Author Topic: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry  (Read 3648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« on: July 02, 2013, 11:35:07 AM »
Yes, this is about the ice cream tweet.
 
State's Motion for Protective Order

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL

Offline ding7777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Rate Post +19/-59
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2013, 12:06:20 PM »
Yes, this is about the ice cream tweet.
 
State's Motion for Protective Order


(4) Defense counsel's sokepersons have admitted that the posting was certainly"insensitive" (presumably meaning both racially and from an intellectual standpoint)

racially??  vanilla ice cream?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2013, 12:16:10 PM »
West's reply blew me away.  I was not expecting it to conclude the way it did.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2013, 12:33:44 PM »
It's something called an Instagram. Is that a special kind of tweet?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2013, 12:41:57 PM »
racially??  vanilla ice cream?

I think they mean implying that a black person is stupid.

After the acquittal of OJ Simpson, many people, including myself, were of the opinion that the OJ jurors were below average in education and intelligence, as a result of an excessive zeal to exclude people with prior knowledge of the case. This view was often denounced as 'racist'.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2013, 12:47:45 PM »
Funny how Nelson has time to entertain this frivolous matter instead of delaying it until after trial.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:49:56 PM by Redbrow »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2013, 02:50:45 PM »
The state's motion is both creepy and ridiculous. Big Brother himself couldn't guarantee that anyone or anything gets 'treated with respect' all over social media.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2013, 03:07:05 PM »
Oh ffs.
There is quite literally nothing I can say about this without offending Jeralyn.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2013, 03:25:00 PM »
Oh ffs.
There is quite literally nothing I can say about this without offending Jeralyn.

I thought West's reply was great.  Have you read it?  Not just substantively, but the way he ends is great.  He agrees with the state, there should be an inquiry.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2013, 03:33:28 PM »
I thought West's reply was great.  Have you read it?  Not just substantively, but the way he ends is great.  He agrees with the state, there should be an inquiry.

Heh. Yeah, I just read it again for the second time. When I first responded I hadn't, the PDF wouldn't load.

He's pretty mad it seems. I don't blame him.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2013, 03:40:54 PM »
He's pretty mad it seems. I don't blame him.

Just like the state's witnesses.  West takes the allegations in the state's motion, explains why the state's motion should not have been filed, how the facts differ from the state's representations, but in conclusion, agrees with the state, let's have a hearing - the state screwed up, and judge, you should hear about it, and if you think proper, you should do something about it.

I did not expect the turnaround at the end.  I expected "state's request has no merit, drop it."

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2013, 03:48:32 PM »

I did not expect the turnaround at the end.  I expected "state's request has no merit, drop it."

I'm thinking that, had he asked Nelson to drop it, she'd have had to continue on. By coming out swinging and demanding the Court look into the State's behavior--and mentioning the threats of violence and rape and so forth--he's pretty much guaranteed she'll just drop it.

But really--it's pretty embarrassing for the state.

Why do you suppose it wasn't signed by Bernie or even Corey?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2013, 03:54:43 PM »
I'm thinking that, had he asked Nelson to drop it, she'd have had to continue on. By coming out swinging and demanding the Court look into the State's behavior--and mentioning the threats of violence and rape and so forth--he's pretty much guaranteed she'll just drop it.

But really--it's pretty embarrassing for the state.

Why do you suppose it wasn't signed by Bernie or even Corey?

Maybe Bernardo is working on other silly motions, and this was Mantei's turn.

It's only embarrassing to the extent the public becomes aware of it.  If the press and Nelson ignore it, it's as if the motion and response were never filed.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's Motion for Protective Order/Judicial Inquiry
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2013, 06:57:57 PM »
Why hasn't anyone brought up the personal information (SSN) that went unredacted by both the State and televised during the trial.  To me, it seems like an oops for the State.  Not so much an oops for the Defense since it wasn't a part of their submitted evidence.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking