Stupid Attorney taling about GPS's

" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tarver Engineering wrote:

All the prosecution needs is a Professional Land Surveyor, as
registered
by
the State of California. At that point Scott's Attorney would be
well
on
his way to giving testimony illegally.

1. Attorneys do not "give testimony".

Clinton was disbarred over his attorny [sic] giving false testimony
before
the
court.

You are inaccurate in several respects. Clinton's license was suspended
for a specific period of time; he was not disbarred. He negotiated a
settlement with the Arkansas bar which had served him with a grievance
complaint for giving false testimony in a _Jones v. Clinton_ deposition.

No, Clinton was disbarred for his Attorney giving false testimony in Federal
District Court. If the Jones v clinton lawsuit had been reopened, clinto
would have forfeited his Attorney client rights.

2. There's no law against attorneys making false statements. They
aren't under
oath.

you are mistaken.

An attorney who knowingly misleads a court violates the canons of
professional ethics and is subject to discipline by the court and the bar.
He does not have to be under oath. However, if an attorney gives
materially false testimony while under oath he is also guilty of perjury,
ordinarily a felony.

If your Attorney gives false information before the Court and you are aware
of it, Arkansas Law holds the client liable.

Ahhh Gerald, you are confusing common sense and common knowledge with an
American court room... For GPS to be introduced into a capital case there
either has to be a precedent ruling at the appellant level on it's
admissibility (I am unaware of any such ruling), or experts have to be
called to testify so that the judge can rule on admissibility in this
case... This for your and my protections, not just this Scott guy...

Unfortunately, this is a big game of 'gotcha' where each side tries to trip
the other up, not on the basis of scientific fact, but on the basis of, 'you
forgot to say mother may I'... Scott's Lawyers have a good bet going, for
excluding the gps/lo-jacker readouts... Look at the courts recent
revisiting of finger prints because a sharp defense lawyer realized there
never was an appellant level ruling made on the science, in spite of a
hundred years of acceptance by the courts... Look at the humbling of the
FBI forensic lab, whose preeminent expert proved to be a liar and a
charlatan...

OTOH, jurists insistence of ruling on the basis of rulings made a hundred
years ago, in totally different areas of science long since disproved, as
the basis for their current rulings, forms a vast LaBrea tar pit for pilots
accused by an FAA inspector, and is directly why the FAA/DOT can rule
against a pilot and then appeal to themselves if confronted... This ruling
made long ago about the courts deferring to the FAA (CAA in those days), and
long before numerous more recent rulings limiting the power of the
government to avoid judicial revue, continues to allow federal judges to
turn a blind eye to the FAA/DOT's daily violations the constitutional rights
of pilots... And now Secy Ridge continues the 'family tradition', of raping
any innocent who blunders into a TFR.....

Anyway, back to Scott - guilty or not? I suspect that 99% say guilty...
But 99% thought Rep. Condit was guilty in the Chandra Levy case during the
early going, yet the place and manner of the finding of her corpse now makes
his guilt unlikely... And how many convicted rapists are now being found
innocent by DNA typing...
denny

"Gerald Sylvester" wrote in message
ink.net...


I never read anything about this Scott Petersen murder
trial before. I saw a headline about a "GPS."

In article 20040218083913.322b40c6@fstop, "R.Hubbell"
writes:


"If the FAA will not approve GPS for the landing of an aircraft, how can
a court of law approve its forensic use in a capital case?" he said.


The technique is known as "casting a shadow of doubt". It works
wonderfully well. Jurors eat it up. He's doing his job.


I would think he would be questioning what business the police had tracking
Peterson's whereabouts AFTER the crime was commited.

It seems the prosecution is trying him with character assasination after the
fact rather than with evidence of the crime itself. He'll probably wind up
being the first person executed for having an affair.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

" jls" wrote

However, if an attorney gives
materially false testimony while under oath he is also guilty of perjury,
ordinarily a felony.

Unless your name is Bill Clinton. I still can't believe we didn't throw
that clown out on his ear, then throw him in jail. Now, unless you stick
yur "dickie" in someone, it isn't sex. Jeeesh .
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Unless your name is Bill Clinton. I still can't believe we didn't throw
that clown out on his ear, then throw him in jail.

I still can't believe you're not in my killfile yet.

As far as Clinton goes, it's ancient history. Get over it. Move on. Get
on with your life, assuming you have one.

Dave S wrote:

Airplanes get the same great horizonal guidance, and GPS has been used
for YEARS and approved in an enroute, terminal and approach environment.
The only thing keeping GPS from being used to "land airplanes" is the
vertical guidance component.

Even WAAS will not "land" an aircraft. GPS supports non-precision
approaches today.

Ron Lee

"Dave" wrote:

Unaugmented GPS is accurate to within 7.2 meters longitudinally.


Go say that in sci.geo.satellite-nav and see what happens.


Probably not a bad number.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Dave S wrote:

Airplanes get the same great horizonal guidance, and GPS has been used
for YEARS and approved in an enroute, terminal and approach environment.
The only thing keeping GPS from being used to "land airplanes" is the
vertical guidance component.

Even WAAS will not "land" an aircraft. GPS supports non-precision
approaches today.

WAAS adds little to no value to aviation.

The CNX-80 demonstrates the rip off WAAS is. (not a complaint about the
CNX-80)

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote:

Unaugmented GPS is accurate to within 7.2 meters longitudinally.


Go say that in sci.geo.satellite-nav and see what happens.

Probably not a bad number.

GPS augmented with WAAS is accurate to within 3.6 meters longitudinally.

"Peter" wrote in message
news:ruUYb.349212$xy6.1742195@attbi_s02...
Ron Lee wrote:
"Dave" wrote:


Unaugmented GPS is accurate to within 7.2 meters longitudinally.


Go say that in sci.geo.satellite-nav and see what happens.



Probably not a bad number.

Only if the usual caveats are added; i.e. 95% of the time and assuming the
receiver has good reception conditions. Any attorney trying to discredit
GPS evidence will naturally focus on the 5% of the time when the position
could be off by more than the nominal accuracy and on obstructions,
multi-path reflections, RFI, etc. that can degrade performance,
particularly in a covert installation where the antenna is unlikely to be
optimally placed for good reception.

False.

The convergence of the GPS Jacobian does not occur for the conditions you
describe. One of the major advantages of GPS over current ground based
navigation is the difficulty of spoofing the system.