Vick Indicted

[silverbear]

IMO dogs are worhtless.

IMO, your opinion, like your spelling, is worthless...

So there...

 

[cobra]

try 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

What exactly do you think is contained in those amendment which apply to anything you have said here? Because I can tell you this much: there is nothing in there which helps your case whatsoever.

 

[dacowboys]

TO YOU i'm sure dogs are. but to a blind man who depends on one for sight, they're not. to officers who use them for drug / bomb sniffing, they're not. to a family who's dog is also their protector, they're not. to people who's family *is* their dog, they're not.

like i said - your "singular" view is fine for yourself but hardly an all emcompassing statement so to blow off all the postives about dogs cause one dryhumped your leg at a catilian or something and caused you undue embarassment is just ignorance.

like others have said - in 2 years if this is your "brilliance" speaking i can only imagine what nuggets of wisdom we've not bee privy to.

At the end of the day they are still worthless to me. I'm not embarrassed about my opinion.

I like reading news about the cowboys that is why I never post. My hatred for dogs caused me to post.

 

[03EBZ06]

They're the ones who are happy to see me when I come home.

:laugh2:

My dog is always happy to see me, other than my 10 year old daughter, I can't say the same with my wife and two teens.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

i miss my akita at times but he just wasn't a "house" dog at all and is much better off in the country where i gave him to a friend.

Yeah, when my dogs leave for the country, I plan on adding a second story to the currently single level structure, here-to-for known as, the Dog house. Hopefully, I can get cable hooked up but if not, I guess I'll just have to rough it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

TO YOU i'm sure dogs are. but to a blind man who depends on one for sight, they're not. to officers who use them for drug / bomb sniffing, they're not. to a family who's dog is also their protector, they're not. to people who's family *is* their dog, they're not.

like i said - your "singular" view is fine for yourself but hardly an all emcompassing statement so to blow off all the postives about dogs cause one dryhumped your leg at a catilian or something and caused you undue embarassment is just ignorance.

like others have said - in 2 years if this is your "brilliance" speaking i can only imagine what nuggets of wisdom we've not bee privy to.

btw, just got through reading this whole mess and it seems fuzzy has been replaced by sacase as ignorance gone mad

 

[sacase]

And again, he's alleged to have done a LOT more than "participating in dog fights by sponsoring dogs"... he's alleged to have BOUGHT dogs for fighting, to have BRED dogs for fighting, to have TRAINED dogs to fight, and to have killed, or caused to have killed, dogs whose only crimes were they weren't good enough fighters to suit him...

To me, this is all included in participating. WE are just defining things differently.

 

[iceberg]

btw, just got through reading this whole mess and it seems fuzzy has been replaced by sacase as ignorance gone mad

glad i could make you chuckle. in the end i don't care what he thinks of dogs but to slap out HEY SOMEONE SHOOT ME in a firing range is just another example of stupidity.

 

[5Stars]

TO YOU i'm sure dogs are. but to a blind man who depends on one for sight, they're not. to officers who use them for drug / bomb sniffing, they're not. to a family who's dog is also their protector, they're not. to people who's family *is* their dog, they're not.

like i said - your "singular" view is fine for yourself but hardly an all emcompassing statement so to blow off all the postives about dogs cause one dryhumped your leg at a catilian or something and caused you undue embarassment is just ignorance.

like others have said - in 2 years if this is your "brilliance" speaking i can only imagine what nuggets of wisdom we've not bee privy to.

:laugh2: :laugh1:

 

[joseephuss]

At the end of the day they are still worthless to me. I'm not embarrassed about my opinion.

I like reading news about the cowboys that is why I never post. My hatred for dogs caused me to post.

So your hatred for dogs makes it okay for Vick or anyone to fight, torture and kill dogs?

Some people like dogs some don't. That is easy to understand. I don't understand how you think they are worthless. There are just too many examples to prove they are not worthless. Some think the domestication of dogs is one of the major reasons that humans still exist. Early man incorporated dogs into their hunting societies and were able to fend off other wild animals whether predators or prey.

I respect that you don't like dogs. I don't agree that they are worthless. You have no proof to offer to stand by that statement. There really is a separation between not liking dogs and the perception of their worth.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

lol, seconded. This thread gets funnier and funnier.



HAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bookmarked.

That is sig worthy.

Awesome job.

Totally by accident, but I don't care.

I bow down to the greatness that is this post.

takes a bow

 

[sacase]

What exactly do you think is contained in those amendment which apply to anything you have said here? Because I can tell you this much: there is nothing in there which helps your case whatsoever.

well let's see here:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and publice trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you are looking for the exact words then no you are not going to find them. However, since you are a lawyer should should already know they are infered by those amendments to the US Constitution.

 

[sacase]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You can't possibly be this stupid. Read the fricking indictment. It's right there. Gambling is in plain english. Racketeering is the statute alleged. Two RICO violations.

You don't know *** you are talking about and you are about to start pissing me off by arguing with me from your own pillar of ignorance. If you don't know jack**** about the law, then usually its not a good idea to argue with a lawyer.



(A) You don't know what RICO is nor what it means. Nor do you apparently know how indictments read for such violations.

(B) If you read, the indictment, which you clearly did not, then you will see the following:

"... carrying on of the unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1952."

He is be accused of violating that provision of the USC.

Now your ignorant *** then throws out the following:



You said he is not charged with rackteering. But he is charged with violating 18 USC 1952. So let's take a look at what that is:

18 USC 1952


Without posting the entire statute, let me just point you to the title:

§ 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises​

What's that? Oh, that's right, sacase apparently doesn't know *** he is talking about.

(b) As used in this section (i) “unlawful activity” means​

(1) any business enterprise involving gambling...

Hmmm... maybe so gambling is an unlawful activity defined as rackteering. Further proof sacase is ignorant about what he is talking about.

Let's look now at RICO.


From the first sentence of the statute:

(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving ...gambling.... which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;​

So gambling has to be chargeable under state law in order to be racketeering? Hmm... Maybe that's why they listed those Virginia statutes in the indictment..... maybe. Call me crazy, but that seems like a safe bet to me.


So gambling is one incident. Let's see if there is a second one. Hmm.... back in that same section:

B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code:... section 1952 (relating to racketeering)​

So any act in violation of section 1952 is also an act of rackteering. Wait, a minute.... that is the section we are talking about above that he was indicted under!


So let's see...

“pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;​

So he needs at least two acts of rackteering activity. So we go back to the definition.

So gambling that is violative of Virginia laws is one. And violating section 1952 is a second one.

That's two!

Oh my! Look like we have a RICO act indictment here, people!

Apparently sacase is dumb enough that he thinks an indictment reads "You are charged with gambing and violating RICO." No. It reads like this one does. The elements of the crime are alleged, and the actual charges are flushed out later.

Since you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about, I would appreciate if you would keep your ignorance off the board so as to now confused anyone here.

Your right I was wrong feel better there big guy? I actually skipped over that one since I was browsing though it.

 

[silverbear]

I think you are a bit confused. If you said he was financial bad news kennels I wouldn't argue with you. But what I am saying is he is not a nationwide organizer of dog fighting.

Who said he was?? At the same time, if he's organizing fights at his Surry County property that sees dogs brought in from states all over the East, that's pretty much a "nationwide organizer of dog fighting" to me...

So essentially he is fighting his dogs in events other people sponsor.

And in events that HE sponsors, on HIS property... allegation number 21, on page 7 of the indictment, says that "In or about late 2002... Bad Newz Kennels HOSTED the dog fight at 1915 Moonlight Road"... there are numerous other allegations of fights Bad Newz Kennels HOSTED-- allegation 24, allegation 28, allegation 38, allegation 44, allegation 58, allegation 66, allegation 71, allegation 77, allegation 80...

In the indictment is specifically mentions and instance where he was hosting an event which someone else was sponsoring.

Can't find any reference to Bad Newz Kennels hosting an event "someone else was sponsoring" in any of the allegations I just cited... indeed, in allegation 21, it says that Bad Newz "established the purse at $1000.00 per side"... that sure sounds like they were doing the sponsoring there... ditto with allegation 24, they established the purse at $1000.00 per side... same with allegation 38, they established the purse at $1000.00 per side... in allegation 44, they upped the ante to $1500.00 per side... in allegation 66, the stakes were up to $3500.00 per side... in allegation 71, the stakes went all the way up to $7000.00 per side... in allegation 77, the stakes went down to $3000.00 per side...

In each of these allegations, Bad Newz Kennels were identified as the hosts, and as the parties who set the stakes for the wager... no mention of them hosting the "festivities" for somebody else, could you kindly show me where the indictment "specifically mentions an instance where he was hosting an event which someone else was sponsoring"?? You'd think the guys who were sponsoring the event would determine the purse, wouldn't you??

So yes he is a participant not an organizer.

Bad Newz Kennels was an organizer, period... and yes, it was pretty much a nationwide operation, with folks from New Jersey to Alabama coming to visit Vick's playground...

For somebody who claims to have read the indictment, you sure don't seem to have a grasp on what it actually said...

 

[silverbear]

Is dogfighting an uneducated or black thing?

Well, I'd call it a backwoods thing...

 

[5Stars]

Since you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about, I would appreciate if you would keep your ignorance off the board so as to now confused anyone here.

 

[silverbear]

To me, this is all included in participating. WE are just defining things differently.

Well, if that's how you define "participating", I'm beyond surprised that you consider it no big deal...

 

[sacase]

Can't find any reference to Bad Newz Kennels hosting an event "someone else was sponsoring" in any of the allegations I just cited...

I was wrong I was skimming through and I saw that they had hosted it and I thought it said someone else had sponsered it but it said they hosted it and a were fighting with a a dog sponsored by another kennel. Not above admitting being wrong.

 

[trickblue]

Not above admitting being wrong.

You must be married...

 

[silverbear]

I was wrong I was skimming through and I saw that they had hosted it and I thought it said someone else had sponsered it but it said they hosted it and a were fighting with a a dog sponsored by another kennel. Not above admitting being wrong.

Fair enough... that thing is tough to read...