T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
524.1 | Will Khomeni get money if hostages write a book?? | QBUS::FINK | Time for a Dandelion Break!! | Wed Oct 21 1987 21:03 | 12 |
|
Ah, yes. Our illustrious court system is working again. Once
again showing that if you wants rights, you must be the
perpetrator of a crime, not the victim. :-(
What can I say, other than it is a travesty of justice. Not
only did she suffer the abuse, now she has to pay the person
(a term I use loosely), who abused her! Only in America.
-Rich
|
524.2 | Precedent is against this | QUARK::LIONEL | Let the memory live again | Wed Oct 21 1987 23:36 | 11 |
| Interesting. Some states have passed laws preventing criminals
from reaping rewards from their crimes via royalties on books,
movies, etc. These are sometimes called "Son of Sam" laws, where
that infamous killer was going to get a lot of money for the rights
to a movie made about him.
It seems to me that decisions like the one in .0 should be
overturned based on the precedent of the other laws, assuming
they are enforced in the state.
Steve
|
524.3 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | The Dread Pirate Roberts | Thu Oct 22 1987 02:23 | 11 |
| re:.2
The problem with that is that nowhere in the article (I'm other-
wsie unfamiliar with the case) does it say that Fedders was
actually brought to trial and convicted of any crime, so the
"Son of Sam" laws don't apply.
Personally, I find the whole situation totally ludicrous. Did
I slip into the Twilight Zone while I slept this evening?
--- jerry
|
524.4 | Bring him to trial | CSC32::JOHNS | Yes, I *am* pregnant :-) | Thu Oct 22 1987 15:01 | 8 |
| Looks like she may have to bring him to trial. Now that he has
admitted the beatings, conviction should be a little easier, even
if he doesn't get a jail sentence. Of course, any time a victim
does anything against her attacker, then she has to face the fear
that it will make him angrier and that he will take it out on her
even worse.
Carol
|
524.5 | Can't have it both ways... | SSDEVO::YOUNGER | There are no misteakes | Thu Oct 22 1987 21:35 | 12 |
| In the eyes of the law, at a given time, he is either innocent or
guilty of beating his wife.
If he is innocent, then he *obviously* isn't the inspiration for
the book. She must of made it up or something. :^|.
If he is guilty, he falls under the "Son of Sam" laws, and cannot
collect royalties.
I agree. This is ludicrous.
Elizabeth
|
524.6 | If only... | QUARK::LIONEL | Noter Of Unusual Size | Thu Oct 22 1987 23:06 | 4 |
| Unfortunately, what happens in our courts rarely touches base
with reality or rationality.
Steve
|
524.7 | Another one for the lawbooks... | INDEBT::TAUBENFELD | Almighty SET | Fri Oct 23 1987 17:31 | 23 |
| If the victims can't make money, and the criminal can't make money, and the
family of the victims can't make money, then the family of the criminal should!
Hopefully the judge will dismiss this.
From Fortune, October 26, 1987
Only in America (cont'd)
CANTON,OHIO- A Stark County judge is considering whether to dismiss a wrongful
death lawsuit that claims a ... shooting spree in a McDonald's restaurant was
partly caused by an overdose of Chicken McNuggets.
Judge James R. Unger heard arguments Thursday in the $5-million lawsuit filed
by ... Etna Huberty, whose husband, James, killed 21 people and injured 19
others at a McDonald's ... before he was shot and killed.
Attorneys for McDonald's ... asked Unger to dismiss Mrs. Huberty's claim that
the chemical monosodium glutamate, used in foods as a flavor intensifier, was
in Chicken Mc Nuggets her husband ate and reacted with lead and cadminium that
built up in her husband's system ..., triggering his violent behavior...
The McDonald's brief ... said ... McDonald's served 4.1 billion McNuggets in
the U.S. from January to July of 1984 "without incident of violence..."
|
524.8 | Court of Law, not Court of Justice... | YODA::BARANSKI | Law?!? Hell! Give me *Justice*! | Mon Oct 26 1987 09:50 | 0 |
524.9 | re .0 | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Maybe, baby, the gypsy lied | Mon Oct 26 1987 11:56 | 2 |
| Somebody ought to batter the judge. Several times. Give him some
perspective. Who nominated him to the bench anyway ?
|
524.10 | the judge doesn't get to pick the question he's supposed to answer | YODA::BARANSKI | Law?!? Hell! Give me *Justice*! | Mon Oct 26 1987 13:00 | 10 |
| RE: -.1
Now, now...
The problem may be, like in some of the claims against Borke, that the judge in
the case is very narrowly constrained by *law* in the decision he can make.
The problem is the constraint of the animate by the inanimate.
Jim.
|
524.11 | It's outrageous! | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Tue Oct 27 1987 14:53 | 4 |
| Maybe she could not publish the book, change the names to protect
the guilty and bring it out again as a "novel."
|
524.12 | | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Maybe, baby, the gypsy lied | Wed Oct 28 1987 11:59 | 2 |
| RE .10 In view of your personal name you are being either inconsistent,
sarcastic, or fascetious. Which ?
|
524.13 | SYS$VACCUUM: | YODA::BARANSKI | Law?!? Hell! Give me *Justice*! | Wed Oct 28 1987 13:48 | 11 |
| RE: .12
"RE .10
In view of your personal name you are being either inconsistent, sarcastic, or
fascetious. Which ?"
I don't think I'm being either. I'm saying that's the way the system works, and
it sucks...
Jim.
|
524.14 | Why hasn't she brought HIM to trial ? | BETA::EARLY | Bob_the_Hiker | Mon Nov 02 1987 12:19 | 21 |
| re: .0
Your outrage reminds me of the movie (which I finally got to see
a couple of weeks ago) called : "STAR CHAMBER", in which (for those
unfamiliar) the "presiding judges" formed a vigilante committee
to "kill" those who seemde to be "obviously gulity", but got off
on a "technicality" of law.
As mentioned previously, it seems that the judge is constrained
by precedent and law, and not by what "Seems logical and right".
Perhaps someday, it will become more dangerous to be a criminal
than a victim.
One quick question that I haven't seen asked yet: Since the man
is by self admission guilty, why hasn't Ms. whates-her-name brought
him to trial for being abusive ?
There's one other small detail, and that is: Everyone assume the
book is 100% factual, right ?
Bob
|
524.15 | Why Hasn' The Stat Bought Him To Trial | BMT::RIZZO | Carol Rizzo | Tue Nov 03 1987 23:18 | 14 |
| I always thought that assault was a criminal offense that was
prosecuted by the state, not the individual. We don't seem to have
all the facts here. Did she refuse to testify against her husband?
Also it is my understanding that, like rape, one cannot decide after
a period of more than a few hours, perhaps even a day, to go to
the police and lodge a complaint as there is an element of immediacy
that the prosecutors seem to require in order to eliminate the
prospect of outside influences being brought up in court.
BTW can someone supply the Judges' name? Just in case he gets nominated
to the Supreme Court?
Carol
|
524.16 | It was a "domestic relations master" ??? | WCSM::PURMAL | Oh, the thinks you can think! | Wed Nov 04 1987 11:40 | 20 |
| The San Jose Mercury carried a story on this subject Thursday
October 29, 1987. The paper says:
"... a Maryland divorce-court official has ordered a final divorce
settlement that awarded her ex-husband half the value of the couple's
$425,000 suburban house; a one-third reduction in his alimony payment
to $500 a month; and, most important 25 percent of the proceeds of
"Shattered Dreams"."
Later on it says:
"In allowing John Fedders to reap financial gain from an account
of his abusive behavior, Montgomery County (MD) domestic relations
master John S. McInerney reasoned that though her ex-husband admitted
beating her, Charlotte Fedders shared responsibility for her divorce."
The article doesn't mention the judge who accepted the settlement
that was handed down.
ASP
|