Vick pleads not guilty; trial set for Nov. 26

[peplaw06]

If he says that, he is guilty! Why? Because if he knows the "other dudes did it" then he knew what was going on!


:laugh2: Careful....

For the conspiracy part of the crime, they actually have to prove that Vick took some action(s) to further the crime. They don't have to prove he executed a dog or anything like that though. And the action can be something as simple as buying a dog and/or testing (or "rolling") it, or buying supplies/food, etc. That's why those actions he took were listed in the indictment.

But if all the prosecution can prove is that Vick "knew about it," not guilty.

 

[5Stars]

Not really. Of course, hes not going to testify but his lawyers will imply that he was just funding a kennal and the other guys were doing the bad stuff to make a little coin on the side...without his knowledge.

And who's to say Vick wont pay them off to say its true and take the rap Greg Anderson style (ala Barry Bonds)?

Oh...there will be all kinds of accusations going on in this mess, no doubt about it. And if Vick has to make someone else take the fall for this, then he's even a worse person for doing so. Also, if someone accepts money to take the fall, that tells you what kind of crowd that Vick hangs with.

 

[5Stars]

For the conspiracy part of the crime, they actually have to prove that Vick took some action(s) to further the crime. They don't have to prove he executed a dog or anything like that though. And the action can be something as simple as buying a dog and/or testing (or "rolling") it, or buying supplies/food, etc. That's why those actions he took were listed in the indictment.

But if all the prosecution can prove is that Vick "knew about it," not guilty.

Got it! Thanks, peplaw! Makes sense to me!

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Did you get to see Vick? Did you shine his shoes?

What are you talking about...

 

[5Stars]

What are you talking about...

Take a guess!


:laugh2:

 

[03EBZ06]

It will be interesting to see what other evidences the prosecutors have at their disposal, I can't see them pursueing Vick with only CWs, there has to be other corraborating evidences to support CWs testimony.

ESPN is reporting that there WILL be additional charges filed against Vick.

 

[tyke1doe]

For the conspiracy part of the crime, they actually have to prove that Vick took some action(s) to further the crime. They don't have to prove he executed a dog or anything like that though. And the action can be something as simple as buying a dog and/or testing (or "rolling") it, or buying supplies/food, etc. That's why those actions he took were listed in the indictment.

But if all the prosecution can prove is that Vick "knew about it," not guilty.

But Vick "knowing about it" is probably enough to end his football career.

 

[tyke1doe]

It will be interesting what other evidences the prosecutors have at their disposal, I can't see them pursueing Vick with only CWs, there has to be other corraborating evidences to suport CWs testimony.

Agreed. I suspect they have cell phone records. If I recall correctly, cell phone tower transmissions can be produced. Say Vick was alleged to be in New Jersey and he made a call shortly after a dog fight. If you have enough of those, you have some pretty damning circumstantial evidence.

I think the feds have more than they're sharing, which is usually the case. You don't go after a big fish like Vick without stronger evidence.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

But Vick "knowing about it" is probably enough to end his football career.

it's enough to get him suspended for at least 8 games

 

[peplaw06]

But Vick "knowing about it" is probably enough to end his football career.

I think they have more than that. That said, I am 95% sure that if Vick is acquitted, he will play in the NFL again.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think they have more than that. That said, I am 95% sure that if Vick is acquitted, he will play in the NFL again.

oh definitely, but I'd move the percentage up to 100%

that's if he's totally exonerated and it's been shown that he wasn't around these guys

tall task though

 

[superpunk]

The worse of those two news items for Vick came from Asst. U.S. Attorney Michael Gill, who told Hudson that the federal government will be filing a "superceding indictment" by the end of next month. Although legal experts can disagree on what might come in the new indictment, the federal prosecutors in Richmond typically add charges in superceding indictments. It is unlikely they will eliminate charges.
The message from the government prosecutors to Vick and his three co-defendants (Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips, and Tony Taylor) was not subtle. Here's the message: We've already charged you with serious crimes. You might want to consider a guilty plea. We are going to file more charges next month. That gives you a few weeks to think about the guilty plea. If you come and talk to us about pleading guilty and testifying for us, there will be no more charges against you. If you do not, the charges and the potential punishment will grow quickly.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Any professional liars care to speculate?

 

[peplaw06]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Any professional liars care to speculate?

They're going to charge him with international war crimes... One of the breeds of dogs he was fighting originated in Spain. International trade violations, then you throw in making breeds from different countries fight each other. International war crimes.

I heard someone (who will go unnamed) is setting up the gallows as we speak.

Clearly this is just the speculation of a professional liar, so do with this information what you will.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

For the conspiracy part of the crime, they actually have to prove that Vick took some action(s) to further the crime. They don't have to prove he executed a dog or anything like that though. And the action can be something as simple as buying a dog and/or testing (or "rolling") it, or buying supplies/food, etc. That's why those actions he took were listed in the indictment.

But if all the prosecution can prove is that Vick "knew about it," not guilty.

I don't want to get in a legal argument with you, however "knew about it" would be enough for a conviction based solely on the irrefutable evidence that we know; Vick was the owner of the property. A public records deed transfer search shows us that.

Knowingly allowing illegal activity that violates the commerce clause on his property would hold up under the conspiracy charge in the indictment.

 

[silverbear]

In your opinion vintage. Which don't mean squat.

Naw, I think pretty much everybody reading these threads knows you've been beat like a rented mule...

They also know, or can surmise with a fair degree of accuracy, that you got reamed in court sometime in the not too distant past... I guess Judge Judy didn't buy your story...

 

[peplaw06]

I don't want to get in a legal argument with you, however "knew about it" would be enough for a conviction based solely on the irrefutable evidence that we know; Vick was the owner of the property. A public records deed transfer search shows us that.

Knowingly allowing illegal activity that violates the commerce clause on his property would hold up under the conspiracy charge in the indictment.

If Vick bought the house for that purpose, then that could be enough for conviction on conspiracy charges. But that's kind of hard to prove, unless they set up the operation right away. His simply being the owner is not enough to prove conspiracy. There has to be some overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

And I think you're misunderstanding how the commerce clause works. The commerce clause is the means by which Congress regulates interstate dealings. They can make certain actions illegal, a la gambling across interstate lines. Those illegal activities are federally prosecuted because they were passed under the Commerce clause.

A person cannot "violate the commerce clause." A person can commit a crime that is enacted under the commerce clause, but they just commit the crime.

The only way the commerce clause is violated is by a state enacting a law that cuts into Congress's Power under the Commerce Clause.

It's a very convoluted area of the law, and there's no way I can explain the way all of it works together, at least not without boring everyone, and a little help. I've forgotten a lot about the commerce clause, but what I've stated here are the basics.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

If Vick bought the house for that purpose, then that could be enough for conviction on conspiracy charges. But that's kind of hard to prove, unless they set up the operation right away. His simply being the owner is not enough to prove conspiracy. There has to be some overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

And I think you're misunderstanding how the commerce clause works. The commerce clause is the means by which Congress regulates interstate dealings. They can make certain actions illegal, a la gambling across interstate lines. Those illegal activities are federally prosecuted because they were passed under the Commerce clause.

A person cannot "violate the commerce clause." A person can commit a crime that is enacted under the commerce clause, but they just commit the crime.

The only way the commerce clause is violated is by a state enacting a law that cuts into Congress's Power under the Commerce Clause.

It's a very convoluted area of the law, and there's no way I can explain the way all of it works together, at least not without boring everyone, and a little help. I've forgotten a lot about the commerce clause, but what I've stated here are the basics.

I used the wrong wording with "violate" but I think you knew what I meant.


The purchase of the house is a key factor. Vick's own statement that "I'm never there", if taken as factual, could easily be used to show the intent of the purchase; as a base of operation for BadNewz Kennels. That's enough for conspiracy if BadNewz is shown to have engaged in an illegal activity that Vick knew about.

 

[peplaw06]

The purchase of the house is a key factor. Vick's own statement that "I'm never there", if taken as factual, could easily be used to show the intent of the purchase; as a base of operation for BadNewz Kennels. That's enough for conspiracy if BadNewz is shown to have engaged in an illegal activity that Vick knew about.

His saying, "I'm never there," could just as easily be evidence that he bought the house for his cousin. Then he could say his cousin set up the operation.

Bottom line, if you want to look solely at the purchase of the house as evidence of the conspiracy, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vick bought the house with the intent of using it to stage the dogfighting operation, and that the conspiracy had been created before that was done.

You can't just say "Vick knew about the operation." That's just not enough. For conspiracy, you have to prove a common plan, and an overt action by each member of the conspiracy.

Him being the owner of the house alone will not be enough.

Probably a moot point, because the feds have more information, and if they can prove the allegations in the indictment, they have overt actions on Vick. But this "irrefutable evidence" -- that he is listed on the deed as the owner of the property -- alone will not do it.

 

[BlueStar22]

Memo to ESPN: There are 32 TEAMS IN TRAINING CAMP. Your entire 30 minute NFL Live show does NOT have to be about Micheal Vick! I hope the NFL Network isn't all Vick all the time.

 

[Garland powerplay]

That eyewitness on outside the lines a couple weeks ago is going to nuke them.