Mr. T not to be extradited, free....

[loveskating]

San Diego.com reports that Mr. T, accused of fixing the ice dance competition at SLC, will not be extradited. He is free to go home.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20030617-9999_2s17briefs.html

[DancerFan]

:evil: :roll: :roll: WHAT A JOKE! :roll: :evil:

[loveskating]

Here's another article from the Moscow Times, in which Mr. T's lawyer claims that the lower court in Venice was wrong as to the law in the first place. Obviously, they must have been since their decision was overturned by the higher court.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/06/17/020.html

Does this mean that Anissina and Piezerat can now skate in the USA without fear of being picked up by U.S. Prosecutors of the Second District of New York and thrown into jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury?

[antilles]

Umm, thrown in jail? I think that's a little harsh. At the most I think they would have been questioned, but they were never charged with anything or specifically asked to go to the States, unless you're privy to information that I'm not.

[loveskating]

Originally posted by antilles
Umm, thrown in jail? I think that's a little harsh. At the most I think they would have been questioned, but they were never charged with anything or specifically asked to go to the States, unless you're privy to information that I'm not.

Umm, Anissina and her mother certainly were charged...in the complaint of the Southern District, and by specific American statute. A complaint is very specifically where anyone is charged with crimes, whatever their nature. That doesn't mean you are put in jail...most often, the crime does not justify that under our system.

I believe at one point that A&P decided not to skate in the USA until all this was resolved.

My speculation was that it was because refusal to answer questions before a grand jury, since they indict, and since they offer immunity for testimony and thus you cannot take the 5th, can result in contempt and jail time for an indefinite period, or if you answer questions and take immunity, you can unknowingly incriminate others due to the nature of proceedings in a secret Grand Jury and you are subject to perjury charges, plus the Grand Jury can ask you about anything, things totally unrelated to the charges of the prosecutors.

[Patchris]

Loveskating "Umm, Anissina and her mother certainly were charged"

Are you a police officer? member of the FBI? The CIA? Maybe Detective?

All that I see; it's that the suspect was cleared... I think more and more that all that was only wind... until proof of the opposite...

:evil:

[Orable]

Originally posted by loveskating
My speculation was that it was because refusal to answer questions before a grand jury, since they indict, and since they offer immunity for testimony and thus you cannot take the 5th, can result in contempt and jail time for an indefinite period, or if you answer questions and take immunity, you can unknowingly incriminate others due to the nature of proceedings in a secret Grand Jury and you are subject to perjury charges, plus the Grand Jury can ask you about anything, things totally unrelated to the charges of the prosecutors.

:?: :?: :?: I don't understand what you're trying to say!! or it could be the lack of coffee...

[JDC1]

I doubt they'd be arrested, bad publicity, but they may have been asked VERY firmly to answer questions. Just because the law is the law it doesn't mean it gets enforced the same with every person...as we've seen.

[loveskating]

Originally posted by Patchris
Loveskating "Umm, Anissina and her mother certainly were charged"

Are you a police officer? member of the FBI? The CIA? Maybe Detective?

All that I see; it's that the suspect was cleared... I think more and more that all that was only wind... until proof of the opposite...

:evil:

Nope. But does one have to be any of those things to know something about the law? The compliant was published, and I read it. I'm a legal secretary, I know precisely what a complaint is, and what happens when a complaint is made. What I said is true...if anyone cares to research it.

But why are you all gang attacking me on credibility grounds? All I wanted to know was whether or not I could see Anissina and Piezerat skate again! I thought soem of you very "in the know" people might know if or when they will be skating in America again!!

I'd very much like to see them skate again, as I have previously enjoyed them very much.

[loveskating]

Originally posted by Orable
:?: :?: :?: I don't understand what you're trying to say!! or it could be the lack of coffee...

All I really was asking was whether they were going to skate in America...but since my crediblity is now an issue:

Orable, just look up what happened to Susan McDougal, who was, if you recall, a friend of Clinton's who would not testify AT ALL, answer any questions, from the Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr. She was thrown into a federal prison for over 3 years just for refusing to answer questions, and when she appeared in public, Starr made sure she was shackled! She was never tried or convicted of ANY crime. If interested she has a book out. Just go to Amazon.com and type in "Susan McDougal". I'm sure people could also type her name in on a Google search and read about what I am saying...or type in "grand juries" as well.

Both the special prosecutors and grand juries offer immunity from prosecution so since you cannot incriminate yourself if you are immune to prosecution (5th Amendment to the Constitution) you MUST answer any and all questions or you can be thrown in jail just for refusing to answer and for as long as the grand jury (or special prosecutor) wants to keep you there until the case is over!!!

When it comes to serious crimes, it is a grand jury that indicts people...they review evidence, call witnesses etc. to determine if there are grounds for an actual indictment and their composition is secret (not sure, but I think this was intended to be a "balance of power" on the prosecutors, a way to review their work). The reason someone might decline to answer any questions is that in a grand jury proceeding almost anything can be asked, things totally off the subject complaint.

Refusal to cooperate with a grand jury happens a lot, actually, much more than one would think...

P.S. I would never say that this would have happened to A&P if they'd come here, I agree and doubt it would; I just think that the existence of this legality is very fearful to many people, and that probably A&P's legal advice was not to risk coming here.

[AxelAnnie22]

Loveskating:

(I apologize in advance for all errors ----my glasses are upstairs, and my husband is sleeping........)

Although I am sure we fall on opposite sides of the fence politically, I wonder why Susan McDougal (or AP) would refuse to answer the questions. I assume that the assumption is that the answers would land them in jail, or land someone else in jail. It always seems to me that either you answer the Grand Jury questions, and you are honest and forthright (and not guilty of anything), or you don't answer because you are guilty of a crime, or you are protecting someone else who is guilty of a crime. So, you are either guilty or innocent, or protecting someone who is guilty. If you are guilty, you do the time.......whether you cooperate or refuse. If you are innocent, you cooperate and go home.

That is simplified, I know, but operationally true.

With A&P, if they were not involved with the gangster guy, and did nothing underhanded to secure their medal, why not simply cooperate if called.

Two California kidnap/murder cases come to mind.

POLLY KLASS - teenage girl kidnapped from her home in the middle of the night. Her murdered body found some 60 days later. Her father, Mark, was the first in line to get a lie detector test so that he could get himself ruled OUT as a suspect, and so that the police could focus their attention elsewhere. (I live in Petaluma, where the kidnap occured, btw)

LACI PETERSON. - disappeared while walking her dog. Body washed to shore in the San Francisco Bay. The day after she was reported missing, (missing, mind you---lost, pregnant, terrified, probably, but not dead) her husband, Scott, wouldn't even let the police in his home to look for clues that might help them locate her, unless the police went back and got a search warrent. Sorry, that is not the behavior of a person who wants to do everything to help find his wife. Guilty? Sure. Of killing Laci? I don't know, but of something.

So, back to A&P - if they have nothing to hide, why would they be concerned about keeping it hidden?

Let's assume for a moment that they were in cahoots, and did hire the guy to rig the thing. Well, they would be banned, lose their medal, be disgraced, etc. That would be horrible, but fair.

Let's assume they did nothing but skate. The shine would go right back on that medal, and the little black cloud that is hanging over their heads could move along to someone else.

Simplistic? Yep, but perhaps more accurate than not.

BTW - I am going to ask my personal on-call legal consultant (adoreable hubby - an atty) about the Grand Jury thing. He has testified twice, and had several clients who were called in (none are in jail, I am happy to report).

[loveskating]

Hi Axelannie:

Well, with grand juries, you are given immunity from prosecution in exchange for your testimony, so you don't need to fear for yourself...only for others. In the case of the special prosecutors designated by Congress, you can be, I don't think you are necessarily given immunity. However, in both instances, if it is proved you lied, you can be charged with perjury.

I can't judge whether someone should cooperate with a grand jury or not...it would depend entirely on the specifics of the case I would think?

I NEVER judge innocence or guilt based on television, only if I am a juror, because it is only under the jurisdiction of a court of law that all the evidence and facts are available.

I was just pointing out it was good legal advice to Anissina & Piezerat to stay out of America until this was resolved because of how grand juries POSSIBLY could be used. As you know, ethically, attorneys and prosecutors are required to advocate for their client...no attorney can predict what will happen, but they are responsible to outline the possiblities.

[AxelAnnie22]

And, Hello to you, Loveskating

Question: Is immunity given as a matter of course before a grand jury? I am very surprised if that is the case. I would assume that "deals" are negotiatiated, but not a blank check.

Yep, Attorneys are supposed to advocate for their clients----I just wish it was their job to get to the truth of the matter. But that will happen when the judges judge what they see on the ice, and the lion lies down with the lamb! :roll:

BTW - I ALWAYS judge guilt or innocence by what I see on TV - it is so much fun! You should see me screaming and yelling at the commentators :). You are correct though, seriously, about the Court being the place to hear the facts and make a decision. However, one has to begin to doubt the system (just like FS judging) when so much is left to descretion. There has been such a swing in the last 50 years to protect the rights of the accused (not that they shouldn't be protected), that often times evidence that would severly impact a result is not brought into court even though the evidence is factual. And, of course, it goes the other way, too. Really makes me mad. And, as to advocating for your client-----the attorney who represented the creep who kidnapped and murdered the little Van Dam girl (again in California) tried to make a deal with the Prosecutors before the trial----life in prison in exchange for the guy taking them to the site of the body dump-----and then at trial swore his client was innocent. Come on!

That is almost as galling as Michelle placing 1st in the SP at OLYS!
:lol: Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

[Difranco79]

That is almost as galling as Michelle placing 1st in the SP at OLYS!

Or when Sasha Cohen placed 1st in the short program at 2000 Nationals. You have to wonder about those judges sometimes . . .