BoxRec

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Define "many."

Unless an allegation is made that the evidence was falsified or withheld, I am far more comfortable trusting the verdict of twelve citizens who saw and heard all of the admissible evidence than in an opinion formed by reading the newspapers or sportspages, even if that opinion happens to be my own.

Define "sometimes".

If you want me to believe it is rare for innocent people to be convicted in the UK then you are going to have a hard job, ray.

You say you know nothing about the Birminham Six, the Guildford Four, The Maguire Seven. I suggest you read up a bit about those cases. I suspect even you will be hard put to put a positive spin on those convictions.

I asked you first.

Tyson wasn't convicted in the UK. He was convicted in the USA.

Grimm wrote:

And by being a lawyer you would never know what it's like to be fucked by the law because it is usually you that does the fuking.

. . . a witty and intelligent reply. You don't know anything about me. But the fact you are willing to apply a stereotype to somebody you know knowing about does say alot about you.

raylawpc wrote:

Grimm wrote:

And by being a lawyer you would never know what it's like to be fucked by the law because it is usually you that does the fuking.

. . . a witty and intelligent reply. You don't know anything about me. But the fact you are willing to apply a stereotype to somebody you know knowing about does say alot about you.

No need to really stereotype.

It's just something you don't know.

raylawpc wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Define "many."

Unless an allegation is made that the evidence was falsified or withheld, I am far more comfortable trusting the verdict of twelve citizens who saw and heard all of the admissible evidence than in an opinion formed by reading the newspapers or sportspages, even if that opinion happens to be my own.

Define "sometimes".

If you want me to believe it is rare for innocent people to be convicted in the UK then you are going to have a hard job, ray.

You say you know nothing about the Birminham Six, the Guildford Four, The Maguire Seven. I suggest you read up a bit about those cases. I suspect even you will be hard put to put a positive spin on those convictions.

I asked you first.

Tyson wasn't convicted in the UK. He was convicted in the USA.

Discussion over, ray.

I know a closed mind when I see one.

raylawpc wrote:That's why it continues to bewilder me that people think they can form accurate "opinions" of what happened from newspaper accounts

- Yet boxrec and self proclaimed "boxing experts" use newspaper accounts of fighters and fights to give us records, biographies, and rankings of fighters.

All anyone needs to know about Tyson's rape conviction is that King's civil tax attorney defended Tyson on federal criminal felony charges resulting in Tyson's conviction and his signing over his entire multimillion dollar asset portfolio to King. DK was later sued and forced to pay something like a 15 million dollar settlement to Tyson that I doubt has ever been paid more than a pittance.

Mr. Tyson has certainly committed more than his fair share of assaults and battery, but he's also been a victim of a web of sociopathic conmen common to boxing.

Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL.

Ezzard wrote:There's got to be more to it. A rapist is more popular than a chess player??? Do we really live in a world where this is so?

- Tyson's public popularity dropped considerably with the rape conviction, sordid comebacks and run ins with the law. His endorsements dropped from multimillions to near zero

In boxing terms he was still an exciting, unfettered volcano waiting to explode and was boxing's treasury mint until his retirement. The only part of the general public still liking him was hiphop youth were he became an icon of all things ghetto.

The Great John L wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:It really don't matter who anyone thinks would win a Byrd/Lewis fight, it's a fact that Byrd got near or at the top of the Ring rankings at one point, became Lewis' mandatory, and Lewis sold his belt to King, taking step aside money rather than fight Byrd. Lewis never fought any of the premiere southpaw challengers of his era, Byrd, Sanders, Moorer, and Oquendo, not even a journeyman southpaw. Looks like he was carefully matched away given the evidence.

Oquendo wasn't a southpaw my vision challenged friend. And Sanders wasn't a credible opponent, due to his JD Chapman type list of victims, until he stomped Vitali's little brother with about a dozen lucky punches. And as everyone knows Lewis retired, with no credible opposition remaining, a few months later after stomping Vitali with a few dozen lucky punches, thereby completing the dismantling of the Klitschko brothers legend.

Why would Lewis have wanted to waste his time on a Sanders, who's only ring accomplishment was a few lucky punches?

-- Nice of you to sum up Rahman and McCall for me. Sanders would have gotten there quicker, no doubt, but not crying for Cory who was too much the homebody semi pro golfer to really pursue a title with vigor. He does become part of the larger issue with Lewis, never having faced a single southpaw at the beginning of a rich southpaw era. Even ol' decrepit Mr. Field has at least 3 on his record if not more.

Nice one with Fast Fres, but he does fight like a southpaw, jab and grab. Sub out JCGomez who was the storied WBC cruiser champ just moved up when Lewis drops his IBF to Byrd. Much more impressive record than that of Haye who was offered first crack at Chagaev's title with his first cruiser title win.

Still, scoring one for the dolts, that makes it me 99 to Dolts 1.

Controversial wrote: You really must learn to speak English. I know you are trying to sound clever but it isn't working.

- No need to appear clever before a dolt.

Did you say Lewis had a glass jaw - NO
Was you slating Lewis - YES
Did you name Lewis as a good opponent for VK - YES
Did Lewis beat VK - YES
Can you name 10 decent opponents that VK beat - YES
Can you name 5 decent opponents that VK beat - YES
Are you fighting a losing battle - ME 99 - DOLTS 1

You ain't never provided your top 10 heavy list for me to snicker at.

You name the 10 best in lineal order than Lewis beat, and I'll do the same for Vitali and run them head to head since you fancy taking a beating.

1000s of cases of the wrong verdict have happened. Yet the number of times the law gets it right absolutely dwarfs this number.

Studies also show that rape is notoriously difficult to prove. Most people who commit rape get away with it. Unless you were privvy to the evidence then how can you honestly stand behind any idea that he was innocent?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Ezzard wrote:There's got to be more to it. A rapist is more popular than a chess player??? Do we really live in a world where this is so?

- Tyson's public popularity dropped considerably with the rape conviction, sordid comebacks and run ins with the law. His endorsements dropped from multimillions to near zero

In boxing terms he was still an exciting, unfettered volcano waiting to explode and was boxing's treasury mint until his retirement. The only part of the general public still liking him was hiphop youth were he became an icon of all things ghetto.

I think you're right.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

raylawpc wrote:That's why it continues to bewilder me that people think they can form accurate "opinions" of what happened from newspaper accounts

- Yet boxrec and self proclaimed "boxing experts" use newspaper accounts of fighters and fights to give us records, biographies, and rankings of fighters.

All anyone needs to know about Tyson's rape conviction is that King's civil tax attorney defended Tyson on federal criminal felony charges resulting in Tyson's conviction and his signing over his entire multimillion dollar asset portfolio to King. DK was later sued and forced to pay something like a 15 million dollar settlement to Tyson that I doubt has ever been paid more than a pittance.

Mr. Tyson has certainly committed more than his fair share of assaults and battery, but he's also been a victim of a web of sociopathic conmen common to boxing.

Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL.

I'm guessing you are more up on the case than me. I do distinctly remember something about the jury having to be isolated due to King trying to pay them off.

Surely Tyson was worth more to King out and fighting?

I am sorry to all if I was harsh in my posts yesterday. Since September 14, my father has been hospitalized and critically ill. He rebounded last week, but on Friday took a turn for the worse, and I have been fretting for him the past several days. Immediately after my posts, I got a call that he was much improved. I am sorry I let my personal problems effect the tone of my posts, and I apologize to anyone who was offended.

That said, I do believe that the Anglo-American judicial system is the best in the world. When a person is wrongfully convicted, it is frequently because of police misconduct in manufacturing or supressing evidence, or blatant incompetency of the defense counsel. Neither of these issues was ever asserted in the Tyson case, so I am firmly confident in the collective judgment of the 12 people who decided Tyson's fate.

But I could have said that in a nicer way, so I apologize – especially to Grimm – for the manner in which I chose to express myself.

P.S.: Collins, I did read up on the cases you mentioned. Each one was overturned because of police misconduct which resulted in either the suppression of evidence or coerced confessions from the accused. In my reading, it does not appear that the original jury “got it wrong” on the fact presented to them.

I have Broughton on ignore so I don't generally read his posts, but my friend Ezzard quoted him and I can't let Broughton's last comment pass.

He wrote: "Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL."

That is completely wrong. In fact, when lawyers are admitted to the bar, they take a lengthy oath, part of which is an obligation not to mislead or lie to the court. In Oklahoma, I swore to "do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court," and in Missouri I swore "that I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Rule 4-3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of law or fact to a court (and requires a lawyer to correct a statement that the lawyer later learns to have been false), or offer evidence that a lawyer knows to be false.

If a lawyer violates his or her oath of office and the Rules of Professional Conduct, that lawyer is subject to various sanctions including disbarment.

raylawpc wrote:I have Broughton on ignore so I don't generally read his posts, but my friend Ezzard quoted him and I can't let Broughton's last comment pass.

He wrote: "Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL."

That is completely wrong. In fact, when lawyers are admitted to the bar, they take a lengthy oath, part of which is an obligation not to mislead or lie to the court. In Oklahoma, I swore to "do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court," and in Missouri I swore "that I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Rule 4-3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of law or fact to a court (and requires a lawyer to correct a statement that the lawyer later learns to have been false), or offer evidence that a lawyer knows to be false.

If a lawyer violates his or her oath of office and the Rules of Professional Conduct, that lawyer is subject to various sanctions including disbarment.

Thanks for that Ray, but there is little need to worry as most of us knew he was completely wrong.

Pleased to hear that your dad is improving, Ray.

All the best to him.

Ezzard wrote:Pleased to hear that your dad is improving, Ray.

All the best to him.

Ditto

Thanks Ezzard and Grimm.

raylawpc wrote:I am sorry to all if I was harsh in my posts yesterday. Since September 14, my father has been hospitalized and critically ill. He rebounded last week, but on Friday took a turn for the worse, and I have been fretting for him the past several days. Immediately after my posts, I got a call that he was much improved. I am sorry I let my personal problems effect the tone of my posts, and I apologize to anyone who was offended.

That said, I do believe that the Anglo-American judicial system is the best in the world. When a person is wrongfully convicted, it is frequently because of police misconduct in manufacturing or supressing evidence, or blatant incompetency of the defense counsel. Neither of these issues was ever asserted in the Tyson case, so I am firmly confident in the collective judgment of the 12 people who decided Tyson's fate.

But I could have said that in a nicer way, so I apologize – especially to Grimm – for the manner in which I chose to express myself.

P.S.: Collins, I did read up on the cases you mentioned. Each one was overturned because of police misconduct which resulted in either the suppression of evidence or coerced confessions from the accused. In my reading, it does not appear that the original jury “got it wrong” on the fact presented to them.

Hope your father is improving, Tom.

Yes, there was serious police misconduct in all those cases.

That is one one the weaknesses I believe in our judicial system. Too much weight is still given to police evidence even after all the cases that have come to light of police misconduct.

Not sure what the answer is though.

Collins2000 wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I am sorry to all if I was harsh in my posts yesterday. Since September 14, my father has been hospitalized and critically ill. He rebounded last week, but on Friday took a turn for the worse, and I have been fretting for him the past several days. Immediately after my posts, I got a call that he was much improved. I am sorry I let my personal problems effect the tone of my posts, and I apologize to anyone who was offended.

That said, I do believe that the Anglo-American judicial system is the best in the world. When a person is wrongfully convicted, it is frequently because of police misconduct in manufacturing or supressing evidence, or blatant incompetency of the defense counsel. Neither of these issues was ever asserted in the Tyson case, so I am firmly confident in the collective judgment of the 12 people who decided Tyson's fate.

But I could have said that in a nicer way, so I apologize – especially to Grimm – for the manner in which I chose to express myself.

P.S.: Collins, I did read up on the cases you mentioned. Each one was overturned because of police misconduct which resulted in either the suppression of evidence or coerced confessions from the accused. In my reading, it does not appear that the original jury “got it wrong” on the fact presented to them.

Hope your father is improving, Tom.

Yes, there was serious police misconduct in all those cases.

That is one one the weaknesses I believe in our judicial system. Too much weight is still given to police evidence even after all the cases that have come to light of police misconduct.

Not sure what the answer is though.

Thanks Collins.

Police misconduct is always a problem. But that said, its still the best system, albeit imperfect. For example, I've never seen anyone accused of a crime in the US or UK seek a change of venue to Iran, China or Thailand.

But its imperfect because people are imperfect.

The Great John L wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I have Broughton on ignore so I don't generally read his posts, but my friend Ezzard quoted him and I can't let Broughton's last comment pass.

He wrote: "Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL."

That is completely wrong. In fact, when lawyers are admitted to the bar, they take a lengthy oath, part of which is an obligation not to mislead or lie to the court. In Oklahoma, I swore to "do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court," and in Missouri I swore "that I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Rule 4-3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of law or fact to a court (and requires a lawyer to correct a statement that the lawyer later learns to have been false), or offer evidence that a lawyer knows to be false.
If a lawyer violates his or her oath of office and the Rules of Professional Conduct, that lawyer is subject to various sanctions including disbarment.

Thanks for that Ray, but there is little need to worry as most of us knew he was completely wrong.

-HAR-HAR-HAR, yeah, right, the milk and cookies oath, eh?

Tell it to OJ's ex as well as thousands of inmates wrongly convicted by rogue prosecutors and thousands of investors swindled by Enron, MCI, Health South, ect and the millions of investors swindled by big banks and wall street of $26,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$. That's 26 trillion swindled in the global credit default swap/financial derivatives fraud.

That's enough shysters to populate Des Moines, Iowa and spill over into neighboring counties.

raylawpc wrote:Thanks Ezzard and Grimm.

My father (who I've always been especially close to) was near-death recently. You are in our thoughts, mate

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:
...you blame bad condition for the Lewis loss, when in fact he was easily controlling a slow paced beatdown on Rahman who was looking like the intimidated sack of you against any bully. A near shutout until the single lucky punch, and Rahman did have a great right when he landed it. So you make up lies about stamina and training when those played no factor whatsoever in the fight because some other jughaid made up some nonsense that got spread around...

Broughton, don't know if you have seen the UK broadcast of the fight. Hagler does the analysis and he all but predicts the KO. He starts to talk about Lewis looking tired, having his mouth open to breathe, etc... It's as fine a piece of commentary as you'll find.

Don't know if it's kicking around the web but it's worth watching and listening to just for Marvin.

Ezzard wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:
...you blame bad condition for the Lewis loss, when in fact he was easily controlling a slow paced beatdown on Rahman who was looking like the intimidated sack of you against any bully. A near shutout until the single lucky punch, and Rahman did have a great right when he landed it. So you make up lies about stamina and training when those played no factor whatsoever in the fight because some other jughaid made up some nonsense that got spread around...

Broughton, don't know if you have seen the UK broadcast of the fight. Hagler does the analysis and he all but predicts the KO. He starts to talk about Lewis looking tired, having his mouth open to breathe, etc... It's as fine a piece of commentary as you'll find.

Don't know if it's kicking around the web but it's worth watching and listening to just for Marvin.

- Love listening to what Marv has to say, but his expertise is the lighter weights, not superheavies which is what Rahman/Lewis was.

"Experts" have been predicting Vitali to run out of gas in most every recent fight because he breathes through his mouth, when in every case he's always stronger going down the stretch where he is most dangerous and likely to score his KO.

I'll trust my own eyes. Lewis was fighting a lazy, slow paced fight akin to a stroll through the park while eating an icecream cone. Assuming he had the same timing, he could fight the same pace today without any training. Rahman was pants and just came out of nowhere with a big surprise and fight over.

Always interesting when a fighter goes from glass jawed bum to invincible based on one fight, a past it Tyson. The truth is inbetween. On his day Lewis could beat most any, but on average, plenty of enough other bad days at the office such as Tucker, Mercer, and that skinny Croat who did a number on him like Tiberi did to Toney show he could be outboxed as well as one punched.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I have Broughton on ignore so I don't generally read his posts, but my friend Ezzard quoted him and I can't let Broughton's last comment pass.

He wrote: "Did you know that lawyers are generally not sworn into court and that they are under no compunction to pursue the truth in court and in fact can lie as long as they are not sworn in to the witness stand? Any of their alleged transgressions get handled by a panel of "other lawyers. Sweet work if you can stomach it...LOL."

That is completely wrong. In fact, when lawyers are admitted to the bar, they take a lengthy oath, part of which is an obligation not to mislead or lie to the court. In Oklahoma, I swore to "do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court," and in Missouri I swore "that I will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law."

Rule 4-3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of law or fact to a court (and requires a lawyer to correct a statement that the lawyer later learns to have been false), or offer evidence that a lawyer knows to be false.
If a lawyer violates his or her oath of office and the Rules of Professional Conduct, that lawyer is subject to various sanctions including disbarment.

Thanks for that Ray, but there is little need to worry as most of us knew he was completely wrong.

-HAR-HAR-HAR, yeah, right, the milk and cookies oath, eh?

Tell it to OJ's ex as well as thousands of inmates wrongly convicted by rogue prosecutors and thousands of investors swindled by Enron, MCI, Health South, ect and the millions of investors swindled by big banks and wall street of $26,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$. That's 26 trillion swindled in the global credit default swap/financial derivatives fraud.

That's enough shysters to populate Des Moines, Iowa and spill over into neighboring counties.

Half Marxist and all nonsense; you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.

What does "milk and cookies oath" mean to you? If mechanic lies, the lie is actionable or not depending on whether the lie was reasonably believed, relied on, and resulted in some sort of tangible damage. If a lawyer lies in the course of pursuing his profession, he can lose his license regardless of what, if any, the ultimate consequences were. In addition to that, the lie is actionable based on the same criteria that the mechanic's lie (or anyone else's) is actionable. There is no question that the penalties for dishonesty are more severe to lawyers than they are to most other people, including, I strongly suspect, to you.

There isn't a profession or avocation in the world, indeed, in the history of the world, with respect to which you could not point to a dishonest member -- which begs the question, what do you do for a living, assuming you actually earn one?

If you feel you are in a position to declare you are more virtuous and honorable than an entire profession, such that you can sit in judgment as you have flattered yourself to do, then I'm sure we would all like to know a little bit more about you and how you have managed to earn your personal seat at the right hand of Christ.