Sizemore to win his appeal?
Something To Crow About?
The transom is sending the signal to the Coyote that Bill Sizemore is on the verge of winning his civil suit on appeal. Stay tuned to this website for breaking news
So will the left back off and apologize for all the garbage they have spewed if Sizemore is in fact exonerated?
I am not holding my breath because they have continued to act as if he was actually convicted and found guilty of something. Remember that the state found him innocent.
The truth is, most objective observers of the Sizemore/OTU ordeal believed that the civil suit would eventually be tossed out.
We shall see just how consistent the liberals are. Oh and the news media. Let's see if there is a big fat OOPS. After all didn't they crow when that fellow (an attorney?) from Washington County was falsely accused of working with the terrorists a couple of years ago? (I don't remember his name, but he had become the poster child for the opponents of the then newly created Homeland Security measures.)
Yip Yip
Posts
15 comments:
After all didn't they crow when that fellow (an attorney?) from Washington County was falsely accused of working with the terrorists a couple of years ago? (I don't remember his name, .......
BRANDON MAYFIELD
your welcome........
thanks,
I knew someone who reads this blog would remember.
Smart crew.
Guilty. Innocent. What's the difference, really?
A couple million dollars actually.
"Not guilty" is not the same as innocent. Many guilty people get acquitted or go uncharged because of lack of proof.
What?
That's just crazy. Does that mean that the only reason you have not been convicted for racketeering is because there is a lack of proof?
It couldn't be because you are innocent could it?
Sizemore has been saying that he is innocent. The court found him innocent.
Now it is highly likely that in a civil suit, where the bar is much much lower, he may win his appeal.
How many courts have to declare someone "not guilty" before you get your innocence back? Or is it that it does not work that way for conservatives?
So, I will continue to say "innocent" because it is closer to the truth than "guilty."
yip yip
Okay, the difference between guilty and innocent is a couple of million dollars.
The difference between guilty and not guilty is the difference between being dumb enough to leave evidence laying around and being smart enough to cover your ass.
It's only illegal if you get caught, or 12 people sitting in a jury box say it is.
If more people thought that way, we would get a hell of a lot more stuff done.
I'm also curious, is there something freudian about using a pictur of a cock for a Sizemore story?
Coyote,
Thanks for beating the mainstream press to the punch on the Sizemore story. Many of us can't believe it has taken them this long to throw out his unconstitutional and illegal civil judgment.
I expect that this case may happen sooner than later, and at the risk of accusing the judiciary of being "political", I think they were waiting to see if he would have any success in his bid to qualify a ballot measure for this election. Now that he has, his case ought to be settled quickly, and his original judgment thrown out on it's face.
As always, keeping ahead of the curve...
What is he appealing? The racketeering conviction or the personal liability for the multi-million dollar judgment?
Also, has he ever been found "guilty" of anything? Or just liable in civil court? If he wins can you honestly say he has then been found not guilty?
Anon249:
He was found not guilty in a criminal court on the RICO charges that were brought against him.
He is appealing a civil judgement on the same basic charge. Basically, he was hit with double jeopardy. He was tried a second time on the same charge, in a court that has a much lower burden of proof and can be more easily swayed by emotional rhetoric.
Tim Trickey:
Try not to get your nose buried in Coyotes short and curlies.
Anon249, say what? Sizemore's never faced a criminal court, let alone been found "not guilty" on the RICO charges. He's only been in civil court, and the RICO lawsuit was against his organizations, not him personally.
So my question is, is he appealing the teachers' unions' civil racketeering lawsuit against his organizations? (Don't YOU answer, Anon249, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.) Or is he appealing the case in which he was found personally liable for the judgment handed down in the civil racketeering lawsuit? Anyone RELIABLE know the answer to that?
so he was found personally liable in a civil trial in which he wasn't involved personally? that's quite a trick. you certainly make every bit as much sense as anon249.
Okay, let's see if we can put this in simple terms for the shallow end of the genepool.
The teachers union can't sue someone on RICO charges. Those are criminal charges that the a DA or AG has to bring.
In this case, Sizemore's entire operation, OTU, was charged. Had the organization been found guilty of racketeering, several possible things could have happened. Anything from a heavy fine that put OTU out of business to key people (Sizemore, and other "managers" being sent to prison.) Since OTU, as a whole, was found not guilty, it's moot point.
When the dust settled, OTU was found "not guilty" of any wrong doing.
Juries don't have an option of "guilty" "not guilty" "innocent". It's either "guilty" or "not guilty".
Upon the conclusion of the crimial trial, the teachers union filed a civil suit alleging unfair practices that damaged them and instead of naming OTU as an organization, they named Sizemore personally.
In a civil suit the burden proof is not "reasonabl doubt" but "a perponderance of evidence."
In a civil court, you can use the evidence collected from Dealy Plaza to show that there most likely was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. There is no conclusive proof, but enough of shadowy evidence can be cobbled together to show "a perponderance of the evidence" supporting that there was a second gun man.
Civil trials also rely heavily on emotionalism. Just ask OJ.
Sizemore got hosed in the civil trial. If nothing else, it's double jeopardy.
That is some revisionist history you've got going there.
OTU was found liable in a civil racketeering lawsuit. Neither OTU nor Sizemore were ever tried in a criminal court, therefore, Sizemore has never been found "not guilty" of criminal wrong doing because he has never faced criminal charges. The only time Sizemore has ever been in jeopardy of going to jail was because of his contempt of court.
Post a Comment