Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 26 days ago)
27,645 posts, read 16,129,622 times
Reputation: 19062
Advertisements
We believe survivors. Believe women. Men need to shut up. Blah blah yada etc. That said, avanati gives lawyers a bad name, if thats even possible, he does
Here's a fact of life you may want to keep in your back pocket for when the time renders it necessary--you as the subject, don't get to control the investigation. Period.
Don't tell me it's "preposterous", tell that to your attorney and let him (or her) tell it to the judge.
Doesn't a judge have to issue a warrant before you can seize and review someone's tax returns or yearbooks? When was the last time you applied for a warrant in a 2-3 year long domestic abuse case requesting to review tax returns and old yearbooks? Why don't you post a copy of the redacted warrant and describe the circumstances that led to its issuance, Mr. Investigator?
Doesn't a judge have to issue a warrant before you can seize and review someone's tax returns or yearbooks? When was the last time you applied for a warrant in a 2-3 year long domestic abuse case requesting to review tax returns and old yearbooks? Why don't you post a copy of the redacted warrant and describe the circumstances that led to its issuance, Mr. Investigator?
You aren't cleared to ask that question, but yes, I'd request a warrant and a court ordered DNA sample.
You aren't cleared to ask that question, but yes, I'd request a warrant and a court ordered DNA sample.
I didn't ask you about a DNA sample. You claimed a domestic abuse charge required 2-3 years of investigating, the interviewing of every ex-girlfriend, and the seizure of the high school yearbooks and all of the tax returns the suspect ever filed. I want you to substantiate your claim in that regard. Tell us about this 2-3 year long domestic abuse investigation where you got a warrant to seize the suspects high school yearbooks and tax returns. I'm very interested to see that warrant.
I didn't ask you about a DNA sample. You claimed a domestic abuse charge required 2-3 years of investigating, the interviewing of every ex-girlfriend, and the seizure of the high school yearbooks and all of the tax returns the suspect ever filed. I want you to substantiate your claim in that regard. Tell us about this 2-3 year long domestic abuse investigation where you got a warrant to seize the suspects high school yearbooks and tax returns. I'm very interested to see that warrant.
I didn't claim anything--so there's nothing to substantiate. Second, I informed you of what I would do--you didn't have to ask it. And no, you aren't entitled to know who or what I've investigated, where it went and for what purposes. You aren't getting any answers about that regard.
Here's a fact of life you may want to keep in your back pocket for when the time renders it necessary--you as the subject, don't get to control the investigation. Period. hell, if I were investigating Avanatti, I'd get a court order for a DNA sample so that I could match it against any open sexual abuse and physical abuse allegations by women in his neighborhood. I'd leave no stone unturned.
Don't like it? Oh well.
Don't tell me it's "preposterous", tell that to your attorney and let him (or her) tell it to the judge.
How would you get such a court order? You have to have some explanation to justify a court order. And Avenatti is a very competent attorney, who would raise very compelling reasons why such a court order shouldn't be ordered. The subject of an investigation does have some say in the investigation. And that's a fact of life that prosecutors deal with every day.
How would you get such a court order? You have to have some explanation to justify a court order. And Avenatti is a very competent attorney, who would raise very compelling reasons why such a court order shouldn't be ordered. The subject of an investigation does have some say in the investigation. And that's a fact of life that prosecutors deal with every day.
The only say the subject has in an investigation is their side of the story.
Just reported on Fox News. The creepy porn star lawyer arrested and they say the victim had swelling in the facial area. Its a felony charge so not some minor assault most likely.
He claimed to be working for women. I suppose he is when he isn't working them over.
The only say the subject has in an investigation is their side of the story.
When it comes to issuing court orders, the subject via his attorney can certainly defend himself against overreach by investigators. The subject has rights, and can defend those rights when they are threatened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
