Hey Riot

[Danzig]

i am not surprised, based on previous articles, that no charges were filed.

riot, as for charges, if they should have been filed, they would have been. which means there was no evidence, and those iron clad witnesses weren't. had it been so clear, they would have filed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am not surprised, based on previous articles, that no charges were filed.

riot, as for charges, if they should have been filed, they would have been. which means there was no evidence, and those iron clad witnesses weren't. had it been so clear, they would have filed.

Except from the start they all said they didn't want to put a Supreme Court judge on a public trial.

The only determiner isn't, unfortunately, evidence.

[Danzig]

oh, please. if the evidence was there to prosecute, charges would have been filed. no one is immune from the law, right? hell, even clinton had to go thru the charade of being deposed-but you're saying they were squeamish about this? i don't buy it. if it was ironclad, it wouldn't just go away, and him continue as a judge.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, please. if the evidence was there to prosecute, charges would have been filed. no one is immune from the law, right?

I think this is a perfect example of how it's not true.

Prosser will continue being Prosser. There was just video of him a few weeks back grabbing the camera of a photographer in anger without provocation (and he immediately dropped that when he realized he was being videotaped)

He'll either change his ways, or continue what he is.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think this is a perfect example of how it's not true.

Prosser will continue being Prosser. There was just video of him a few weeks back grabbing the camera of a photographer in anger without provocation (and he immediately dropped that when he realized he was being videotaped)

He'll either change his ways, or continue what he is.

if reps can be forced to resign because of taking pictures of their junk, or having sex with other people than their wife, than surely an out of control judge who attacked a peer would be charged? sorry, i don't buy that he didn't get charged because there was a lack of desire to prosecute a judge. i think it was the lack of desire to pursue something that didn't have enough evidence to justify prosecution. besides, it's involving another judge. surely they aren't going to ignore a crime to a judge, even if her attacker was a peer?
did he attack her? maybe he did. can it be proven? probably not.