Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner i      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 226
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheatingPage 10 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

it may have been,but since the divorce was already IN PROCESS when he accessed her email


In your minds eye, he did access her email after the divorce was filed. Thats fine if thats what you believe. I'm seeing some contradicting evidence still showing the opposite. I'm not going to be convinced until I see more concrete proof on the exact timeline as the events happened.


why would he have to seek "proof" of cheating-the divorce was already in process! And Michigan has no fault divorce, therefore couples who seek divorce do not have to prove or disprove wrongdoing. I GET that the allegations and accusations come into play when fighting about custody, financial matters and property.


I don't think the "No fault divorce" is the only type available, I think there are "Fault" divorces as well. I don't know if "No fault divorces" is the only option if other factors might apply like adultery, abuse ect.


And again, if adultery was being committed, why doesn't he pursue having HER prosecuted for THAT?


Why does he have too? Failure to prosecute does not remove the fact that adultery could still have taken place. Perhaps his lawyer told him its very hard to prosecute such a law and advised him not too? Could be several reasons, whether personal or legal.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 227
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 2:43:32 AM

No, what this case is about is one divorcing partner crossing a line to get leverage against the other partner, having his action bite him on the ass,so he goes back to the emotional hot-button of cheating and takes his problem to the media.

I don't think he crossed the line and if it were illegal, I'd probably still do it if I were in his position. I just would be so stupid in how I went about using the information and I wouldn't do anything so stupid that it could be traced back to me.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 228
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 6:53:45 AM

I have not seen any information that indicates cheating was the initial cause of the divorce. It may have been,but since the divorce was already IN PROCESS when he accessed her email, why would he have to seek "proof" of cheating-the divorce was already in process! And Michigan has no fault divorce, therefore couples who seek divorce do not have to prove or disprove wrongdoing.


30 states still allow for grounds based divorce. 20 only allow no fault.
ALL STATES allow for evidence to be show of reasons for the divorce if one of the people involved wants to question the normal 50/50 split.
Or reasons of custody.

The "proof" could be used to get custody of his daughter. A better split of assets. Or other concessions.

So he has several reasons to get the "proof" he did.

Everything is not black and white. Why would anyone want to have their child around a abuser? Why would someone who hasn't cheated be expected to split their assets 50/50 with a cheating spouse?

The time line I saw showed he attained the e-mails before the divorce was filed. Either way his motives could have been many.
I see it as a concern for the children involved. His and his step children.

He did give it to the father of his step kids. If it was just for reasons of cheating why would he do that?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 229
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 7:21:34 AM
He did give it to the father of his step kids. If it was just for reasons of cheating why would he do that?

PRECISELY.
All I have been trying to do here is reveal how a "spin" to make the issue SEEM to be about a common 'hot button issue',in this case marital "cheating", has caused public opinion to shift sharply against both the accuser and the representative of the People of the State of Michigan.
The point I was trying to make, that I already knew about, has been explained to all here by Abelian. Generally speaking the purpose of this kind of tactic...bringing a case to the media to be presented for trial in the court of public opinion,with an end result that just about any potential juror in Oakland County who hasn't been living under a rock for the last year,cannot have helped hearing about it. Since the matter has gone national, even a change of venue might not ensure a pool of neutral potential jurors.
Thats' why I made the comment about bringing the case up here and having the Chippewa Nation try it in Tribal Court. Which I'm fairly certain can't REALLY happen.

Anyway the groundwork has been laid for a late dismissal or plea bargain,because it may be difficult to seat a jury of persons who do not already have an opinion on the matter.

I'm not 100% certain because it's been quite awhile since I had any opportunity or reason to closely observe the divorce process in MI. but I do think that no-fault is all that's offered here. I know of a couple of situations where documented abuse was involved,but all that was available was no-fault divorce and in one the couple was more or less pushed into mediation for resolution of property division.

But I'm glad to see that at least some here are now realizing that what the accuseds' rush to the media was really about was to create spin and(theoretically) interfere with the pool of potential jurors by creating an uproar about a side issue.
Cindy O
edit
I looked it up

A complaint for divorce may be filed in the circuit court upon the allegation that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved. In the complaint the plaintiff shall make no other explanation of the grounds for divorce than by the use of the statutory language. (Michigan Compiled Laws - Section: 552.6)


I do not doubt that who did what to whom may have bearing in mediation or court proceedings to decide child custody,alimony, division of property,etc but from what I've heard and observed, the courts try to stick as closely as possible to equal division of property. And as to the facts in this matter, the purloined emails were used to assist the parent of the woman's eldest child to seeking "emergency custody" of that child. That childs' parent is neither the spouse involved in the divorce action OR the woman's cohort in cheating.

 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 230
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 7:47:32 AM

I'm not 100% certain because it's been quite awhile since I had any opportunity or reason to closely observe the divorce process in MI. but I do think that no-fault is all that's offered here.


No fault is all that is allowed in MI.


I know of a couple of situations where documented abuse was involved,but all that was available was no-fault divorce and in one the couple was more or less pushed into mediation for resolution of property division.


My point exactly! Just because no fault is the only ground allowed that DOESN'T negate the right to challenge the custody or the split of assets.


But I'm glad to see that at least some here are now realizing that what the accuseds' rush to the media was really about was to create spin and(theoretically) interfere with the pool of potential jurors by creating an uproar about a side issue.
Cindy O


I see a spin however I see the spin the DA and the wife is making.

As pointed out you normally don't hear the defendants side in public. The accused is getting some attention and the DA doesn't like it.

I never said the cheating was the only reason he checked up on her. However it and the welfare of the children involved are both good reasons to do so.

The law was never meant to cover the actions the husband did.
We have the author of the law saying so.........If anyone knows what the law was meant to cover it would be him!

NUTSHELL.....The DA is a Gloria Alred wana be. The wife is a cheater and putting her children in a dangerous situation.
While his actions may have been covert they are NOT illegal.

Hers however endanger children and are covered by MI state law however old it may be.

Why is he not pushing that she be charged with adultery? Think about it the DA prosecuting him would be the one to bring charges against her.

Do you think she is going to give up her chance at fame by bringing charges against her witness?

DA's can choose to charge or not charge defendants.

As in the case I had......The DA brought charges that she knew would never stand. The judge to all of one minute to dismiss the case against me, and dressed the DA down in court about her even bringing it to trial!

Just because some DA brings a charge DOESN'T mean he did anything wrong!
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 231
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 9:28:21 AM

"No Fault" Divorce Law

Michigan has enacted a no fault divorce law, pursuant to which residents of Michigan can obtain a divorce without establishing that the other party did something wrong. A trial court can grant a divorce if it finds that "There has been a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved." Please note that issues of "fault" may remain relevant to the division of the marital estate, and that aspects of "fault" may come out in the event of child custody litigation.


When "Fault" Matters

A trial court may consider "fault" issues when dividing the marital assets, or when assessing spousal support (alimony). Please note that under most "fault" circumstances, the trial court will not dramatically change the division of assets. With most marital estates, you will need to consider whether a five or ten percent difference in the property division justifies the expense and conflict associated with attempting to prove fault. There is often a better financial return in making sure that all assets are located, properly valued, and included in the marital estate, as opposed to trying to prove fault.

Please note that while the five or ten percent difference is most typical, in extreme cases courts have been known to award larger amounts, and on at least one occasion even the entire marital estate, to the wronged spouse. Your attorney can help you make the assessment of what is likely to happen in your case, and whether you would benefit from trying to make fault an issue.

Custody:

The issue of "morality" relates to the effect of the parent's moral choices on the children. It is not intended to include an evaluation of a parent's character outside of the context of the best interests of the children, and the ability of the parent to provide appropriate moral guidance to the children. A parent's involvement in a new romantic relationship following divorce or separation is not the type of "moral conduct" which would ordinarily concern a court.


Pretty simply: her actions will most likely not mean jack in the Courts in which this divorce will be decided, or most Courts in the US. I was once told that just because I was married to a wife beater, didn't mean he'd hurt our son. It was a tough pill to swallow, albeit the truth. He never did hurt my son. He never hurt me again, either. When a marriage is over, that's just that ~ it's O V E R. This whole scenario is silly, on all accounts. One reason? No one here has a clue what HE may have or may not have done and we don't know for a fact what SHE did. It's all speculation and most people choose to speculate and place blame before facts that actually happened. That's human nature.

~OT~ Once there's another story to report, like the school shooting in CA take over the air-waves, this will become old news, will die a painless media death and most will never know if the Federal charges were dropped or anything else. Just as it should be. Unless this is YOUR life, does it really matter? I have interest simply because I'm bored with not much else to worry about than some silly Court filing. Once that changes? This will become something I don't care about any more either. Just as it should be. JMO
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 232
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 1:45:22 PM


That’s true, but the evidence still has to conform to the rules, and who cheated on whom and with whom isn’t relevant to diddley when it comes to dividing assets or custody (although some people outside the legal arena think it should carry some moral authority).


Worked for me.

Out of to marriages I was only out around 16k in assets.
That is pretty good considering I would have been out at least 100k on the last one w/o the cheating evidence.


Now the abuse thing...that’s probably going to be heard but I have to wonder how much weight a judge would give it because (as I understand it) the instance of abuse was remote in time, was not directed at the children and did not involve the children. In Minnesota it would be just one of 13 factors a court would have to consider when deciding custody under the best interests standard.


However if the husband has been the primary care taker of the kids while she is out doing her thing it will weigh heavily in his favor.

I ended up with custody of both of my kids. Mostly because the mothers wanted to party more than they wanted to be mothers.

I still Contend the snooping was not just to prove that she was cheating. But to show he thinks her actions were endangering the children.

Just because the other judges didn't throw it out doesn't mean he is guilty. They simply let it go to trial.

Where it most likely will be thrown out. When the author of a law says it was not meant to be used for that one would be ahead of the game to believe him.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 233
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 4:42:28 PM

I see a spin however I see the spin the DA and the wife is making.

From the reading I've done, it would appear that the husband was the one who went to the media FIRST-for purpose of "spinning" the issue to APPEAR to be about a cheating wife being caught due to information in her personal email account. The DA at one point stated to the media that the charges have nothing to do with the couples' marital issues other than tangentially because the invasion of the woman's privacy was revealed when her divorcing husband used information from her email to involve her FIRST husband-the father of her eldest child,in an emergency custody hearing.

The accused is getting some attention and the DA doesn't like it.

It would be my guess that what the DA may not like is that the pool of potential jurors is being peed in, by the accuseds' attempts to make the case SEEM to be about something OTHER than what it really is.

Do you think she is going to give up her chance at fame by bringing charges against her witness?

Why not if she could make them stick? Then there could be no accusations of her "taking sides". She would look like a freaking female version of King Solomon, IMO. Both these dysfunctional adults could sit their sorry asses in jail, the older child could go to HIS father and the younger child to a relative-or foster care. Then maybe EVERYBODY going through a divorce action would mind their Ps&Qs, instead of behaving in criminally actionable ways.

Cheating is a hot-button topic. Not just on pof but generally. It may be that the defense is pumping up the virtually irrelevant cheating issue to obfuscate the charges. But practically speaking, he also has to come up with SOME justification to explain his conduct, and the “she dun runnoft” and “she started it” arguments are persuasive to the guy’s, friends, family, coworkers, etc., and he would probably go there with or without the threat of a pending trial.

EXACTLY.

But the subjects it raises, such as personal privacy in a marital setting and the privacy of e-mails are subjects that could stand to be redefined as both have undergone dramatic changes in the last couple of decades.

this is the ONLY reason that I give a rodents' hindquarters about how this all shakes out.

However if the husband has been the primary care taker of the kids while she is out doing her thing it will weigh heavily in his favor.

the REASON he accessed her email and brought the issue to the attention of the older childs' father, is BECAUSE the children were WITH HER,which supposedly created the possibility that the children could witness her being abused by her current romantic partner, who was her SECOND ex-husband,and there was documentation of his abusive behavior to her.

I still Contend the snooping was not just to prove that she was cheating.
It WASN'T. It was
to show he thinks her actions were endangering the children.
That is all it ever was about...he accessed her personal email account to make copies of certain emails and give those copies to the older childs' father,so that the older childs' father could seek an emergency custody hearing.
My guess, based on what I've observed of behavior between contentious divorcing couples, or where one of the couple is trying,under a mistaken presumption about divorce law,to STOP a divorce,is that the accused was trying to inflict emotional and financial punishment on his estranged wife by having her children taken from her.
Cindy O
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 234
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 5:29:50 PM
I don't get where the husband has indicated this is about catching his cheating spouse. As far as I have read, he's been pretty consistently on message about custody.

The media is certainly discussing it BECAUSE, should he be found guilty, the law will apply to other people attempting to catch their cheating spouse.

My wish: May I continue to be protected from precedent setting cases in my life.
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 235
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/20/2011 6:01:40 PM

Should one have to be trained as a gunsmith to own a firearm? Should one have to be a certified mechanic to drive a motor vehicle?


Nope. but one does have to show proficiency at some tasks that become routine... driving a car,most people under a certain age have to take fire arm safety courses,boater safety courses and such... so if you want to get out on the "information superhighway" (thanks for the chuckle have not heard that since it was a buzz phrase in the 90's) then one should be proficient in knowing how to be safe as you cruise it.. defensive computing perhaps?

If you are not proficient at it and to some degree even if you are someone somewhere can and may try to get your information. You just make it easier on them by NOT being prepared.. I mean why have door locks on a convertible? Had a friend with a beautiful 66 Catalina convertible.. he'd NEVER lock the doors on it when the top was up.. his rationale was that they'd just cut thru the roof to unlock the door anyway.

Yes it's a challenge but.. ya gotta roll with the changes or be left in the dust.
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 236
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/21/2011 6:11:42 PM

I agree a person should takes reasonable precautions to protect their privacy, but having taken some definite precaution - whether it be foolproof or not - I have identified that part of my stuff/identity as private, and every other competent being should recognize and respect that.


My point exactly. one should take reasonable precautions.. everyone knows right from wrong,some choose to ignore it. If some one was looking to gain something for nothing of course they will go after the easiest targets. the more difficult you make it for them the less they see the pay off vs effort and are less likely to attempt it.

That is exactly why i have my systems set up the way they are. running linux,with bluetooth enabled and linked to my cellphone.. when I walk out of range of my pc with my phone it locks the pc, encrypts the hard drive and prevents access.. no matter if the hard drive was stolen and put in another machine it would be unreadable unless it was unlocked.. will the average person have the skills to get around any of that? probably not.

if I lose my cellphone i know how to unlock/decrypt the hard drives. nothing I do online is with out it being as secure as it can be. If others wish to take the approach that the door is closed and no one should enter that is their right.. and no one should. but we know that is not the case. better to be pro active than reactive. Windows is pitiful at security and I got tired of that years ago and bailed over to the dark side..

IMO people do not take computer security seriously enough. easier to have the deer in the head lights look and stammer.. b-b-b-buuuuut.. i didn't....
 niagara45
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 237
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/21/2011 6:22:29 PM

I agree a person should takes reasonable precautions to protect their privacy, but having taken some definite precaution - whether it be foolproof or not - I have identified that part of my stuff/identity as private, and every other competent being should recognize and respect that.


Yes. Including live-in parters.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 238
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 3:01:40 PM

I agree a person should takes reasonable precautions to protect their privacy, but having taken some definite precaution - whether it be foolproof or not - I have identified that part of my stuff/identity as private, and every other competent being should recognize and respect that.


Yes. Including live-in parters.


I can agree to that......Kinda like a person should respect and honor marriage vows......Oh yeah the whole thing was because someone cheated and put children in a possible dangerous situation.

But of course keeping personal info private is much more important than the children's well being!
 niagara45
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 239
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 3:07:53 PM

Oh yeah the whole thing was because someone cheated and put children in a possible dangerous situation.

But of course keeping personal info private is much more important than the children's well being!


Being a cheater does not necessarily put a child in danger, although I suppose some cheaters are also bad parents. There are also a lot of holier than thou types who make rotten parents.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 240
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 3:37:59 PM

Being a cheater does not necessarily put a child in danger, although I suppose some cheaters are also bad parents. There are also a lot of holier than thou types who make rotten parents.


Didn't say it did......This case was about her taking the kids to meet her lover that had abused her before.

The cheating was just her reason for endangering her kids!
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 241
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 4:54:43 PM
while not for a minute meaning to minimize the emotional impact on a child who witnesses physical violence committed on or by a parent,then "endangering the kids" allegations would fill the family courts to overflowing. Ex sees his wife drop kids off at school with a car that has a taillight out...run run RUN to family court to seek custody...she endangered the kids? I happened to be quite close as a community agency advocate, to a couple of situations where mothers could NOT get modification to visitation conditions even though the father was driving around DRINKING BEHIND THE WHEEL with the children in the vehicle.

My personal take is that the "possibly putting the children in 'emotional danger" was simply a ploy to punish and possibly financially cripple the ex-wife by removing the children and therefore child support payments from her.

At the end of the day it's a petty divorce squabble -but somebody stuck their foot in it by behaving in a manner that was criminally actionable. As is often the case, probably the ex-wife or her attorney knows someone who knows someone in the DA's office. But the fact does remain that 2 attempts by the defense attorney to have the charge dismissed have not succeeded, so it would certainly seem that there is something more than someone snooping in their spouses' email to "catch her cheating".
Actually, somebody could say anything in an email, it could be a fantasy or cybersex...OR-it could be edited/changed to say whatever the snooping party wanted it to say and copies of the altered email presented as 'evidence' of whatever that persdon was trying to prove.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 242
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 5:15:35 PM

My personal take is that the "possibly putting the children in 'emotional danger" was simply a ploy to punish and possibly financially cripple the ex-wife by removing the children and therefore child support payments from her.


Hummmmm....So if it is truly "child support" (support for the children) Then why would that "cripple her"?
Surely you are not suggesting women use the "child support" to support the lifestyle they are accustom to.


At the end of the day it's a petty divorce squabble -but somebody stuck their foot in it by behaving in a manner that was criminally actionable.


So was her adultery according to MI law. As a matter of fact the law is much more on point on her "crime" than his!
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 243
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 5:42:09 PM

Surely you are not suggesting women use the "child support" to support the lifestyle they are accustom to.

I think a lot of them use child support to support the children so that they can use their own wages to support themselves and not have to forego competent legal counsel because it would take food out of her childrens' mouths.

But we don't KNOW if there was adultery involved. If the divorce was final the woman was free to date anybody she wanted to. You may not realize this yourself if your ex-wives simply surrendered up the children and ran off to the party lifestyle,but, it's not all that uncommon for some divorced couples to use issues of custody, support, visitation, care of the children to drag one another back into court as often as they change their underwear, and all too often it's this sick love/hate thing with the poor kids in the middle of it. Which has made me say more than once that divorcing couples should have to surrender their children to the state and the state maintain an institutional setting( like the orphanages of old) to raise these children in.
Cindy O
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 244
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 5:53:45 PM

Which has made me say more than once that divorcing couples should have to surrender their children to the state and the state maintain an institutional setting( like the orphanages of old) to raise these children in.


All I can say is WOW just WOW!

I can honestly say I am glad 99 and 9/10's of people do NOT think this way.

Anything the government touches turns to crap and you want them to remove children just because their parents can't live together anymore?

WOW!
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 245
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/22/2011 11:06:25 PM

But the fact does remain that 2 attempts by the defense attorney to have the charge dismissed have not succeeded, so it would certainly seem that there is something more than someone snooping in their spouses' email to "catch her cheating".


As was pointed out a TON of post's ago. the simple refusal to toss the case out is NO indicator that there WAS wrong doing. It very well may be that the judges refused to toss the case in an effort to set a precedent either FOR or AGAINST the law being applied to others in the future. Judges can't make laws. They have to follow the law,juries weigh whether the case has merit and they can deny a conviction if they think the law is irrelevant or there is no merit. they are not simply there to judge a case on the evidence provided.

If it does go to trial and a jury refuses to convict it may well force the legislature to take a closer look at the law and either amend it or draft a new more up to date and relevant one.

simple as that.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 246
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/23/2011 7:56:57 AM
If there was no suspected "wrong doing" of sufficient magnitude to warrant charges being brought, and said charges surviving 2 attempts-before 2 different judges-to obtain a dismissal, then what in the world IS going on? Is this something that the prosecutors'office in Oakland County is just fabricating on a pretext so that they can garner attention in national media??

they are not simply there to judge a case on the evidence provided.

EXCUSE ME???!!??
Here I thought that juries were supposed to pay attention to the evidence above all else...and yes I have served jury duty.
I'm also well aware that there is a whole consulting subspecialty that applies to the permissible tactics to use for persuasion of jury verdicts.
But if the jury isn't there to find an accused person(s) either not guilty, or guilty,based on facts supported by evidence, what ARE they there for? To break up a boring life? To get out of going to their regular job?
I realize that a potential juror/juror cannot help but filter evidence and testimony through their own life experiences, beliefs and philosophy,but I do not think that cases without merit routinely make it to the trial stage. Judges do have a responsibility to decide whether the case has sufficient merit to proceed(in theory) to being tried before a jury of the accuseds' peers. According to what has been reported in the media, 2 different judges have deemed that the case merits proceeding to trial. I think that the average local(county/circuit) judge is well aware of the costs to conduct a jury trial,and in a criminal matter I doubt that the court costs can all be shifted to the responsibility of the losing party.
Now some have commented that the DA is "looking to make a name for herself". It's my understanding that the accused is now being represented by a Michigan attorney who already has experienced national recognition, AND has political ambitions.
But the statement that the jury is NOT 'there simply to judge a case on the evidence provided' makes me ask, then why the hell ARE they there, and what in the hell ARE they supposed to make their decision of "not guilty", or "guilty" on, if NOT the evidence??
Cindy O
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 247
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/23/2011 8:27:40 AM

But the statement that the jury is NOT 'there simply to judge a case on the evidence provided' makes me ask, then why the hell ARE they there, and what in the hell ARE they supposed to make their decision of "not guilty", or "guilty" on, if NOT the evidence??

After TOO many years in a defense situation in the legal system, I can assure you ~ most jurors/juries pay little to no attention. They zone off, they sleep (yes, I've seen it) and they come with history, which is only human so most of their minds are made up before they hear a shred of evidence. There are those who take it very seriously ~ those are few and rare. Sadly. You start talking "over their heads" or showing things they are clueless about and most go to their "happy place." It's a fallible system ~ as we are just human. This is why things such as "Project Innocence" are getting so many death row overturns. The jurors simply don't understand that which is before them, and that's logical. Complex cases are often times too overwhelming for the usual juror. I'm sure most have the best of intent, but ~ often times? They do NOT get it. The OJ verdict? I watched every moment of that trial (the Menendez trials as well) and I completely concurred. The Prosecution did NOT prove the case. There was only one possible verdict there: reasonable doubt. The offense SUCKED. Guilty? Of course he was, at least played a part in the slaughter, but was the evidence there? Absolutely NOT. Again, it's fallible. Like all mere mortals. That's they system we "trust" and abuse all too often. This case isn't a matter of evidence. It's a matter of pride/ego and silliness. Plain and simple. JMO
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 248
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/23/2011 8:42:06 AM
All I can say is WOW just WOW!

Yup. It tended to get the attention of battling ex-spouses who were using the children as pawns in an ongoing battle using custody, child support and visitation as weapons, while the kids got more and more stressed out, were getting into trouble at school, suffering mental problems, getting into alcohol and drugs....

Maybe it wouldn't need to be ALL situations involving dependent children if the parents set up a reasonable support and visitation schedule and stuck to it,rather than running back to family court over every petty-ass little thing,just so they could fuel their addiction to fighting with someone they used to love,while the kids are caught in the middle of it. Because if 2 adults cannot sort out their differences and come to an agreement that serves the childrens' best interests first and foremost,stick to that agreement,and not try to exert control over the EX-spouses' life, then maybe the children need to have some entity step up and get them off the battlefield before they become collateral damage.
Cindy O
Edit to add
VGE, I know that what you speak of is often true. But fer gawd's sake lets at least acknowledge how things are supposed to work. The jury doesn't get to decide the "merits" of a case, the jury cannot "throw a case out". They are supposed to look at the facts, supported by evidence, and decide whether the accused is not guilty, or guilty. I know that being human, a juror cannot help but have their decision colored by their own life experiences.
As for zoning out, sleeping,etc, I've heard of judges excusing and replacing jurors who were not paying attention, were sleeping, or clearly struggling with illness or pain. That's why there is an alternate juror chosen when a jury is seated.
Cindy O
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 249
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/23/2011 10:50:49 AM
EXCUSE ME???!!??
Here I thought that juries were supposed to pay attention to the evidence above all else...and yes I have served jury duty.



Obviously you were not a well informed juror. Just because a judge does not tell you it is possible does not mean that it cannot be done. Good to see that you are so skilled in the courtroom. Had you included the whole statement instead of a part of it that you took issue with in your vast experience in the court room you may have been taken more seriously. The prosecution doesn't want the jurors to know that they have the power so therefore the defense cannot mention it either. "to keep the playing field level"
ITt IS totally within a juries power to nullify a case ,maybe thrown out was a bad choice of words,but is that not in effect what they have done?

taken directly from the article :

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification,[25] and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.[26]

Should you need any more information.. google is your friend.

Have a wonderful day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
 LinuxD
Joined: 12/6/2008
Msg: 250
view profile
History
For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating
Posted: 1/23/2011 11:20:16 AM
Also should you make it that far.. give some thought to this,

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794),[27]

And further on down :

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[34] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[35] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[36] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[37] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are considered by bar associations to be ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[38]


and they will prove a juror intends to nullify....how?

it can be done and probably should be done more often in ridiculous cases such as this. I agree.. it should have never been taken to court. it's sensationalism. pure and simple. But it does not mean that the charges have any merit because two judges refuse to toss it out. As i said.. it may well be an attempt to get a clarification or amendment on the existing law. There is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law.. and Lawyers are asters at blurring the lines between the two.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > For those that have no qualms snooping to find out if their partner is cheating