«

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:41:57 -0700, "William Graham"
<> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:10:35 -0700, "William Graham"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Frank ess" <> wrote in message
>>>news:TrmdnXiMuZkMx3HfRVn-...
>>>>> I don't think a "nolo contendere" plea in a criminal case will have
>>>>> any effect on a civil case, but I don't know.
>>>>
>>>Not true....This was it's original intention. To protect the accused from
>>>subsequent civil actions......
>>>
>> I don't think so.
>> It was designed so that a "guilty" plea couldn't be used in a later
>> civil case, but it doesn't protect a defendant from future civil
>> cases.
>> IOW, if a defendant were to plead nolo contendere in a burgary case,
>> he could still be found responsible for the losses in a civil case.
>>
>Of course....That's what I meant. It allows the defendant to plead guilty
>without having that plea used against him in any subsequent civil action.
>But if he doesn't use the no contest plea, and fights the case, and is found
>not guilty, but is still found liable in civil court, that kind of makes the
>no contest plea useless, doesn't it?
>
But he didn't use the no contest plea.
If he doesn't *use* it, that doesn't make it useless.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:41:57 -0700, "William Graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:10:35 -0700, "William Graham"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Frank ess" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:TrmdnXiMuZkMx3HfRVn-...
>>>>>> I don't think a "nolo contendere" plea in a criminal case will have
>>>>>> any effect on a civil case, but I don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>Not true....This was it's original intention. To protect the accused
>>>>from
>>>>subsequent civil actions......
>>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>> It was designed so that a "guilty" plea couldn't be used in a later
>>> civil case, but it doesn't protect a defendant from future civil
>>> cases.
>>> IOW, if a defendant were to plead nolo contendere in a burgary case,
>>> he could still be found responsible for the losses in a civil case.
>>>
>>Of course....That's what I meant. It allows the defendant to plead guilty
>>without having that plea used against him in any subsequent civil action.
>>But if he doesn't use the no contest plea, and fights the case, and is
>>found
>>not guilty, but is still found liable in civil court, that kind of makes
>>the
>>no contest plea useless, doesn't it?
>>
> But he didn't use the no contest plea.
> If he doesn't *use* it, that doesn't make it useless.
>
Then you are saying that a, "no contest" plea is less damaging than pleading
"not guilty" and winning in criminal court? - This is illogical....(why am I
not surprised)

I am becoming very weary of this general altercation, so I am ending it
now....You may continue with others, if you wish, but I am "outa here."

William Graham wrote:
<< Snipped bits out >>

> I am becoming very weary of this general altercation, so I am ending it
> now....You may continue with others, if you wish, but I am "outa here."
>

Thank you, William. May the Force be with you.

--
John McWilliams

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:08:21 -0700, Bill Funk <>
wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:48:45 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:25:20 -0700, Bill Funk <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:43:57 -0700, "William Graham"
>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>> You wouldn't be able to get your civil suit settled first, because the
>>>>> state would have all your evidence, as well as the guy you were going to
>>>>> sue, all locked up. their case would, IOW, take precedence. And,
>>>>> furthermore, if he beat the rap, then he is (perhaps) the wrong person,
>>>>> and you should have no case against him, because he is (now listen
>>>>> carefully) NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you ever going to actually refer to *reality*, or just the way you
>>>think it should be?
>>>Why would any evidence that the guy hit me not be available to me?
>>
>> Go to the police station, ask for a piece of sealed evidence
>>awaiting use at a crimnal trial and let us know how you fare.
>
>Non sequitur.

Sequitur.

>I only need testimony for my civil case, not any evidence of his
>criminal actions.

The word used in a prior paragraph was "evidence."

>>
>>>Does the government lock up all police reports of crashes where other
>>>crimes are reported? No, it doesn't.
>>
>> It may be shared with other police or governmental entities
>>and maybe even lawyers under proper supervision who can be trusted to
>>know and observe requirements for preserving the chain of evidence.
>>You won't likely qualify.
>
>You obviously have never tried to get a report of a traffic crash, or
>you wouldn't say this.

The issue at hand is evidence in a criminal action, not a
simple traffic accident, which may not rise even to a misdemeanor, and
is only civil.


>>
>>>Precedent? They are two seperate things, in seperate court systems. A
>>>criminal suit doesn't have precedent over a criminal case stemming
>>>formt he same incident.
>>
>> Please check a competent legal dictionary to find the
>>difference between precedent (your word) vs. precedence (the word used
>>by the prior poster).
>
>Oh, I'm *SO* sorry. Wrong word.
>Do you think that makes you right?

No more than you are sorry. If you can't use the correct words
in a technical discussion, you don't belong in the discussion.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:25:58 -0500, "johnboy" <>
wrote:

>Hey, why don't you guys take it to email or get a room together. Noboy here
>cares for boze rants.
>

Nor do I care for pompous-ass, self-appoined arbiters of
what's right for everyone else.