19
   

Are you worried that everything you say and do on the Internet is being watched or recorded?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:24 am
@farmerman,
Then you didn't make clear to what you were referrring. None of that changes the necessity for being prepared. If attornies have staff who are skilled in ferretting these things out, if they're on the payroll already, then he or she should be doing this for their own expert witnesses, and he knows who they will be without discovery.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:25 am
It would be hilarious to find out that this was just some idiot attempting to set up some viral marketing, but who was clumsy enough not to get the closer here until we'd spent pages discussing the subject. That's how it's starting to look to me now.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:33 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
None of that changes the necessity for being prepared.
"True, but the definition of "Preparedness" is very fluid from time to time in a case. It all depends on the needs of the case attornies at the time and into the future. AS Ive said, Ive been invloved in cases that ran over 10 years. Each sequence of activity has had its own schedule and needs during that time period and " Getting the goods on expwerts" is waay down the list in the very early days of discovery.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:41 am
One a related note, there was a medical examiner in Ontario who, for almost 20 years, acted as an expert witness in child abuse and murder cases, and sent dozens of people to jail for abusing or murdering their own children or nieces and nephews. No one, not the Crown nor defense attornies questioned his expertise for almost 20 years, until finally a defense attorney brought in her own expert witnesses, and the guy folded up like a house of cards. Since that time, dozens of convictions have been overturned (there's more than 25 so far, if i recall correctly). There were two scandalous aspects in the matter of Dr. Smith--the first being his appalling thirst to convict people of abusing or killing their own children, and the second was that no one questioned his expertise for almost 20 years.

OK, it was over 20 years, and they have been reviewing more than 200 cases.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:44 am
Yeah, this clown "SuperbVPN" has started another thread, in an attempt, i assume, to close the viral marketing loop. This guy is lame.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:48 am
@Setanta,
The DAubert rules were specifically because of medical "experts" were actually becoming "whored guns" whose opinions were sold by the buck. It was a real mess for years until the USSC got it straightened out a bit. In the Frye days a witch doctor or chiropractor could testify as a "man of medicine".
Todays rules carry severe penalties for classes of fraud and crminal misrepresentation (which is what it was all about really)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:52 am
@farmerman,
In the case of Charles Smith, it appears that simple incompetence and a desire to make his name as an expert witness was the motivation. Apparently, he was more interested in appearing in as many cases as possible than he was in the fact that he was ruining so many people's lives.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2012 06:54 am
This thread may go away soon. They've already deleted one of "SuperbVPN"s lame threads.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2012 09:21 pm
New bill now in congress forcing ISPs to keep complete records of every place you go on the net and the information will be available to law enforcement without a warrant for 18 months.

The excuse for invading everyone on the net privacy in the US is of course drum roll child porn!!!!!!!!

The real reason is to aid such people as the RIAA as those records can also be subpoena for civil actions once they exist and likely will be turn over without a subpoena by the ISPs to such people as the RIAA.

TOR network and SSL proxies localed in offshore countries with privacy laws will be call for.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2012 09:55 pm
@Setanta,
I thought that to start with, though I'll admit ill informed.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jan, 2012 09:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have never been paranoid.





David



Said the gun nut.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2012 12:50 am
@Questioner,
Questioner wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have never been paranoid.





David


Said the gun nut.
I did feel a little ill-at-ease when I was 8,
concerning how I 'd defend my home when I was alone, if that became necessary.

I never believed that anyone had anything personal against me,
nor that any secret nor mighty organizations had taken any cognizance of me.

I never felt persecuted in even the slightest degree.

I was invested with serene tranquility when I armed myself with a .38 revolver.
That was my means of controlling any predatory emergency that might present itself
(tho several decades passed b4 that happened; it worked well).

That is not within the definition of paranoia, which is ego-centric, Questioner.
There is no question about it.





David
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 09:31:36