Go Get Em, Roy: American Patriot Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fail

[WorldWatcher]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And then he can be proven guilty in a court of law.

he can't be, time ran out

1. Statute of limitations applies to criminal prosecution not civil suits.
&
2. If Moore takes legal action against the women and newspaper for reporting the story that would be a civil suit and it would be an action initiate by Moore - so again the statute of limitations would apply.

In such a case Moore would be opening himself up to be deposed under oath and can be called to testify at trial - whether he wants to or not. 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination apply to criminal cases. They do not apply in civil suits where there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.

As a result you would have Moore on the stand saying "I never had sex with that woman" and then you would have the 9 accusers take the stand, the 30 or so people they told 40 years ago about his actions, mall employees and security people telling their stories, and police officers from the time talking about how at football games they were to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. All testimony, that goes to the credibility of the claims of the young girls.




Moore doesn't want to get within 500 miles of a courtroom on this matter.



>>>>

 

[frigidweirdo]

And then he can be proven guilty in a court of law.

he can't be, time ran out

1. Statute of limitations applies to criminal prosecution not civil suits.
&
2. If Moore takes legal action against the women and newspaper for reporting the story that would be a civil suit and it would be an action initiate by Moore - so again the statute of limitations would apply.

In such a case Moore would be opening himself up to be deposed under oath and can be called to testify at trial - whether he wants to or not. 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination apply to criminal cases. They do not apply in civil suits where there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.

As a result you would have Moore on the stand saying "I never had sex with that woman" and then you would have the 9 accusers take the stand, the 30 or so people they told 40 years ago about his actions, mall employees and security people telling their stories, and police officers from the time talking about how at football games they were to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. All testimony, that goes to the credibility of the claims of the young girls.




Moore doesn't want to get within 500 miles of a courtroom on this matter.



>>>>

Exactly.

But what he's doing is trying to show people he's not afraid. People will think "he's not afraid, therefore he has nothing to hide", but then he can quietly drop any legal action afterwards. Because the voters are ignorant and stupid and malleable.

 

[bripat9643]

Which would easily be dismissed because the manager of the mall stated he was unaware of any ban on Moore. So how could these police officers testify that they had to watch Moore without the management knowing about it?

No, the Manager not remembering a ban does not dismiss what would be testimony by employees working in stores about Moore's attempting to pursue young teenage girls.

I didn't say the police were at the mall, I referenced cheerleaders which pertains to recollections about football games.



Former Gadsden Mall employees share stories, concerns about Roy Moore
Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’



>>>>

What mall employees were those? Did they work for the mall or for one of the stores? If the later, how would they know if there was a ban on anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

And then he can be proven guilty in a court of law.

he can't be, time ran out

1. Statute of limitations applies to criminal prosecution not civil suits.
&
2. If Moore takes legal action against the women and newspaper for reporting the story that would be a civil suit and it would be an action initiate by Moore - so again the statute of limitations would apply.

In such a case Moore would be opening himself up to be deposed under oath and can be called to testify at trial - whether he wants to or not. 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination apply to criminal cases. They do not apply in civil suits where there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.

As a result you would have Moore on the stand saying "I never had sex with that woman" and then you would have the 9 accusers take the stand, the 30 or so people they told 40 years ago about his actions, mall employees and security people telling their stories, and police officers from the time talking about how at football games they were to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. All testimony, that goes to the credibility of the claims of the young girls.




Moore doesn't want to get within 500 miles of a courtroom on this matter.



>>>>

None of that evidence would be admissable because it's all hearsay, so, no, you wouldn't have that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Statute of limitations applies to criminal prosecution not civil suits.
&
2. If Moore takes legal action against the women and newspaper for reporting the story that would be a civil suit and it would be an action initiate by Moore - so again the statute of limitations would apply.

In such a case Moore would be opening himself up to be deposed under oath and can be called to testify at trial - whether he wants to or not. 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination apply to criminal cases. They do not apply in civil suits where there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.

As a result you would have Moore on the stand saying "I never had sex with that woman" and then you would have the 9 accusers take the stand, the 30 or so people they told 40 years ago about his actions, mall employees and security people telling their stories, and police officers from the time talking about how at football games they were to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. All testimony, that goes to the credibility of the claims of the young girls.




Moore doesn't want to get within 500 miles of a courtroom on this matter.



>>>>

None of that evidence would be admissable because it's all hearsay, so, no, you wouldn't have that.

In this case, the admittance of utterances made by the young girls to family friends and relatives would be admissible as it goes to their credibility. They cannot state as fact that the molestation accrued, however they can state as fact that the young girls told them about it 40 years ago. That is not hearsay.

Secondly...

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

<<SNIP>>

(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.


Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay



>>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

https://link.liveperson.net/click?key=8964C5FF36394D21

And then he can be proven guilty in a court of law.

he can't be, time ran out

1. Statute of limitations applies to criminal prosecution not civil suits.
&
2. If Moore takes legal action against the women and newspaper for reporting the story that would be a civil suit and it would be an action initiate by Moore - so again the statute of limitations would apply.

In such a case Moore would be opening himself up to be deposed under oath and can be called to testify at trial - whether he wants to or not. 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination apply to criminal cases. They do not apply in civil suits where there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.

As a result you would have Moore on the stand saying "I never had sex with that woman" and then you would have the 9 accusers take the stand, the 30 or so people they told 40 years ago about his actions, mall employees and security people telling their stories, and police officers from the time talking about how at football games they were to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. All testimony, that goes to the credibility of the claims of the young girls.




Moore doesn't want to get within 500 miles of a courtroom on this matter.



>>>>

Exactly.

But what he's doing is trying to show people he's not afraid. People will think "he's not afraid, therefore he has nothing to hide", but then he can quietly drop any legal action afterwards. Because the voters are ignorant and stupid and malleable.

That's exactly why the Doug Jones campain is conducting this smear campaign. It's depending on the gullibility, ingnorance and maleability of the voters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

Interesting wording in the article:

Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore’s liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and she was informed that he had been banned from Gadsden Mall because he allegedly targeted young female employees.

“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse, too.”

said the department took no action against Moore because it never received complaints on the allegations.

 

[WorldWatcher]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

Interesting wording in the article:

Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore’s liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and she was informed that he had been banned from Gadsden Mall because he allegedly targeted young female employees.

“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse, too.”

said the department took no action against Moore because it never received complaints on the allegations.

Your previous post seemed to indicate that the police person hadn't come out by name.

I was showing you where she did come out by name.



>>>>

 

[jc456]

There's nothing funny about sex abuse in any form. But equally, there's nothing funny about remaining silent for 40 years and then finally speaking up when the balance of the Senate is at stake and millions of people stand to be affected.

Sorry to the women who are making these allegations. But your inability to do something sooner now affects way more people than just you. I hope Judge Roy Moore wins.

Do you really think it would be any different if this came out 4 months ago or a year ago or 5 years ago?

the answer is NO....the roy Moore lovers would support him no matter what....and these women would have been villified by you all, just as you are doing now, to them...

and you wonder why it took decades for them come out....? it's because of people like you, putting macho manhood over the possible abuse or molestation of young teens and all women in general....

It is so much easier to just call them liars, and all the macho men coming to their defense....

It's a He Said, verses the she said she said she said she said she said she said she said she said and she said....

and you still belittle and demean the she's....

Putting the people who want to come out and identify their abuse and abusers, back in the closet of silence for another 4 decades.

YOU and people like you, who pick party or man hood over what is right and what is clearly wrong, have totally lost whatever moral compass you once may have had....

I think it's shameful!

Primary

 

[jc456]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

Interesting wording in the article:

Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore’s liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and she was informed that he had been banned from Gadsden Mall because he allegedly targeted young female employees.

“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse, too.”

said the department took no action against Moore because it never received complaints on the allegations.

So where’s the other cops?

 

[jc456]

You're preaching only to other snowflakes, moron. No one else is swallowing your horseshit.

I see that you are a fan of the orange prostitute-predator, and the little prostitute-predator running for Senate in Alabama. Oh, what this country has come to, when we allow people from the gutter into leadership positions.

You mean like that white trash criminal Hillary and her rapist husband? Yes Indeed, electing her would have sent us swirling down the toilet bowl.

But you support white trash who seek to hurt others: women, LGBTs, people of color, people of the Muslim faith. Your assertion, even if correct, include only two people, the couple of Bill and Hillary Clinton (not to mention that Hillary Clinton has been a life-long Methodist Christian). Right-wingers have no right to hurt or compromise the rights of anyone else, but they prance around arrogantly as if they do. This arrogance proves that they are nothing but trash.

Ahhhh

 

[Pop23]

YEP, I don't blame him one bit. Time to take legal action against these gold digger political feminists and put them where they belong, in the kennel or jail.

Judge Roy Moore Weighs Legal Action Against Accusers As Allegations Fall Apart

If he doesn't, it's an admission that it's all true.

Wrong.

uhm, yea

If he won't, it's only b/c he did it and a lose in court would prove it.

Both claims are wrong.

he's been accused, by multiple women of the same thing, he either proves them wrong or the world will assume they are right.

since you don't like reality, feel free to substitute it with your own version

The good ol court of public opinion gambit.

Even there it should be the accusers proving themselves the victims, not the accused proving himself innocent.

Hell of a mess if it’s the other way around. And lynch mobs will become the norm.

 

[jc456]

Which would easily be dismissed because the manager of the mall stated he was unaware of any ban on Moore. So how could these police officers testify that they had to watch Moore without the management knowing about it?

No, the Manager not remembering a ban does not dismiss what would be testimony by employees working in stores about Moore's attempting to pursue young teenage girls.

I didn't say the police were at the mall, I referenced cheerleaders which pertains to recollections about football games.



Former Gadsden Mall employees share stories, concerns about Roy Moore
Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’



>>>>

Where’s the cheerleader coach? Parents?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If he doesn't, it's an admission that it's all true.

Wrong.

uhm, yea

If he won't, it's only b/c he did it and a lose in court would prove it.

Both claims are wrong.

he's been accused, by multiple women of the same thing, he either proves them wrong or the world will assume they are right.

since you don't like reality, feel free to substitute it with your own version

The good ol court of public opinion gambit.

Even there it should be the accusers proving themselves the victims, not the accused proving himself innocent.

Hell of a mess if it’s the other way around. And lynch mobs will become the norm.

Lynch mobs? Oh my, someone ate their Drama Flakes this morning.

When deciding to hire someone to be a Federal legislator, the "court of public opinion" is perfectly valid. If you were hiring people to important positions in your company, you would no doubt defer not just to a criminal record or lack thereof, but also your own judgment. Guess what? That's the court of public opinion.

And if a guy walked into your office carrying accusations of theft from 5, unrelated sources, I doubt you would put him on the cash register.

But , due to your politics, you'll temporarily throw that out the window and act as if it's unfair. Aww, poor Roy the womanizer...err, "girlizer"?

 

[Pop23]

Wrong.

uhm, yea

If he won't, it's only b/c he did it and a lose in court would prove it.

Both claims are wrong.

he's been accused, by multiple women of the same thing, he either proves them wrong or the world will assume they are right.

since you don't like reality, feel free to substitute it with your own version

The good ol court of public opinion gambit.

Even there it should be the accusers proving themselves the victims, not the accused proving himself innocent.

Hell of a mess if it’s the other way around. And lynch mobs will become the norm.

Lynch mobs? Oh my, someone ate their Drama Flakes this morning.

When deciding to hire someone to be a Federal legislator, the "court of public opinion" is perfectly valid. If you were hiring people to important positions in your company, you would no doubt defer not just to a criminal record or lack thereof, but also your own judgment. Guess what? That's the court of public opinion.

And if a guy walked into your office carrying accusations of theft from 5, unrelated sources, I doubt you would put him on the cash register.

But , due to your politics, you'll temporarily throw that out the window and act as if it's unfair. Aww, poor Roy the womanizer...err, "girlizer"?

I might also consider the source. Does the person making the accusation have supportive evidence that withstand scrutiny, or just take his word for it and fire the the accused? Should I ask to have the fives evidence handed over for analysis? Or just take their word for it?

You really should think before you post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

uhm, yea

If he won't, it's only b/c he did it and a lose in court would prove it.

Both claims are wrong.

he's been accused, by multiple women of the same thing, he either proves them wrong or the world will assume they are right.

since you don't like reality, feel free to substitute it with your own version

The good ol court of public opinion gambit.

Even there it should be the accusers proving themselves the victims, not the accused proving himself innocent.

Hell of a mess if it’s the other way around. And lynch mobs will become the norm.

Lynch mobs? Oh my, someone ate their Drama Flakes this morning.

When deciding to hire someone to be a Federal legislator, the "court of public opinion" is perfectly valid. If you were hiring people to important positions in your company, you would no doubt defer not just to a criminal record or lack thereof, but also your own judgment. Guess what? That's the court of public opinion.

And if a guy walked into your office carrying accusations of theft from 5, unrelated sources, I doubt you would put him on the cash register.

But , due to your politics, you'll temporarily throw that out the window and act as if it's unfair. Aww, poor Roy the womanizer...err, "girlizer"?

I might also consider the source. Does the person making the accusation have supportive evidence that withstand scrutiny, or just take his word for it and fire the the accused? Should I ask to have the fives evidence handed over for analysis? Or just take their word for it?

You really should think before you post.

You might think about the source, eh? And upon looking at 5 unrelated sources with similar accusations...you would ignore them? Haha, no. Bullshit. You are only acting this way now because of your politics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

Interesting wording in the article:

Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore’s liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and she was informed that he had been banned from Gadsden Mall because he allegedly targeted young female employees.

“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse, too.”

said the department took no action against Moore because it never received complaints on the allegations.

Your previous post seemed to indicate that the police person hadn't come out by name.

I was showing you where she did come out by name.



>>>>

I see. Well you proved one of them did give a name. Seems to be a lot of "rumors" in this article by the testimony of the officer. So strange. All these allegations and no complaints, no police activity, no proof of any ban, just a lot of people that heard things.

I don't know about this. If I were a juror, and the defense came in with a lot of "I heard things" witnesses, I would have to dismiss them in my decision making.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From what I read the so-called officers said they did not want their names revealed. I find it hard to believe that if a court case took place, they would be willing to come forward.

Faye Gray was on the record.

Retired Alabama cop on Roy Moore: ‘We were also told to … make sure that he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders’


>>>>

Interesting wording in the article:

Ex-Gadsden cop Faye Gray told MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell that rumors of Moore’s liking young girls were heard on a daily basis and she was informed that he had been banned from Gadsden Mall because he allegedly targeted young female employees.

“The rumor was that Roy Moore likes young girls,” she added. “It was not only in our department but at the courthouse, too.”

said the department took no action against Moore because it never received complaints on the allegations.

Your previous post seemed to indicate that the police person hadn't come out by name.

I was showing you where she did come out by name.



>>>>

I see. Well you proved one of them did give a name. Seems to be a lot of "rumors" in this article by the testimony of the officer. So strange. All these allegations and no complaints, no police activity, no proof of any ban, just a lot of people that heard things.

I don't know about this. If I were a juror, and the defense came in with a lot of "I heard things" witnesses, I would have to dismiss them in my decision making.

That sentiment would be more relevant in a setting of a criminal court than it is in the arena of not voting somebody to be a Federal legislator.

 

[bripat9643]

Both claims are wrong.

he's been accused, by multiple women of the same thing, he either proves them wrong or the world will assume they are right.

since you don't like reality, feel free to substitute it with your own version

The good ol court of public opinion gambit.

Even there it should be the accusers proving themselves the victims, not the accused proving himself innocent.

Hell of a mess if it’s the other way around. And lynch mobs will become the norm.

Lynch mobs? Oh my, someone ate their Drama Flakes this morning.

When deciding to hire someone to be a Federal legislator, the "court of public opinion" is perfectly valid. If you were hiring people to important positions in your company, you would no doubt defer not just to a criminal record or lack thereof, but also your own judgment. Guess what? That's the court of public opinion.

And if a guy walked into your office carrying accusations of theft from 5, unrelated sources, I doubt you would put him on the cash register.

But , due to your politics, you'll temporarily throw that out the window and act as if it's unfair. Aww, poor Roy the womanizer...err, "girlizer"?

I might also consider the source. Does the person making the accusation have supportive evidence that withstand scrutiny, or just take his word for it and fire the the accused? Should I ask to have the fives evidence handed over for analysis? Or just take their word for it?

You really should think before you post.

You might think about the source, eh? And upon looking at 5 unrelated sources with similar accusations...you would ignore them? Haha, no. Bullshit. You are only acting this way now because of your politics.

Considering that you have described a strategy the Dims have used over and over, yes I would ignore them.