the time when the crime was committed ranked the penalty to be imposed as one of the possible sanctions to that crime (nulla poena sine praevia lege).<br />
<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_crimen,_nulla_poena_sine_praevia_lege_poenali<br /><br />A "crime" is only defined as such, from my understanding, if there is law(s) already stating it is (already 'in the books', so to speak). Trying to find reference (precedents) would get us nowhere here because there is no law, that I can find, that speaks to what played out in front of our eyes lol. I can't find reference to ANY court case that was played out, not only to the 'public' but also to the world, as REAL when it was, in fact, FAKE....let alone one that was based on fake charges, based on a fake death lol....whether for a sting or for a movie. If there is no law/precedent specifically set out for this 'action'....then I would think that any actions following the main one would be legally ambiguous (i.e. open to interpretation).<br /><br />My 'legal' knowledge is limited, so this may be WAY off in being applicable lol. Based on Mike's character profile, I would think that Mike did NOT break any laws in the course of this thing. So whatever we did see play out (and is still playing out), I would bet, was/is fully within the 'bounds' of the law, as it is stated. Based on Mike's level of genius, I wouldn't be surprised if he found a way outside the same legal system that tried to crucify him...by out-thinking 'them' and SETTING precedent....in essence, changing future history books/re-writing history.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
California | Medical Malpractice <br />11/11/11, 5:27 pmLegal QuestionAttorneys Only: Answer this Question <br />Why in the Conrad Murray case, during the verdict Michael Jackson was still stated as alleged victim?and waht does alleged date means?<br /><br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Superior court of California Los Angeles County. The people of the state of California plaintiff versus Conrad Robert Murray defendant. Case number SA-073164. Title of court and cause. We the jury in the above entitled action find the defendant Conrad Robert Murray guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. In violation of penal code section 192 subsection B alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009 as charged in count I of the information<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Legal Answer When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.<br /><br />Michael Stone<br /><br />Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE<br />3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300<br />Seal Beach, CA 90740 <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questions/-/conrad-murray-case-verdict-michael-119617113/a<br /><br />
^^^ That's really interesting BeTheChange, you can't break the law if one doesn't exist to criminalise what you're doing! Neat!<br /><br />That use of the word 'alleged' in Murray's verdict is surely there as a safeguard and it should've rung alarm bells in the minds of all lawyers and dare I say journalists - maybe it did, but they kept silent.<br /><br />Oh just seen this from Paula:<br /><br />Legal Answer When the verdict form was drafted, Jackson was still an "alleged" victim, because Dr. Murray was then presumed innocent. Obviously, that's no longer true.<br /><br />Obviously!!
The Latin word vĭctim refers to the living person or animal for slaughter. This use, anyway, was relegated and currently the notion of victim often mention the person damaged by another subject or by a force majeure
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The judgment does not say alleged died, but the alleged victim, a different thing, because what is alleged is the victimization not death.
<br /><br /><br />Good Luck family. Those of you who have been there by my side from the start- I love you all. Some of the players who have appeared to jump out of the shadows recently really give me Heartburn. lmao!<br /><br />I gotta Go now. <br /><br /> :bearhug:
Yes and in the Murray case, MJ was allegedly the victim of manslaughter. Alleged victim of manslaughter means allegedly dead by manner of manslaughter.<br /><br />If the victim were merely alleged and not proven, what is the verdict being ruled against? It is a tricky little play on words designed to confuse and spark debate.
Well I guess since no effort was made by the court to prove that anything took place on 6/25/09, the date, to the court, WAS indeed alleged.<br /><br />However, I'd say that last year we effectively PROVED that SOMETHING occurred on 6/25/09 at Carrolwood house and at UCLA and at LA coroner (ambulance footage was shot on 6/25/09, same ambulance did embark to and arrive at UCLA ER, and helicopter did fly from UCLA-->LA coroner), so I believe we can safely state that the date is not alleged.<br /><br />WHAT occurred on 6/25/09 is indeed alleged, but the date of something occurring is NOT alleged. The date of something occurring is substantiated as 6/25/09, so we can officially state "the date" as opposed to "the alleged date".
California is known as a "two-party" state, which means that recordings are not allowed unless all parties to the conversation consent to the recording.<br /><br />Under Penal Code § 632(c), "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.<br />http://www.bc-llp.com/Legal-Guides/Illegally-Recording-a-Conversation.shtml<br /><br />A movie needs signatures from "actors".<br />A true trial doesn't.<br />A fake trial means entrapment / avoidance of signatures except if entrapment can safely be excluded by other obvious indicators.<br /><br />Add. Fake trial = avoidance of signatures of consent to recordings but:<br /><br />The Production of Illegal Recordings During Discovery<br />Although generally not admissible at trial, illegal recordings are discoverable as they could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As such, if a recording is responsive to discovery requests, it should be timely produced. Otherwise, if it is later discovered that the recording was not produced and was intentionally withheld, severe discovery sanctions may be imposed. Counsel should carefully analyze whether production is appropriate. If a recording is responsive and is produced, counsel should advise their clients to seek advice of criminal counsel as there may be criminal implications and the potential need to assert the 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination.<br /><br />Generally, under California Penal Code § 632(d), an illegally recorded conversation is inadmissible in any court proceeding. However, California courts have carved out exceptions to this blanket exclusion in both civil and criminal actions.<br />http://www.bc-llp.com/Legal-Guides/Illegally-Recording-a-Conversation.shtml<br /><br />-> Reads to me like:<br />If a criminal counsel analyzes that an illegal recording production is appropriate, witness "actors" may be recorded without any consent.<br />If authorities request a recording for collecting evidence that could not be collected otherwise (FBI etc.), witness "actors" may be recorded without any consent - even in a fake trial.
Yes and that applies restrictions to recordings used as evidence in a court of law.<br /><br />You can record anyone you want for any reason at any time... you just can't use it as evidence in court.<br /><br />No restriction on using it for entertainment purposes.<br /><br />Again, refer to the long running TV show Candid Camera. Filmed frequently in California, also in other two party states.
Great posts!<br /><br />Either a ton of professionals were involved in the (at least partly hoax) CM trial fully knowing that MJ was leading this earth-shattering show-stopper, or it all reeks of systemic cover-up, fear of telling truth, political correctness, like in the story of the Emperor’s new clothes—no one but a child or hoaxers like us, was willing to say what everyone could clearly see, that 'alleged' cancels out the guilty verdict. If this trial was real, it really shows what a joke then is the whole legal system. If Tom Snedden could get away with fabricating evidence against MJ back in 05, how many other millions of citizens are being toyed with in small ways to their detriment, by those with power to do so.<br /><br />Bec<br />
It is a tricky little play on words designed to confuse and spark debate.
<br />Yes, the verdict was as ‘slippery’ as TS has shown himself! Hmmm…connections. Again it is MJ's scale of doing his art incorporating multiple mediums, on a world-wide canvas--art that reveals truth to bring about a real change to heal the world.<br /><br />
alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson alleged date of June 25th 2009
<br />Again it takes us back to ‘who’ or ‘what’ really did or did not die, and did it happen on one day or two separate occasions.<br /><br />TS<br />
Would it be legal to bring in witnesses to the Murray trial, if it was merely a movie--and the "actors" (witnesses) were not informed that it was merely a movie?
<br />So according to BTC's post, if there is no law written about doing this, then it is legal. I mean how many judges and lawyers are charged with crimes, if they are basically at the top of the food chain. Who polices the police, who judges the judges? Who really examines the government or military, and lives to tell about it?<br /><br />Maybe FBI! :icon_lol: Or FBI actors? Who knows...
<br /><br />This photo seems photoshopped to me. The FBI guys are blurred and the sitting guys in the last row as well. It's optically impossible!!<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />that I remember this is the only picture where you can see more people in that room, apart from Murray, the lawyers, the judge and prosecutors and the police, or I am mistaken?
<br /><br />This photo seems photoshopped to me. The FBI guys are blurred and the sitting guys in the last row as well. It's optically impossible!!<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />that I remember this is the only picture where you can see more people in that room, apart from Murray, the lawyers, the judge and prosecutors and the police, or I am mistaken?<br />
<br /><br />It's so hard to tell what those lapel pins are. But those guys do seem to be a part of the same team or organization whoever they are. They do kinda have the drab air of seriousness that the feds are known for.
It's not photoshopped. I forget what they call that in photography but I think it's a short exposure. Basically it's a short focus, focusing on only one subject (or line of subjects) in a 3D plane. Excellent for showing depth and catching sharp detail. It's usually used with subject or portrait photography, not typically used in journalistic settings.<br /><br />Which, in itself, might mean something come to think of it.<br /><br />If you used this exposure in a forest you would only see A tree clearly.
Wasn't there also one unidentified man in a black suit in the driveway at the Carolwood house on 'death' day, that we figured could have been FBI, making sure all was going according to plan, and legally or whatever? Does anyone have a pic of that/him?
<br />Wasn't there also one unidentified man in a black suit in the driveway at the Carolwood house on 'death' day, that we figured could have been FBI, making sure all was going according to plan, and legally or whatever? Does anyone have a pic of that/him?<br />
Comments