(Close Window)
Topic: Strauss-Kahn
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 17, 2011 05:01PM)
Well there you go. He says he was having lunch with his daughter when this incident happened. So he must be innocent. The super rich and influencial are never guilty. Even Clinton said what he did was not sex so he did not lie to the grand jury.

So there you have it. Another rich and influencial individual falsely accused. When will it end?

Why does everyone keep picking on the super rich? They have enough problems.

;)
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 17, 2011 05:20PM)
Wow. Surely only a liberal would describe Strauss-Kahn (with an estimated monthly net income of only £22,000 net a month) as "super rich".

Showing your true colors here, are you?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 17, 2011 05:58PM)
That's what he says . . . but his lawyer says it was "consensual."

Meanwhile, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_de_Miranda]Luis de Miranda,[/url] a columnist for the leftist newspaper "Libération" who sees himself in the tradition of Jacques Lacan, Gilles Deleuze, Martin Heidegger, and Karl Marx, [url=http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012337540-un-heros-philosophique]writes that Strauss-Kahn is a "philosophical hero"[/url] whose "Sofitel action" was "an insane gesture of total liberation, almost a work of art" which was "a sacrifice, a renunciation of superpower, and a to the general French interest."

[quote]Finalement, je crois que DSK a deux raisons de se réjouir aujourd’hui, et nous avec lui : la première est que son passage à l’acte du Sofitel est un refus de l’avenir tout tracé que la plupart lui prédisaient. En cela, l’assaut de l’ouvrière de chambre est un geste fou de libération totale, presque une œuvre d’art, en ce que le geste lui permet aussi, au passage, de révéler qu’il n’a jamais été de gauche.

La seconde raison de se réjouir, c’est que ce suicide prouve, in fine, que la raison a triomphé de l’animal. L’étincelle spirituelle qui germe au fond de DSK a voulu nous éviter un président calligulien. Cet événement new-yorkais est un sacrifice, un renoncement à une surpuissance annoncée, un don à l’intérêt général français. En cela, DSK, tu es héroïque. Merci.[/quote]

It is difficult to translate such drivel effectively. If you can read French, the rest of it is even more vile and more ridiculous.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (May 17, 2011 07:37PM)
He is at least a a multi-millionaire. Funny thing to be when you're a Socialist. :)
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (May 17, 2011 08:19PM)
Not really, Kevin. Capitalism is where anyone can live like successful capitalists if they work hard enough and effective enough. Socialism is where resources are taken from society at large so that an elite few can live like successful capitalists (in the name of "equality").
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (May 17, 2011 10:37PM)
Yes really, Scott. He's taking resources from the IMF, i.e $3,000 per night rooms. Who knows what else he's using as a perk. BTW The IMF is the ultimate society.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 17, 2011 11:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-17 18:20, balducci wrote:
Wow. Surely only a liberal would describe Strauss-Kahn (with an estimated monthly net income of only £22,000 net a month) as "super rich".

Showing your true colors here, are you?
[/quote]

There is probbly no one more to the right on this forum than myself. Having said that wake up and smell the roses.

Read this:

Salary: Strauss-Kahn drew ire from IMF critics when it was announced in 2007 that he would reap roughly $500,000 in salary and expense allowances. That meant he was earning more than the head of the World Bank, the United States president and the United Nations Secretary General at the time.

Homes: By the Guardian’s estimations, the list of Strauss-Kahn’s various real estate holdings is long and impressive. For starters, there’s his roughly $5.7 million Paris home and his $4.1 million Washington, D.C. pied a terre. He owns a riad in Marrakech (the price was not specified for this one) and a couple of other flats in Paris valued at upwards of $4 million each. Why on earth he was staying at a hotel in the first place, when these are the kinds of accommodations he can afford to purchase, may be one of the greatest mysteries of all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 18, 2011 09:49AM)
Here's the scoop on DSK:

http://counterpunch.org/johnstone05172011.html
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 18, 2011 09:58AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 00:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-17 18:20, balducci wrote:
Wow. Surely only a liberal would describe Strauss-Kahn (with an estimated monthly net income of only �22,000 net a month) as "super rich".

Showing your true colors here, are you?
[/quote]

There is probbly no one more to the right on this forum than myself.
[/quote]
All the more surprising you keep referring to someone with a few palty millions of dollars to his name as "super-rich". As for his houses, I wonder how leveraged / mortgaged they are?
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 18, 2011 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 10:58, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 00:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-17 18:20, balducci wrote:
Wow. Surely only a liberal would describe Strauss-Kahn (with an estimated monthly net income of only �22,000 net a month) as "super rich".

Showing your true colors here, are you?
[/quote]

There is probbly no one more to the right on this forum than myself.
[/quote]
All the more surprising you keep referring to someone with a few palty millions of dollars to his name as "super-rich". As for his houses, I wonder how leveraged / mortgaged they are?
[/quote]

OK you win he is poor. You are right and I am wrong. Also he has no power to influence the super rich nor can he be considered super rich with the influence he has.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 18, 2011 03:30PM)
Man, I wish I was so poor that I only had a few million dollars...

To that end: If someone has a few million they'd like to give me then I promise I'll do my best not to ***rape any maids or janitors.
Message: Posted by: motown (May 18, 2011 08:11PM)
On NPR today, they mentioned that the hotel rents those $3000 a night suites to the French for a paltry $800 a night.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 18, 2011 08:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 21:11, motown wrote:
On NPR today, they mentioned that the hotel rents those $3000 a night suites to the French for a paltry $800 a night.
[/quote]
I'm not surprised. When they say $3000 a night, that is almost certainly rack rate.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 09:10AM)
[url=http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-05-20/news/29569859_1_imf-dominique-strauss-kahn-sarkozy]Mark Steyn sums it all up:[/url]

[quote]Great men who are prone to Big Government invariably have Big Appetites, and you comely serving wenches who catch the benign sovereign's eye or anything else he's shooting your way should keep in mind the Big Picture . . .

Nor are such dispensations confined to Great Men's trousers. Timothy Geithner failed to pay the taxes he owed the United States Treasury but that's no reason not to make him head of the United States Treasury. His official explanation for this lapse was that, unlike losers like you, he was unable to follow the simple yes/no prompts of Turbo Tax: In that sense, unlike the Frenchman and the maid, Geithner's defense is that she wasn't asking for it – or, if she was, he couldn't understand the question. Nevertheless, just as only Dominique could save the European economy, so only Timmy could save the U.S. economy. Yes, they Kahn!

How's that working out? In the U.S., Geithner is currently running around bleating that we need to raise the $14 trillion debt ceiling another couple of trillion. On the Continent, the IMF, an institution most Westerners vaguely assume is there as a last resort for Third World basket cases, is intimately involved in the ever more frantic efforts to save the Euro from collapse. Good thing we had these two indispensable men on the case, or who knows how bad things would be.

The arrest of a mediocre international civil servant in the first-class cabin of his jet isn't just a sex story: It's a glimpse of the widening gulf between the government class and their subjects in a post-prosperity West. Neither Geithner nor Strauss-Kahn have ever created a dime of wealth in their lives. They have devoted their careers to "public service," and thus are in the happy position of rarely if ever having to write a personal check. At the Sofitel in New York, DSK was in a $3,000-per-night suite. Was the IMF picking up the tab? If so, you the plucky U.S. taxpayer paid around 550 bucks of that, whereas Strauss-Kahn's fellow Frenchmen put up less than $150. So if, as Le Nouvel Observateur suggests, France and America really do belong in entirely different civilizations, the French one ought to start looking for a new patron for the heroic DSK's lifestyle.

Fortunately, when the burdens of recognizability get too great, M Strauss-Kahn is able to retreat to his house in Washington, or his apartment in Paris, or his second apartment in Paris, or his riad in Marrakesh. Oh, c'mon, you provincial bozos: A "riad" is a palatial Moorish residence built around an interior courtyard. Everyone knows that. A lifetime of devoted "public service" in "socialist" France isn't yet as remunerative as in Mubarak's Egypt or Saddam's Iraq, but we're getting there. As the developed world drowns under the weight of Big Government, the gilded princelings of statism will hunker down in their interior courtyards and guard their privileges ever more zealously. Once in a while, as in that Manhattan hotel suite, a chance encounter between the seigneurs and their subjects will go awry, but more often, as in the Geithner confirmation, it will be understood that the Great Men of the Permanent Governing Class cannot be bound by the rules they impose on the rest of you schmucks.[/quote]

The rest of the column is just as good.

Woland
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 22, 2011 12:34PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 10:58, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-18 00:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-17 18:20, balducci wrote:
Wow. Surely only a liberal would describe Strauss-Kahn (with an estimated monthly net income of only �22,000 net a month) as "super rich".

Showing your true colors here, are you?
[/quote]

There is probbly no one more to the right on this forum than myself.
[/quote]
All the more surprising you keep referring to someone with a few palty millions of dollars to his name as "super-rich". As for his houses, I wonder how leveraged / mortgaged they are?
[/quote]


I 'think' he paid the 1 million dollars bail in cash. At least that's what Jon Stewart told me. Seems like you have to be worth more than a few million to come up with a million in cash and severl multi-million dollar homes. But maybe that's just me.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 22, 2011 01:48PM)
Just ask balducci...he says he has just a palty few million dollars.

I don't know about you but I have a hard time putting the word "paltry" and a "few million dollars" in the same sentence. Balducci does not consider him with the super rich. He just hangs with them along with his wife and makes decisions that affect them so I am sure he is not considered one of them. ;)

Of course I expect to get a post from balducci explaining just what "super rich" means as opposed to just a few million dollars when you can come up with a million in cash for bail. Of course we have those who have multimillions so I am not sure where one draws the line between a paltry few million dollars and super rich and mega rich and Near God rich. But I am sure balducci can explain.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 22, 2011 02:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 13:34, rockwall wrote:

I 'think' he paid the 1 million dollars bail in cash. At least that's what Jon Stewart told me. Seems like you have to be worth more than a few million to come up with a million in cash and severl multi-million dollar homes. But maybe that's just me.
[/quote]
Getting your news from Stewart is your first mistake. Lol. :)

DSK is absolutely rich and influential, no doubt about that whatsoever. But he is also a kept man, or something like it. His wife is reported as the one who funded his bail. If anyone, it is his heiress wife Anne Sinclair (granddaughter of Paul Rosenberg) who is "super-rich".

http://www.dotspress.com/anne-sinclairs-wealth-secured-bail-for-dominique-strauss-kahn/772453/
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 03:25PM)
Re: Woland's article above:

So Steyn is saying 1) that DSK is a sex offender because he's part of Big Government and 2) that taxpayers have paid for part of his expenses. And of course Geithner cheated on his taxes for the same reason.

Would that affliction affect only Socialists and Democrats or might this malady affect conservatives as well? I'm guessing probably not since an intellectually honest person would have mentioned similar misdeeds if they had ever been committed by conservatives. Because we all know that no small government advocates have ever been accused of sex crimes or cheated on their taxes.

What raw insight Steyn has! An Einstein! As my imaginary great-aunt Sarah would have said, "So tell me, for this he gets paid?"
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 03:58PM)
No, Steyn is not saying that DSK is a sex offender because he is an apparatchik of a would-be world-government. He's saying that DSK's supporters think he should be treated differently than as a mere mortal because of his exalted status. Nor is he saying that Geithner cheated on his taxes because he is an advocate of big government. The fact that Geithner cheated on his taxes is not the issue, the issue is that he was thought worthy of being Secretary of the Treasury despite that. You try telling the IRS that you don't understand TurboTax . . .

It's not a question of misdeeds. What we see is a revelation of the attitudes of the nomenklatura, of the officials of the state. Here, landmark, the point is that the self-appointed tribunes of the people are no less likely to demand the right of cuissage than their feudal antecedents. The difference is, that the feudal overlords professed an ideology which accounted for their powers, the modern statists profess to be all about the little guy. And yet DSK's defenders in the French press openly expect him to receive special treatment because of his status as a high government official. In the French press, it is DSK's accuser who is seen to be in the wrong, quite the opposite of what we would see in our own press here, whether the seigneur was a liberal like John Edwards and Bill Clinton or a conservative like Mark Sanford.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 22, 2011 04:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 16:58, Woland wrote:

And yet DSK's defenders in the French press openly expect him to receive special treatment because of his status as a high government official. In the French press, it is DSK's accuser who is seen to be in the wrong, quite the opposite of what we would see in our own press here, whether the seigneur was a liberal like John Edwards and Bill Clinton or a conservative like Mark Sanford.
[/quote]
Would you mind posting links to some of these articles in the French press in which they openly expect DSK to receive special treatment because of his status as a high government official? (I assume you are talking about 'non-trivial' special status, i.e., beyond what any small time Hollywood star or mid-level public official would normally receive in the United States.)

I'm not saying these articles do not exist, I just haven't seen any of them and I would like to.

I _have_ seen some in the French press make suggestions that he might have been set up, but that is something else again.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 22, 2011 05:06PM)
Is he a member of The Bohemian Grove?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 05:44PM)
Happy to oblige, balducci.

You could start with Bernard-Henri Levy, [url=http://www.bernard-henri-levy.com/defense-de-dominique-strauss-kahn-18909.html]here:[/url]

[quote]Je ne sais pas – mais cela, en revanche, il serait bon que l’on puisse le savoir sans tarder – comment une femme de chambre aurait pu s’introduire seule, contrairement aux usages qui, dans la plupart des grands hôtels new-yorkais, prévoient des « brigades de ménage » composées de deux personnes, dans la chambre d’un des personnages les plus surveillés de la planète.

Et je veux pas non plus entrer dans les considérations de basse psychologie – comme on dit basse police – qui, prétendant pénétrer dans la tête de l’intéressé et observant, par exemple, que le numéro de la fameuse chambre (2806) correspondait à la date (28.06) de l’ouverture des primaires socialistes don't il est l’incontestable favori, concluent à un acte manqué, un lapsus suicidaire, patati, patata.

Ce que je sais c’est que rien au monde n’autorise à ce qu’un homme soit ainsi jeté aux chiens.

Ce que je sais c’est que rien, aucun soupçon, car je rappelle que l’on ne parle, à l’heure où j’écris ces lignes, que de soupçons, ne permet que le monde entier soit invité à se repaître, ce matin, du spectacle de sa silhouette menottée, brouillée par 30 heures de garde à vue, encore fière.[/quote]

Or Jean Daniel, founder of [url=http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/l-affaire-dsk/20110517.OBS3339/affaire-dsk-l-organisation-mediatique-d-une-mise-a-mort-par-jean-daniel.html]le Nouvel Observateur:[/url]

[quote]Le sort infligé à DSK par la justice américaine, par la conception que nous avons de la transparence, par le règne de l’image, bref par les lois nouvelles de notre métier, ce sort est tout simplement épouvantable.

Nous avons assisté à l’organisation médiatique d’une mise à mort, comme dans une corrida où l’on sait que le taureau va mourir, sauf qu’il n’y avait cette fois aucun torero qui prenne des risques. Strauss-Kahn donnait bien l’impression d’un taureau blessé qui met un genou à terre et attend l’estocade.

Il avait l’air de dire : "Finissons-en puisque vous voulez ma mort." Pourquoi cette retransmission publique de son calvaire ? Au nom de l’égalité ! Au nom du devoir de transparence ! Voilà comment l’on transforme, salit et déshonore des principes qui ont eu leur noblesse. L’égalité ? Tous les acteurs élus de cette cérémonie - car ils sont tous élus, la juge comme les policiers - savaient que Strauss-Kahn n’était pas un homme comme les autres et qu’il ne serait pas également traité par la meute des journalistes, des photographes et de cameramen qui l’attendaient.

C’était au contraire une inégalité savamment organisée et appliquée. La transparence ? Mais laquelle ? Ou a-t-on entendu un juge quelconque donner le détail des chefs d’accusation, tous les détails mais surtout les preuves.[/quote]

Or the comments of Robert Badinter, a former Minister of Justice, reported in [url=http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2011/05/17/97001-20110517FILWWW00483-dsk-une-mise-a-mort-mediatique-dsk.php]le Figaro:[/url]


[quote]L'ancien ministre de la Justice, Robert Badinter, a dénoncé aujourd'hui sur France Inter "une mise à mort médiatique" de Dominique Strauss-Kahn aux Etats-Unis. "Ce que j'ai vu, le spectacle de cet homme mal rasé, le visage défait, exhibé, mitraillé par les photographes, c'est une mise à mort médiatique", a déclaré le sénateur socialiste. Interrogé sur les images de Dominique Strauss-Kahn diffusées hier, l'ancien ministre de la Justice s'est dit "bouleversé et indigné" par cette "tragédie".

Il a dénoncé "l'exibition, provoquée, organisée par la police américaine de Dominique Strauss-Kahn sortant de garde à vue"."C'est honteux, ça n'a rien à voir avec la justice", a-t-il ajouté, parlant de "destruction délibérée". Badinter a fustigé l'attitude de la justice américaine : "La justice américaine, les Américains pensent que c'est la première du monde. Ce n'est pas celle que je porterai au podium".

Il déplore également le traitement réservé au directeur général du FMI et aurait "aimé l'égalité des armes" entre "l'accusatrice" et "le présumé innocent" : "On dit +c'est la justice égale pour tous+. Plaisanterie, dérision! En vérité, quand Strauss-Kahn est là assis au milieu des autres, il est ravalé délibérement au rang de dealer". "Où est l'égalité des chances quand en effet l'accusatrice dit 'je suis la victime' et qu'on la protège et DSK répond 'je plaide non coupable', et on l'accable ?", a-t-il plaidé.

Robert Badinter voit dans ces évènements la "défaillance d'un système entier". Après avoir rappelé que les procureurs et les chefs de la police américains étaient élus, il a ajouté : "évidemment, par rapport au public, montrer qu'on traite ainsi un homme puissant et considérable en présence d'une victime qui, elle, est de condition très modeste, électoralement, c'est payant".[/quote]

That's a start, anyway.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 06:06PM)
Steyn was not trying to make a distinction between the French and the US. Otherwise he wouldn't have brought up Geithner. To Steyn they were clearly both examples of the problem of Big Government. He is not contrasting the two, but clearly pointing out their similarities. His selective examples are to "prove" to his selective audience the selective horrors of Big government.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 06:26PM)
Yes, that's right, landmark. There are similarities in the attitudes of the statist, generally socialist nomenklatura of both countries. These men do not think that the laws which they apply to you, should be applied to them. More often than not, they are not.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 22, 2011 06:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 15:49, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 13:34, rockwall wrote:

I 'think' he paid the 1 million dollars bail in cash. At least that's what Jon Stewart told me. Seems like you have to be worth more than a few million to come up with a million in cash and severl multi-million dollar homes. But maybe that's just me.
[/quote]
Getting your news from Stewart is your first mistake. Lol. :)

DSK is absolutely rich and influential, no doubt about that whatsoever. But he is also a kept man, or something like it. His wife is reported as the one who funded his bail. If anyone, it is his heiress wife Anne Sinclair (granddaughter of Paul Rosenberg) who is "super-rich".

http://www.dotspress.com/anne-sinclairs-wealth-secured-bail-for-dominique-strauss-kahn/772453/
[/quote]

Oh!!! So HE's not super rich, it's just his WIFE that's super rich. I got it. Just like Linda Gates isn't super rich, Bill's the one! Now that's some pretty screwy logic.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 22, 2011 07:08PM)
Here in England the rules are far tighter than the USA and it is quite shocking to see how the USA allow the tv to prejudge people before the trial begins.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 22, 2011 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 20:08, tommy wrote:
Here in England the rules are far tighter than the USA and it is quite shocking to see how the USA allow the tv to prejudge people before the trial begins.
[/quote]

Tommy, The Daily Show with John Stewart is a parody news show. They make fun of other news shows and also politicians. I wouldn't take what they say as representative of how things work in the US. Stewart himself contantly refers to it as "fake news."
As far as any other media bias, I imagine the jury will likely be sequestered in a high profile case like this, in order to minimize the influence. I believe that's what usually happens.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (May 22, 2011 07:26PM)
If D.S.K. is guilty and he probably is hopefully he will have the book thrown at him and then be put away where Bubba Sue Billy Bob can take take care of his needs for the next several years.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 07:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 19:26, Woland wrote:
Yes, that's right, landmark. There are similarities in the attitudes of the statist, generally socialist nomenklatura of both countries. These men do not think that the laws which they apply to you, should be applied to them. More often than not, they are not.
[/quote]
I see it's only the socialist nomenklatura that are sex offenders and tax cheats. Is the implication that rich conservatives are vastly more moral? Curious that Steyn selectively picks out examples that somehow never seem to include the sex offenders and tax cheats of his party.
But at least we agree that the rich and powerful are often corrupt. Can I get a gig on ABC or FOX now?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 22, 2011 08:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 20:08, tommy wrote:
Here in England the rules are far tighter than the USA and it is quite shocking to see how the USA allow the tv to prejudge people before the trial begins.
[/quote]

I agree. Despite the presumption of innocence, it is not uncommon for people to often be tried in the press. It's part of that trickly tightrope called freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Just the same, I agree with you on this one, I believe that there should be some basic protections for those accused.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 22, 2011 08:53PM)
No, landmark, it is not only the socialist nomenklatura who are immoral and corrupt. But they are.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2011 10:31PM)
So that would have to have included George Bush, former CEO of the United Socialist States of America.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 04:53AM)
Strangely enough, in contrast to the present case which has sparked our discussion, he was never charged with forcing himself on any woman.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 23, 2011 10:32AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 05:53, Woland wrote:
Strangely enough, in contrast to the present case which has sparked our discussion, he was never charged with forcing himself on any woman.
[/quote]

Actually, I believe charges were filed. They were dropped after she apparently committed suicide.
Are we talking about the same Bush?
Bear in mind, I'm not saying I think he did it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2011 10:49AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 05:53, Woland wrote:
Strangely enough, in contrast to the present case which has sparked our discussion, he was never charged with forcing himself on any woman.
[/quote]
But Woland your point was that all the socialist nomenklatura were pigs. Either this is a socialist country or it isn't.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (May 23, 2011 12:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-22 23:31, landmark wrote:
So that would have to have included George Bush, former CEO of the United Socialist States of America.
[/quote]

We weren't the Socialist States of America till B.O. took office.

Here is an over looked fact. What was the name of the horse that Mohamed ascended to heaven on? Barak.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2011 12:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:28, RS1963 wrote:
Here is an over looked fact. What was the name of the horse that Mohamed ascended to heaven on? Barak.
[/quote]

and the significance of this "over looked fact" is?
Message: Posted by: critter (May 23, 2011 12:46PM)
Holy crap. I now regret my contribution to this insanity.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (May 23, 2011 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:28, RS1963 wrote:
Here is an over looked fact. What was the name of the horse that Mohamed ascended to heaven on? Barak.
[/quote]

and the significance of this "over looked fact" is?
[/quote]

Since the thread was headed south or had already gone that way. What is B.O.'s First name? Do the math and hopefully you will figure it out.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 23, 2011 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:28, RS1963 wrote:

Here is an over looked fact. What was the name of the horse that Mohamed ascended to heaven on? Barak.
[/quote]
I think your over looked fact may be a little off.

Barack means Blessed. Barack is of African origin, and is a form of the Hebrew name Baruch. Baruch is also the name of one of the Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts.

Borak is of Arabic origin, and means "the lightning". Al Borak or Al-Burāq was the name of the heavenly winged horse.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 23, 2011 12:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:57, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 13:28, RS1963 wrote:

Here is an over looked fact. What was the name of the horse that Mohamed ascended to heaven on? Barak.
[/quote]
I think your over looked fact may be a little off.

Barack means Blessed. Barack is of African origin, and is a form of the Hebrew name Baruch. Baruch is also the name of one of the Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts.

Borak is of Arabic origin, and means "the lightning". Al Borak or Al-Burâq was the name of the heavenly winged horse.
[/quote]

And if you change the 'k' to a 't' then it is obvious that Borat is the anti-Christ.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (May 23, 2011 01:04PM)
Ah ok. that does make sense Balducci. Critter you keep coming up with the showstoppers. Lol another good one.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 01:06PM)
Let me take this thread back to the subject of the arrest of DSK, and also to a higher level.

Whatever you might think this sordid episode says about the qualities of the leading men of our generation, we are still privileged to live in a society, and at a time, when a crime committed by one of the high-and-mighty against a foreign chambermaid could bring down all of the force of the impartial law.

I daresay that would not have been the case for most of the preceeding two or three thousand years of recorded history.

So as they say in New York, Excelsior!

Woland
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2011 02:05PM)
Good point Woland. Remember Mel Brooks' Louis XIV as he shtupped the chamber maid in "The History of the World Part II"? "It's good to be King!"

Bob
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 23, 2011 02:12PM)
Didn't remember the exact circumstances of that immortal quote. Thank you for your kind notice, but I could have put it even more forcefully: what a wonderful time to be alive, when an outrage committed against a chambermaid by one of the elite is in fact a crime at all.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 24, 2011 06:33PM)
If DSK is convicted, would he be eligible to transfer to a prison in France and serve his time there (provided France agrees to take him). Or would he be stuck in an American prison (at U.S. taxpayer's expense)?

I know the U.S. and Canada have an agreement for prisoners in one to be sent home to the other to serve their time (provided both governments agree). So I am wondering if the U.S. does the same thing with France.
Message: Posted by: Whit Haydn (May 25, 2011 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-23 14:06, Woland wrote:
Let me take this thread back to the subject of the arrest of DSK, and also to a higher level.

Whatever you might think this sordid episode says about the qualities of the leading men of our generation, we are still privileged to live in a society, and at a time, when a crime committed by one of the high-and-mighty against a foreign chambermaid could bring down all of the force of the impartial law.

I daresay that would not have been the case for most of the preceeding two or three thousand years of recorded history.

So as they say in New York, Excelsior!

Woland
[/quote]

I thought Excelsior is highly flammable packing material. Kurt Vonnegut made fun of a fire-extinquisher company that called itself "Excelsior"
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 26, 2011 09:56AM)
Ah, when ordinary products had such wonderful, mellifluous names . . . of course they were not ordinary products, they were remarkable . . . many of them were named for the ports from which they were shipped . . . "Manila" fiber . . . . Sisal . . . and of course Moka and Java . . . . but there were also raffia . . . and coir . . . and excelsior, or "wood wool" . . . according to the infallible Wikipedia, it was already know as excelsior when 15 patents were filed for it by 1876 . . . the term in used as early as 1856 but first credited by the O.E.D> in an 1868 patent . . . and it is the traditional stuffing used for teddy bears . . .

As for whether the State of New York would allow DSK to serve his term in France, I think that is highly dubious, since the presumption would be that he would be granted special privileges, I think.

Meanwhile, his agents are said to be trying to bribe his victim's impoverished family, in order to persuade her to change their story, but New York's Finest are reportedly confident they can proceed to trial even without her testimony . . .
Message: Posted by: critter (May 26, 2011 10:41AM)
Isn't "Excelsior!" Stan Lee's catch phrase?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 26, 2011 11:34AM)
It wouldn't surprise me, since I think he grew up in New York.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 11:41, critter wrote:
Isn't "Excelsior!" Stan Lee's catch phrase?
[/quote]
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the word in this thread, and yes it was.

Apparently "Excelsior!" is also the New York state motto. (I think Woland was alluding to that above.)
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 26, 2011 12:07PM)
Yes, "ever upwards," or something like that. I thought New York could be very proud of 1)the hotel personnel, and 2)the police, and 3)the culture of justice and fairness which makes a reality of the equality of all persons before the majesty of the law that the people have made. This is not the story of a sordid sex crime, it is a demonstration that our civilization has reached a pinnacle to which countless millions of people have yearned in vain through dark centuries of feudal, seigneurial oppression.

Excelsior! Indeed.

W/
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 26, 2011 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-26 13:07, Woland wrote:

Yes, "ever upwards," or something like that. I thought New York could be very proud of 1)the hotel personnel, and 2)the police, and 3)the culture of justice and fairness which makes a reality of the equality of all persons before the majesty of the law that the people have made. This is not the story of a sordid sex crime, it is a demonstration that our civilization has reached a pinnacle to which countless millions of people have yearned in vain through dark centuries of feudal, seigneurial oppression.
[/quote]
I'm also waiting to hear how the other rich and powerful versus maid story pans out. It seems that more revelations about his behavior are being outed every day.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/997477--report-says-inquiry-underway-into-schwarzenegger-s-alleged-misuse-of-state-security
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 4, 2011 09:09AM)
"Weinergate" does not rise to the level of the Strauss-Kahn case, so to speak, but it did prompt a thoughtful comment this morning from [url=http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/121861/]Professor Glenn Reynolds:[/url]

[quote]I think there’s an important point in the comic value: The people who think they’re smart enough, and morally superior enough, to run everyone else’s lives are risible. They’re not smart enough, and they’re actually, overall, morally inferior — I mean, John Edwards, DSK, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barney Frank, Tax Cheat Tim Geithner, just go down the list — and mocking them is inherently valuable. They pursue power, and they exercise power, as much for deference as anything else. Deny them that, and make it painful for them whenever possible. That’s my take.[/quote]

He links to [url=http://www.patheos.com/community/philosophicalfragments/2011/06/03/the-battle-of-the-bulge-is-the-weiner-war-worth-it/]an excellent essay by "Theodore Dalrymple"[/url] that is well worth reading.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 4, 2011 11:23AM)
My apologies, that essay is by Timothy Dalrymple, not Theodore. Quite a different author, but still worth reading.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 4, 2011 12:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-06-04 10:09, Woland wrote:
"Weinergate" does not rise to the level of the Strauss-Kahn case, so to speak, but it did prompt a thoughtful comment this morning from [url=http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/121861/]Professor Glenn Reynolds:[/url]

[quote]I think there’s an important point in the comic value: The people who think they’re smart enough, and morally superior enough, to run everyone else’s lives are risible. They’re not smart enough, and they’re actually, overall, morally inferior — I mean, John Edwards, DSK, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barney Frank, Tax Cheat Tim Geithner, just go down the list — and mocking them is inherently valuable. They pursue power, and they exercise power, as much for deference as anything else. Deny them that, and make it painful for them whenever possible. That’s my take.[/quote]



Woland
[/quote]
Bah, sounds like that Alinsky character.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 4, 2011 08:51PM)
But landmark, you know that Alinsky was a "small c" communist. His criticism of the men who happened to be in power was never intended to return us to a truly free and Constitutional system. The end result of his "community organizing" would be Lyubyanka, Vasili Blokhin, and the Archipelag Gulag.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 5, 2011 12:00AM)
Alinsky is constantly criticized by the right for his supposed tactics. it's just nice that Reynolds agrees with them. But I understand, it's only the right that's allowed to ridicule. All others will be arrested for joking or dancing.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 5, 2011 07:15AM)
Ridicule is only one of Alinsky's tactics. And it is not only his tactics which are objectionable, it is his overall aim, and of course the fact that, like Roger Baldwin of the ACLU, he concealed that aim as a necessary part of his strategy to achieve his airm.

But more importantly, although it isn't a new case, we should also mention Johnny Reid Edwards in the context of this discussion.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 5, 2011 02:17PM)
Understood, only your aims are noble.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 5, 2011 03:45PM)
No, far more than only my aims are noble. And I am not the only one with noble aims, either. But there are some people whose aims are ignoble, and I don't see the harm in pointing that out.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 2, 2011 08:25PM)
Holy Smoke. Is it possible Ben Stein was right on this one after all????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43619009#43619009
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 2, 2011 08:55PM)
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 2, 2011 09:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-02 21:55, landmark wrote:
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.
[/quote]
You're read the latest in the news this evening, that she was working as a prostitute / escort in the hotel? And that she was taped in a call with a boyfriend saying she knew she could get money from DSK?

Not that a working girl cannot be raped, of course. But, at least at the moment, it certainly does seem that every day more of her story is unraveling.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 2, 2011 09:45PM)
The story seems to be changing by the hour. The TV channels should be all over this one tomorrow with even more dirt.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 2, 2011 11:24PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-02 22:32, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-07-02 21:55, landmark wrote:
Purely opinion: I think she was raped. I don't think she has a case that wouldn't be torn apart in court. But even someone with an unsavory character can be a rape victim.
[/quote]
You're read the latest in the news this evening, that she was working as a prostitute / escort in the hotel? And that she was taped in a call with a boyfriend saying she knew she could get money from DSK?

Not that a working girl cannot be raped, of course. But, at least at the moment, it certainly does seem that every day more of her story is unraveling.
[/quote]
I've read the stories. Lots and lots put out, by, I assume, DSK's team about her character, which is to be expected, and it could well be that much of it is true. But yes, even a working girl can be raped. I think he did not know the proper boundaries.

Hard to believe, but I 'm actually on the same side of this issue as [i]Woland[/i] (less his innuendo that all socialists are rapists).
Message: Posted by: motown (Jul 3, 2011 12:20AM)
Hollywood is working on the script as we speak. I can just imagine who will play DSK.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 4, 2011 06:56PM)
Some interesting new/old developments:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/04/french-writer-to-file-attempted-rape-complaint-against-strauss-kahn/#more-75399
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 4, 2011 07:37PM)
Why is it you think he's guilty?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 4, 2011 07:49PM)
As I said before it's just an opinion. There have been several other incidents with DSK in which the accusers had little reason to make up their stories, particularly the journalist referenced above. The accused in the hotel incident, according to some testimony, was physically bruised. That, to me, points to more than a consensual sexual encounter.

Frankly my gut feeling is that there was a money proposition going on and he got rough with her. Why do I think so? I can't tell you outright, just my reading of human nature.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 4, 2011 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-07-03 00:24, landmark wrote:

I've read the stories. Lots and lots put out, by, I assume, DSK's team about her character, which is to be expected, and it could well be that much of it is true.
[/quote]
Most of the material about her character and activities that we've been hearing about was actually dug up by the prosecution, which then sent it to DSK's defense team.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 4, 2011 09:43PM)
Actually I doubt if that is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Its more likely that its the defence that have “dug it up” and told the witness's to go to the police and make statements.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 24, 2011 07:47AM)
So the Manhattan prosecutor dropped the case against DSK.

I think that though her case was certainly not airtight, she deserved her day in court.

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.


I find it hard to believe that the sexual situation was consensual without the exchange of money. Stranger things have happened I suppose, but outside the realm of pornography, do young chambermaids fling themselves at 60+ year old politicians out of lust? I believe that either there was an exchange of money or it was non-consensual. As an immigrant she knew her status was shaky--it would be unusual for her to expose herself to such danger.

As I understand it, she is filing a civil suit, though DSK is free to leave the country. Can someone clarify how that works? What can she file a civil suit for, now that's she's lost the criminal case?

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 08:36AM)
The lack of a criminal case doesn't slow her down in civil court, because of the lesser standard of proof. I imagine there could be multiple causes of action, but battery would probably be the front runner. In a lawsuit, she only has to convince a jury that it's more likely than not that he did it. If he's tried and convicted in criminal court, that helps, but even if he went to trial and beat the criminal charges, that wouldn't mean he didn't do it; only that he wasn't found to have done it beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal acquittal and a finding of civil liability (a la OJ) isn't inconsistent. Even if it were the same jury, it wouldn't be inconsistent, if, say, the jurors thought there were a 60% chance that he did it (or a 50.01% chance).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 24, 2011 09:36AM)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not clear on why it isn't double jeopardy to bring civil charges after criminal ones.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 10:36, landmark wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not clear on why it isn't double jeopardy to bring civil charges after criminal ones.
[/quote]

Legally speaking, for more than one reason, actually. First, the basis for "Double Jeopardy" is the Constitution (5th Amendment), and it only contemplates criminal actions. "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

Secondly, "jeopardy" in a criminal trial attaches not when a suspect is arrested, but when the first juror is sworn. So a pretrial dismissal of charges doesn't have double jeopardy consequences anyway.

Philosophically, it makes sense that double jeopardy not affect a criminal-to-civil transition, for the reasons above. The criminal jury isn't deciding whether he the defendant committed the action or not; it's deciding whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You could have all 12 jurors think that he did it, and still vote to acquit. So beating criminal charges is not a vote of confidence from the jury, and a jury's decision should not have a dispositive effect.

The parties are different in the two cases, as well; in a criminal matter, the prosecuting attorney represents the people as a whole - the public interest in having the defendant convicted and punished. The private citizen's right of redress is separate. It has a different aim(an attempt to make the victim whole; the victim is not even a party to the criminal case), different parties, and a different standard of proof.

If I burn your house down, you have an interest in being compensated for your loss, and the state has an interest in seeing to it that I (and others) don't go around burning houses down. But the state has a much more difficult job in winning its case, because of the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard. It would be unfair for you to forfeit your private right to redress, when all you have to do is prove by any margin greater than 50% that I'm responsible, just because the state failed to meet the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard.

Moreover, there is a mental state requirement for criminal liability that does not (or may not) be required for civil liability. For instance, to be criminally liable for arson, the state may have to prove that I intended to burn your house down, or at least that I consciously disregarded a known risk (recklessness); but the civil case may only require that I failed to avoid a risk that I *should have* known about (negligence, a lesser standard). So it's entirely conceivable that what I did would meet the standard for civil liability but not criminal liability.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2011 10:07AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.
[/quote]
The prosecution discovered most, and maybe all, of the "character assassination stuff". No one is arguing that lying gives free reign to one being raped. But her lies were sufficient and extensive enough that even the prosecution no longer believed her story.

[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.
[/quote]
"At least one" accused him or rape. Is it one or is it more than one? AFAIK, it is NONE. DSK WAS charged with sexual assault (attempted rape), but not rape itself, by French writer Tristane Banon.

I do not know precisely what her politics are, but she was (still is?) a columnist for at least one right-wing newspaper in France. AFAIK, and contrary to what you said, she does NOT share DSK's politics (though her mother does). (FWIW I believe her mother had consensual, albeit rough, sex with DSK.)

I'm not saying DSK is a nice guy. He may well be a sexual predator. But we should be clear about what he has and has not been accused of, and by whom.

[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.
[/quote]
I think she had her chance to make her case. She failed to do so, early on in the process.

As the prosecutors said in the court papers asking the judge to drop the case, "“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant ... If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 10:11AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 11:07, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

The character assassination stuff was not convincing to me: the prostitute charges AFAIK were never backed up; the inconsistencies in her story about what she did after the rape are the kinds of inconsistencies that occur all the time in such cases. Confused and abused people don't always act rationally. That she lied on her passport application is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would argue that such lying gives free reign to be raped without consequences to the rapist, if that is what happened.
[/quote]
The prosecution discovered most, and maybe all, of the "character assassination stuff". No one is arguing that lying gives free reign to one being raped. But her lies were sufficient and extensive enough that even the prosecution no longer believed her story.

[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

If character is to be brought into the equation, then it is more telling to me that several women have now come forward to talk about DSK's agressive sexual mode with at least one accusing him of rape. That the women were in agreement with him politically indicates that these allegations were almost certainly not just character assassination attempts. This to me is more telling than whether a woman lied about her children on an immigration application. Even the alleged calls to her jailhouse boyfriend (which again AFAIK have never been backed up) do not preclude rape. It is quite conceivable that she was raped and then told her friend I'm going to sue the B**tard for every penny.
[/quote]
"At least one" accused him or rape. Is it one or is it more than one? AFAIK, it is NONE. DSK WAS charged with sexual assault (attempted rape), but not rape itself, by French writer Tristane Banon.

I do not know precisely what her politics are, but she was (still is?) a columnist for at least one right-wing newspaper in France. AFAIK, she does NOT share DSK's politics (though her mother does). (FWIW I believe her mother had consensual, albeit rough, sex with DSK.)

I'm not saying DSK is a nice guy. He may well be a sexual predator. But we should be clear about what he has and has not been accused of, and by whom.

[quote]
On 2011-08-24 08:47, landmark wrote:

Anyway, as I said before, it may well be she has no case that would ultimately stand up in court. However, I think it was a miscarriage of justice to deny her her chance to make her case.
[/quote]
I think she had her chance to make her case. She failed to do so, early on in the process.

As the prosecutors said in the court papers asking the judge to drop the case, "“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant ... If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”
[/quote]

Your last paragraph suggests that the first paragraph is overstated. It's not (necessarily) the case that the prosecution didn't believe her; it's that it impacts her credibility to the extent that it may not be demonstrable (or believed) beyond a reasonable doubt. They could certainly still believe that she's telling the truth, but if all or almost all that they have in the case is her word, that might not be enough.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2011 10:15AM)
"They could certainly still believe that she's telling the truth"

Sure. Or not.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 24, 2011 10:15AM)
He was never in jeopardy. One is said to be in jeopardy only after a trial starts, which is when one is in put into the hands of the jury more or less. As he did not stand trial, if new evidence arises for example, then he could be be recharged for the same criminal offence.

One is never in jeopardy of being found guilty of a crime in civil court as its a cival matter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 11:15, balducci wrote:
Sure. Or not.
[/quote]

Well, I mean, if it's "sure," then why say things like the prosecution "no longer believed her story"?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2011 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 11:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 11:15, balducci wrote:
Sure. Or not.
[/quote]

Well, I mean, if it's "sure," then why say things like the prosecution "no longer believed her story"?
[/quote]
I'm not a lawyer like yourself. When I said "no longer believed her story" I was basing that on what her lawyers said:

“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant ... If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”

To make the lawyers on this forum happy, I suppose I should have more properly said "no longer believed her story beyond a reasonable doubt".

:) :) :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 10:42AM)
As you say, it certainly may be the case that they DON'T believe her. Either way, the important thing is, they don't think they can sell it. Which means (in descending order of your cynicism level):

1) It would be improper to prosecute someone they don't believe is guilty.
2) It would be an irresponsible use of limited resources to pursue a case they don't think they can win.
3) The D.A. (their boss) is judged by his winning percentage, especially his winning percentage in high profile cases, and when he looks good, it's good for everyone.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2011 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-08-24 09:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The lack of a criminal case doesn't slow her down in civil court, because of the lesser standard of proof. I imagine there could be multiple causes of action, but battery would probably be the front runner. In a lawsuit, she only has to convince a jury that it's more likely than not that he did it.
[/quote]
I am wondering what is the point of a civil case?

If she won a civil case against DSK, who is (I think) a French citizen, what would that mean?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2011 10:53AM)
It's outside my area, but I believe that the first line of defense (attack) is whether the court in a foreign country would recognize and enforce the judgment. The USA, IIRC, is not a party to any international agreements by which we have reciprocity with anyone (I think we got close with England once). I strongly doubt that any judgment in an American court would be enforced by France. So whether it meant anything for practical purposes might depend on whether Strauss-Kahn owns any American assets, in which case she could probably set up some kind of lien.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2011 11:00AM)
Lobo, that's pretty much what I was thinking.

I think most of the DSK wealth is actually his wife's. If DSK owns any American assets himself, they are relatively small, and I imagine he can dispose of them long before any civil case results in financial damages.

I was also thinking that a loss of a civil case might keep DSK from freely travelling to the U.S. (e.g., could he be arrested upon arriving in the U.S. if he had not paid the damages?) ... but even then, he might be able to circumvent any such restrictions (through diplomatic immunity) if he was travelling as a French politician, representative of France, or head of another international organisation (e.g. like the IMF).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 24, 2011 03:53PM)
The civil case thing is interesting, thanks for explaining. So is there any time a plaintiff can't bring a civil case as well as a criminal case?

Some interesting background info here about the media coverage, specifically the NY Times and The NY Post. Not that it proves anyone's guilt, but it is interesting in terms of how unverified stories get spread. It's a bit of a long read, but worth it:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/08/the-real-strauss-kahn-story-back-at-the-new-york-times/
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 26, 2011 02:40PM)
"New questions raised over Dominique Strauss-Kahn case - Journalist's detailed study has unearthed fresh doubts over alleged assault in New York by ex-IMF chief"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/26/dominique-strauss-kahn-hotel-maid

See the story at the link, but this bit is really weird:

"The most unusual evidence described by Epstein is a security video of the hotel's engineer, Brian Yearwood, and an unidentified man apparently celebrating the day's events. Earlier, Yearwood had been communicating with John Sheehan, a security expert at Accor, which owns Sofitel, and whose boss, René-Georges Querry, once worked with a man now in intelligence for Sarkozy."

"The unidentified man with Yearwood had been spotted previously on hotel security cameras accompanying Diallo to the hotel's security office after the alleged attack. The video shows the men near the area where Diallo is recounting her story and, less than two minutes after police have been called, they seem to congratulate each other enthusiastically. "The two men high-five each other, clap their hands, and do what looks like an extraordinary dance of celebration that lasts for three minutes. They are then shown standing by the service door … apparently waiting for the police to arrive," Epstein writes."

---

In other related news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8888071/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-facing-arrest-over-prostitution-racket-allegations.html