Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on. etc etc etc... but Adam also claims he has not talked to your mother, nor ever met Brad, so his source is YOU

That is all 100% false.

So, are you trying to say that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges? On what basis are you making this false claim?

[Pat Williams]

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on. etc etc etc...
That is all 100% false.

So, are you trying to say that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges? On what basis are you making this false claim?

I don't know who all may or may not have talked to Alex. I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...  My clam was based on Pickle's ignorance and incessant need to condemn and vilify such as in his and Joy's previous posts here trying to imply witness tampering was going on.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t004.htm

TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.

To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.

[Adam]

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on. etc etc etc...
That is all 100% false.

So, are you trying to say that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges? On what basis are you making this false claim?

I don't know who all may or may not have talked to Alex. I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...  My clam was based on Pickle's ignorance and incessant need to condemn and vilify such as in his and Joy's previous posts here trying to imply witness tampering was going on.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t004.htm

TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.

To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.

I can testify to the fact that everyone of those people have tried to contact Alex. And everything has been documented. The most appaling of these was a call made to Alex's church........The fool even left a voice message....

[Pat Williams]

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on. etc etc etc...
That is all 100% false.

So, are you trying to say that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges? On what basis are you making this false claim?

I don't know who all may or may not have talked to Alex. I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...  My clam was based on Pickle's ignorance and incessant need to condemn and vilify such as in his and Joy's previous posts here trying to imply witness tampering was going on.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t004.htm

TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.

To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.

I can testify to the fact that everyone of those people have tried to contact Alex. And everything has been documented. The most appaling of these was a call made to Alex's church........The fool even left a voice message....

When you make claims like that, it causes questions, was the call anonymous, did the caller identify him or her self? Did they make a threat? Did they try and influence Alex's testimony? Why are you bringing it up? and why is it relevant in a discussion about witness tampering?

I hope we can all understand that it is not against the law to contact or talk to Alex. It isn't even against the law to ask him to not pursue the case, if that occurred.

What is illegal is to intimidate or use physical force against Alex. Prosecutors, and Courts take witness tampering very seriously, but despite saying all is documented, Adam. There are no witness tampering charges filed related to this case. That allegation only exists in this forum.

Accusing people of crimes is defamation per se. It is character assasination (murder) Sadly Pickle and Joy continue to specialize in that, and as usual the evidence doesn't support their claims.

[ex3abnemployee]

I don't know who all may or may not have talked to Alex. I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...  

Hmmm...looks like "Pat" really DOESN'T have a problem with hearsay after all.

[Adam]

No the call was far from anonymous, and yes they did identify themself. I probably shouldn't discuss anymore than that.

[ex3abnemployee]

There are no witness tampering charges filed related to this case. That allegation only exists in this forum.

The same thing was said about the Tommy Shelton allegations, and look where we are now.

[ex3abnemployee]

No the call was far from anonymous, and yes they did identify themself. I probably shouldn't discuss anymore than that.

You're right. "Pat" is phishing, and not doing a very good job of hiding it.

[Bob Pickle]

I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...

Please be specific. In what way were the attempted or actual contacts not attempted witness tampering? please describe in detail how nothing said can possibly be construed to be intimidation.

Otherwise, retract your statement and admit that you either were wrong, or that you don't know for sure.

Besides, how do you know for sure that the only thing that can be called witness tampering is that which is a violation of the law? "I'll give you a cake if you don't testify" should be called witness tampering, but it isn't intimidation or physical force.

But you need to read the entire statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1512.html. Once you've read it, outline for us how nothing that was said could possibly be construed as a violation of any of the statute's prohibitions.

[Pat Williams]

Folks, Robert Pickle needs to first attempt to prove his own ugly accusations of witness tampering crimes against others are true before he asks me to prove him wrong.

(IOW, Please do not be offended as I turn around and walk away, Pickle.)

I do know what Pickle is bringing up now is not witness tampering...

Please be specific. In what way were the attempted or actual contacts not attempted witness tampering? please describe in detail how nothing said can possibly be construed to be intimidation.

Otherwise, retract your statement and admit that you either were wrong, or that you don't know for sure.

Besides, how do you know for sure that the only thing that can be called witness tampering is that which is a violation of the law? "I'll give you a cake if you don't testify" should be called witness tampering, but it isn't intimidation or physical force.

But you need to read the entire statute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1512.html. Once you've read it, outline for us how nothing that was said could possibly be construed as a violation of any of the statute's prohibitions.

[ex3abnemployee]

Folks, Robert Pickle needs to first attempt to prove his own ugly accusations of witness tampering crimes against others are true before he asks me to prove him wrong.

(IOW, Please do not be offended as I turn around and walk away, Pickle.)

That's what cowards usually do when they are confronted. They tuck tail and run.

[Bob Pickle]

Folks, Robert Pickle needs to first attempt to prove his own ugly accusations of witness tampering crimes against others are true before he asks me to prove him wrong.

I started this thread to give you an opportunity to prove that "Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges":

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on. etc etc etc... but Adam also claims he has not talked to your mother, nor ever met Brad, so his source is YOU

That is all 100% false.

So, are you trying to say that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny did not try to convince Alex to drop charges? On what basis are you making this false claim?

Apparently you've found yourself backed into a corner, and rather than admit that you can't prove that it is 100% false, you want me to prove the contrary. But that's another topic for another time.

So let it be crystal clear that you were wrong when you emphatically indicated that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny never attempted to convince Alex to drop charges.

[Pat Williams]

So let it be crystal clear that you were wrong when you emphatically indicated that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny never attempted to convince Alex to drop charges.

Yes,  let it be crystal clear. You are bearing false witness here as I emphatically indicated no such thing.

What I emphatically declared was this.

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on....
That is all 100% false.


And I will emphatically declare it again:

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on...
That is all 100% false.

My clam was based on Pickle's ignorance and incessant need to condemn and vilify such as in his and Joy's previous posts here trying to imply witness tampering was going on.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t004.htm
Quote
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS

Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.

To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.

[Murcielago]

I don't know that simply asking a person to drop charges or not testify would qualify as tampering. However if that person were threatened directly, or indirectly, with a smear campaign, or other forms of punishment, should they proceed, would that qualify? How about if the person(s) who approached or confronted with requests or demands were turned down and followed up by systematically contacting the friends, family, colleagues, church, employer, potential employer(s), etc, with allegations, facts, rumors, or implications meant to harm or destroy that person's relationships, employment, and standing in the community? Would that be considered tampering, or some other actionable offense?

[Bob Pickle]

So let it be crystal clear that you were wrong when you emphatically indicated that Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny never attempted to convince Alex to drop charges.

Yes,  let it be crystal clear. You are bearing false witness here as I emphatically indicated no such thing.

What I emphatically declared was this.

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on....
That is all 100% false.


And I will emphatically declare it again:

... It is being claimed there is witness tampering going on...
That is all 100% false.

I am not bearing false witness. Any statements I have made regarding attempted witness tampering were referring to Brad, Trent, Brenda, and/or Danny attempting to convince Alex to drop charges. Your declaring that my statements are 100% false indicate that what I was referring to was false, and thus my statement was accurate.

When someone suggests to a potential witness that his testifying against a known sexual predator and pedophile could have bad consequences to the witness himself, that someone should perhaps consult an attorney to see if he or she did or did not violate the statute. At least one or two of the above individuals are alleged to have done that.