Amber Frey interview airing tonight. - Page 4

Mad4stevie · #46 01-04-2005, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I did not read that one?

Yes - it was mentioned the day that the sentence was handed down by the jury. The judge made it part of the record. The prohibition was that no one could accept any compensation for interviews, etc. until 90 days had passed. If anyone did any interviews, etc., during the first 90 days, any expense was all on their own dime. In other words, no free limos, plane rides or hotels.

I was not clear, however, if it applied to everyone in the case (as the gag order did) or if it was only for the jurors. It's CA state law, apparently.

strandinthewind · #47 01-04-2005, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Yes - it was mentioned the day that the sentence was handed down by the jury. The judge made it part of the record. I was not clear, however, if it applied to everyone in the case (as the gag order did) or if it was only for the jurors. It's CA state law.

I am unsure if a judge could tell a witness not to talk about the trial or the testimony - even during the trial. The First Amendment would probably trump the judge unless the judge ruled that the public airing of the testimony would somehow jeapordize the Const. rights of the party. But, in this case Frey already spilled her pathetic beans prior to, I think, the arrest. So, the point was moot

Mad4stevie · #48 01-04-2005, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unsure if a judge could tell a witness not to talk about the trial or the testimony - even during the trial. The First Amendment would probably trump the judge unless the judge ruled that the public airing of the testimony would somehow jeapordize the Const. rights of the party. But, in this case Frey already spilled her pathetic beans prior to, I think, the arrest. So, the point was moot

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason!

strandinthewind · #49 01-04-2005, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

So, are you saying that there is no such thing as a true "gag" order in this trial? She was covered by the gag order that the judge imposed which was in place from the time the trial started until the end, that I know for sure.

But lord knows, I don't want to get into a debate about the First Amendment with you, Jason!

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!!

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.

amber · #50 01-05-2005, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

LOL - I LOVE CON LAW!!!!!!!

In any event, apparently, Amber was not bound by any such rule.

As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide...

lawd!!! the law!!!

sparky · #51 01-05-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

was it her skinny rat face and thin lips?

I stand in defense of all rats. If I were an attorney, I would take their libel case pro bono.

strandinthewind · #52 01-05-2005, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

As far as i've been able to discern, the law is veeeeeery multifaceted when it comes to such issues...the judge could decide, precedent could decide, the constitution could decide, some random state precedent and/or law could decide...

lawd!!! the law!!!

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress

amber · #53 01-05-2005, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have always said the Court is the concious of the US and it will always be. AND - I think the framers knew this. But, I digress

yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well.

okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)?

Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once...

strandinthewind · #54 01-05-2005, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

yes, obviously constitutional law has the first say. But i've recently seen it be fuzzy here, as well.

okay, that was only one research paper, but still. I've seen other cases where, randomly, there'll be a federal precedent that will allow state law to supercede, blah, blah, add frustration and nauseaum...*sigh*
but, obviously, you have a vastly larger body of knowledge on this subject. But may i refer you to...Blah Blah v. Blah Blah Irrigation Co. Cal. App. 3d blah,(West 1998) P. 4th. 587, 589 (1997)?

Just joshin with ya, and practicing my deficient citation skills at once...

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things

amber · #55 01-05-2005, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True - I love Con. Law. Interestingly, people on both sides can paint the Const. to do pretty much whatever they want. Sadly, sometimes for bad things

yep. goes right well with my point, i think.

P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

Mad4stevie · #56 01-05-2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

yep. goes right well with my point, i think.

P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

Looking back now (after 6 years in practice), it amazes me how much pressure they put on me in law school to be perfect with my "blue book" citations. They always tried to scare us by telling us that we would be thrown out of court and/or would be committing malpractice if we got one period wrong, etc. Too much unnecessary pressure, IMO. But then again, what else is law school for?

If you could only see how ridiculously pathetic alot of practicing lawyers are with their citations in pleadings and briefs!

amber · #57 01-05-2005, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Looking back now (after 6 years in practice), it amazes me how much pressure they put on me in law school to be perfect with my "blue book" citations. They always tried to scare us by telling us that we would be thrown out of court and/or would be committing malpractice if we got one period wrong, etc. Too much unnecessary pressure, IMO. But then again, what else is law school for?

If you could only see how ridiculously pathetic alot of practicing lawyers are with their citations in pleadings and briefs!

I've heard pathetic lawyer stories. Yeah, I got a lot of pressure this semester from one class about citations. And it sucks, because of course blue book citation is different then California citation

I dunno, it's something that's more challenging then the norm for me to pick up on.

strandinthewind · #58 01-05-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

yep. goes right well with my point, i think.

P.S. did you pick up citation form easily? Or did ya just leave that to the paralegals?

Once I got that a citation is just another form of a sentence with similar punctuation, it was and has been pretty easy. But, once you get in the real world, you try to abide by The Blue Book and the court rules (which are not always the same

) and if ya mess up - oh well

SuzeQuze · #59 01-05-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, I think she had this planned from the start. I think as soon as she saw the media attention, she went for the gold. I also think she lied. But, he is convicted and that is really all there is too it. Hopefully, she will find salvation in her blood money

Sorry - I just cannot abide a lying or coercing witness

What did she lie about?

strandinthewind · #60 01-05-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

What did she lie about?

Well, it depends on which person you believe. For starters, she taped her conversations with Peterson, which was a betrayal of his trust, which I think is tantamount to a lie - I know I would feel betrayed if some I cared for did that to me - who wouldn't. I will never believe she was not thinking "book deal" when she was doing that.

Even the detectives considered her to be a liar at a few points in the investigation http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-2x-detectives.html

Here is a page on Amber http://www.findlaci2003.us/amber-index.html