Alan

But Lane, our very 'learned' and LARGE contingent of crater lawyers have much more legal knowledge and experience than the Dersh! They will be along right soon to re-educate.

And…

…it’s on the X platform so that makes it rubbish automatically by one of our local counselors.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
And…

…it’s on the X platform so that makes it rubbish automatically by one of our local counselors.

Not stealing your thunder but gotta post this again just because it needs to be!

Thank you Ms. Ann

I watched it because it's a video. Curious that Dershowitz makes no attempt to support his opinion.

So tell us, why is the NY conviction invalid? What's his legal reasoning?

He doesn't care if the conviction is affirmed? I guess his opinion supersedes court decisions. How arrogant.

And wearing a Superman costume? The man is senile.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
But Lane, our very 'learned' and LARGE contingent of crater lawyers have much more legal knowledge and experience than the Dersh! They will be along right soon to re-educate.

Dershowitz is a known legal crackpot. He defends the OJ Simpson verdict--which he helped achieve.

Sure would save a lot of money if we just eliminated all courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, quit bothering with juries and trials and simply let Alan Dershowitz decide what is and is not a crime, who's guilty and what the punishment will be.

After all, he worked to get O.J. Simpson acquitted, he must be the world's leading expert.

Yep he is a bit eccentric for sure but he damn sure has an impressive resume of legal accomplishments. I reckon he might have a good opinion on that case and he is a Democrat to boot.

But since it is on X…bound to be

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yep he is a bit eccentric for sure but he damn sure has an impressive resume of legal accomplishments. I reckon he might have a good opinion on that case and he is a Democrat to boot.

But since it is on X…bound to be

And all his legal accomplishments lead him to the conclusion that the OJ verdict was the right decision.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yep he is a bit eccentric for sure but he damn sure has an impressive resume of legal accomplishments. I reckon he might have a good opinion on that case and he is a Democrat to boot.

But since it is on X…bound to be

And all his legal accomplishments lead him to the conclusion that the OJ verdict was the right decision.

Well…OJ wasn’t convicted. Did the court get it wrong?

. . . Trump is his client.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Yep he is a bit eccentric for sure but he damn sure has an impressive resume of legal accomplishments. I reckon he might have a good opinion on that case and he is a Democrat to boot.

But since it is on X…bound to be

And all his legal accomplishments lead him to the conclusion that the OJ verdict was the right decision.

Well…OJ wasn’t convicted. Did the court get it wrong?

Ouch!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . Trump is his client.

And he is a lawyer!

What can one expect!

Oh, I know.

The TRUTH!

Something unknown to both of them!

Alan D. is a very bright man and legal scholar. I don't always agree with him, but he's dead right here. First of all, from a very simplistic standpoint, if someone tries to blackmail you and you pay them, who committed the crime, the blackmailer or the blackmailed party? But more importantly as Dershowitz points out, the charged crime was a misdemeanor that was time barred and the prosecution's theory was to link it with another "crime" to resurrect the statute of limitations, but even if that far-fetched gambit could work, the jury charge was fatally flawed because Judge Merchant did not require the jury to agree on guilt as to any particular crime. So the verdict was not unanimous and cannot be established to be unanimous. This is a fatally flawed conviction. And I would say the same thing even if it was against Biden.

quote:

Well…OJ wasn’t convicted. Did the court get it wrong?

I remember reading some of Dershowitz's articles in law journals for a case note in a Law Review article I was helping write. Dershowitz was considered an outlier, someone who rarely persuaded a majority of his peers.

He's a criminal defense attorney, a different kind of animal. Some are in it for the money--plenty, if your clients are well-off. Some are true believers in the cause of getting every criminal suspect acquitted. Dersh is such a one. He frequently does it by painting cops and prosecutors as the bad guys.

He also loves to get his face and mouth in the media. How does he do that? By proclaiming clients' innocence and suggesting malfeasance by the cops or prosecutor. Isn't Trump one of his clients?

His routine has got old, and he doesn't play it nearly as well as he used to. The Superman costume is strong suggestion of senile dementia.

Don't worry--I haven't forgotten your question. The OJ court made a number of mistakes; probably the biggest was turning the trial participants into performers by Judge Ito's opening all proceedings to media cameras. The court clearly made the wrong decision there.

The jury seemed intent on punishing the police and prosecutors for perceived racism in their department. I think they were wrong to do so.

The combination of an incompetent judge, an inexperienced prosecution team, and a jury that went off the reservation (ignored trial court instructions) led to the wrong verdict.

So a couple of points:

1) Courts do get things wrong.

2) When you say:

quote:

Dershowitz was considered an outlier, someone who rarely persuaded a majority of his peers.

That doesn’t appear the case:
a. As of 2009, he had won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he handled as a criminal appellate lawyer.
b. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993.
3)

quote:

The Superman costume is strong suggestion of senile dementia.

Seems typical Dershowitz to me. He has always been a bit eccentric.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
And…

…it’s on the X platform so that makes it rubbish automatically by one of our local counselors.

Here's what Forbes says about the reliability of what you find on X ever since your hero Elon took it over. You know....Forbes.....that liberal rag.

>>>Elon Musk’s changes to X, formerly Twitter, staffing and code are making it difficult or impossible for users to get real-time news and updates about the Gaza conflict.

Legitimate News Buried
Twitter seems to be deliberately hiding legitimate news sources.

As I noted yesterday, reliable news sources didn’t appear in the “top” results for Gaza searches on X. I found mostly propaganda accounts posting biased content of questionable authenticity. The X algorithm favors this content, perhaps driven by likes and shares by bots or real accounts sympathetic to the cause of the poster.

Similar searches on X competitor Threads showed posts from news organizations and individual posters with content that looked less propaganda-like.

At a time when people want good information, X seems to promote extreme, unverifiable content.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...ormation-flourishes/

"Extreme unverifiable content."

What you call journalism.

What makes it rubbish is there is no legal analysis to the opinion.

Had Dershowitz given the statutes the case was brought under. Then ran the facts as found by the jury in Trump’s case comparing and contrasting to the application of the statutes by appellate courts in NY to other prosecutions he would have done something worth noticing.

His conclusion could be wrong, his conclusion could be right under precedent as it exists at this time, or he could take the location that the entire prosecutions upheld should be overturned because of x,y,z that needs to be applied but has not.

The conclusion is secondary to the above frame work.

Until he does something like the above, he has no basis for his opinion and should be ignored. There is nothing informative in his statement as it is presented by you from Twitter. This last sentence is a hedge in case he did provide that framework and the Twitter post is just a segment.

With respect Lane, it wasn't so long ago that you were telling us that the Chauvin (might have spelled that wrong - the officer who was convicted of killing Floyd) verdict was wrong.

I believe there were appeals up to the SCOTUS and his conviction stands.

Doubtless X has any number of people saying his conviction is incorrect though ...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
So a couple of points:

1) Courts do get things wrong.

2) When you say:

quote:

Dershowitz was considered an outlier, someone who rarely persuaded a majority of his peers.

That doesn’t appear the case:
a. As of 2009, he had won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he handled as a criminal appellate lawyer.
b. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993.
3)

quote:

The Superman costume is strong suggestion of senile dementia.

Seems typical Dershowitz to me. He has always been a bit eccentric.

I knew a lawyer who won nearly all of his cases because he cherry picked what he would take on. He admitted it openly. And Dershbag has had about a dozen years to go wacky, like Rudy did. A Superman costume..???.. verifies my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
With respect Lane, it wasn't so long ago that you were telling us that the Chauvin (might have spelled that wrong - the officer who was convicted of killing Floyd) verdict was wrong.

I believe there were appeals up to the SCOTUS and his conviction stands.

Doubtless X has any number of people saying his conviction is incorrect though ...

I believe the conviction was wrong. That not the same as incorrect. I believe the jury got both Chauvin and OJ wrong.

quote:

As of 2009, he had won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he handled as a criminal appellate lawyer.
b. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993.
3)

When I was a lawyer, I liked to work on cases I thought I could win too. If I thought the case would lose, I usually turned them away or settled early. Losing a trial or appeal is no fun.

Teaching at Harvard Law school is an impressive credential. But law schools, like colleges generally, seem to like radical or minority-thinking professors. When I was in law school at Ohio State, I had a professor who was sympathetic to Communism (I mean real Communism, not how you Republicans mislabel Democrats), refused to have a checking account or credit card, and thought the US should submit to the International Court of Justice.

I expect he and Dershowitz would have got along fine.

Dershowitz negotiated the sweet plea deal Jeffrey Epstein got from future Trump Cabinet Secretary Alex Acosta and defended porn star Harry Reems.

I guess that's what Lane admires.

To me it's simple.

Lane approves of Dershowitz and Musk.

So, therefore, I'm very skeptical of both.

Dershowitz is extraordinarily Constitutional.

IE: He is anti second amendment BUT he openly admits it is the law of the land and the only way to legally implement gun control is by repealing the 2A by Constitutional means.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Dershowitz is extraordinarily Constitutional.

IE: He is anti second amendment BUT he openly admits it is the law of the land and the only way to legally implement gun control is by repealing the 2A by Constitutional means.

Well, isn't that openly admitting repeal isn't going to happen AND SCOTUS got it wrong?

Plus, deflecting the constitutional premise that "rights" aren't carte blanche?

Barking dogs seldom bite.

Your HERO just Fled The Democrat Party!!!.................LOL

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Dershowitz is extraordinarily Constitutional.

IE: He is anti second amendment BUT he openly admits it is the law of the land and the only way to legally implement gun control is by repealing the 2A by Constitutional means.

Well that is not what the Supreme Court said and just said. However, I am tired of explaining it. Some gun control measures are permitted under the current framework.

quote:

Dershowitz

a thread on this codger? slow day in the news?

me, i bbqed a pork butt, fixed and used the pressure washer, had a nice ceasar salad with anchovies .. and the coffee this cool, crisp morning was nice ...

dersh? a whole thread on this loon?

goodness

Dershowitz is a brand at this point and he has abandoned any pretense of being a serious Constitutional academic. Everything is designed to make him money. Accurate intellectual legal analysis has nothing to do with it anymore. Aggressive representation of a client has nothing to do with it anymore other than his representation of trump. He is an internet personality who takes positions designed to enrich himself personally by endearing himself to trump cult members....regardless of legal merit.

Part of the cult.

Mike, that's just silly. You are only saying that because he is saying something you don't agree with, not because you are a Constitutional scholar, but because you just hate Trump. Dershowitz is a Constitutional scholar and I've often not liked the positions he's taken, but he's generally right and like him, I'm a fan of the Constitution.

The New York case is so flawed, a simple lawyer like me can see it. You don't need a Constitutional scholar.

quote:

"refused to have a checking account or credit card"

Your professor was obviously a firm believer that "cash is king" and nothing really related to Communism; besides, it keeps the taxman scratching his head.

quote:

Well that is not what the Supreme Court said and just said. However, I am tired of explaining it. Some gun control measures are permitted under the current framework.

NO, IT CLEARLY STATES DO NOT INFRINDGE!!!

By the Federal Government if you care what the original intent was.

And to quote the Supreme Court about firearm possession:

No right is absolute.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
By the Federal Government if you care what the original intent was.

And to quote the Supreme Court about firearm possession:

No right is absolute.

I would argue that are some absolute rights but aren't free of consequences

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike, that's just silly. You are only saying that because he is saying something you don't agree with, not because you are a Constitutional scholar, but because you just hate Trump. Dershowitz is a Constitutional scholar and I've often not liked the positions he's taken, but he's generally right and like him, I'm a fan of the Constitution.

The New York case is so flawed, a simple lawyer like me can see it. You don't need a Constitutional scholar.

Well, there's probably some truth to that...and, I don't know that I disagree with you in relation to the NY case either. When you have to work that hard to make your facts favorably fit with the law, it's usually a fucked up case.

Wow! One of The Mikes is returning to a reasonable position.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Wow! One of The Mikes is returning to a reasonable position.

Well, of all the criminal cases pending against your boy, it's the weakest. We'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Wow! One of The Mikes is returning to a reasonable position.

Well, of all the criminal cases pending against your boy, it's the weakest. We'll see.

Was strong enough for a grand jury and a trial jury, those are the primary measuring sticks, not hyper-partisans on a random website.