Coco Solo, Colón, Panama Superthread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
BANJO ENCORE?

somehow i think that would be totally respectful to tuf bono.

Especially if Adam plays a kazoo instead of bass. It would be something out of a drunken tuf bono fantasy.

In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!
 
In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!

In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!

In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!

In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!

In fact, maybe I should go do some tuf bono respect right now and work this into the respectable rpg!

WTF, do I even want to know.
 
So, after I get my head shaved, I'm planning to be Azn Bono for a while. Even though I really look nothing like him.
 
so, do any of you shitheads know much about ex-officio indictments? they're where you go straight to trial because you're all guilty and stuff. i want to know if there's been a denial of justice if you go to trial on an ex-officio (let's say you have a really dumb lawyer), but your confession is actually inadmissible. this way of indictment denies you the chance to have your confession thrown out.

i cannot find the freaking answer to this anwhere, somewhere that says, "Nup. once you get to trial it's too late" but no. no one wants to help me tonight. my last tut for this fantabulous foray into criminal law at its worst.
:sigh:
 
so, do any of you shitheads know much about ex-officio indictments? they're where you go straight to trial because you're all guilty and stuff. i want to know if there's been a denial of justice if you go to trial on an ex-officio (let's say you have a really dumb lawyer), but your confession is actually inadmissible. this way of indictment denies you the chance to have your confession thrown out.

i cannot find the freaking answer to this anwhere, somewhere that says, "Nup. once you get to trial it's too late" but no. no one wants to help me tonight. my last tut for this fantabulous foray into criminal law at its worst.
:sigh:

I understood all the words in this post, but not the post. :sad:
 
so, do any of you shitheads know much about ex-officio indictments? they're where you go straight to trial because you're all guilty and stuff. i want to know if there's been a denial of justice if you go to trial on an ex-officio (let's say you have a really dumb lawyer), but your confession is actually inadmissible. this way of indictment denies you the chance to have your confession thrown out.

i cannot find the freaking answer to this anwhere, somewhere that says, "Nup. once you get to trial it's too late" but no. no one wants to help me tonight. my last tut for this fantabulous foray into criminal law at its worst.
:sigh:

I ... have no idea what I'm talking about here, but if the confession is inadmissible, wouldn't it then be a mistrial or something as the rug has been pulled out from beneath the case for prosecution?
 
ok, got one more question, grammar style. i suck at grammar. :depressed:

His lawyer advising him to consent to the ex-officio indictment was a poor decision which saw his case suffer as a result.

or

His lawyer advising him to consent to the ex-officio indictment was a poor decision, that saw his case suffer as a result.
 
so, do any of you shitheads know much about ex-officio indictments? they're where you go straight to trial because you're all guilty and stuff. i want to know if there's been a denial of justice if you go to trial on an ex-officio (let's say you have a really dumb lawyer), but your confession is actually inadmissible. this way of indictment denies you the chance to have your confession thrown out.

i cannot find the freaking answer to this anwhere, somewhere that says, "Nup. once you get to trial it's too late" but no. no one wants to help me tonight. my last tut for this fantabulous foray into criminal law at its worst.
:sigh:

I have no idea, but if you wait until tomorrow I can ask a knowledgeable friend.
 
ok, got one more question, grammar style. i suck at grammar. :depressed:

His lawyer advising him to consent to the ex-officio indictment was a poor decision which saw his case suffer as a result.

or

His lawyer advising him to consent to the ex-officio indictment was a poor decision, that saw his case suffer as a result.

I'd use the latter, but without a comma.
 
I ... have no idea what I'm talking about here, but if the confession is inadmissible, wouldn't it then be a mistrial or something as the rug has been pulled out from beneath the case for prosecution?

well, see, yes. however, the crown are not going to admit voluntarily that the confession was obtained along with 9 separate breaches of the police procedures act, so you need to rely on your lawyer to tell you this. now, you've got a lawyer who agreed to an ex-officio indictment, which means the crown have said, "right chaps, let's just speed this right up to trial. we've got a confession here, so let's cut to the chase" idiot lawyer says, "yeah, ok. sounds fine." Um, NO? How about, see you fuckers in court? the confession is inadmissible? see, none of that happened. due to stupidity, it went straight to trial. no hearing beforehand.
 
My head's about to explode from reading this stuff.

That's why I'm a radical left-wing theologian, I can't stand law. :lol:
 
I'd use the latter, but without a comma.

Me too, but when I do Word suggests I add the comma. I never know whether to the 'that' or 'which', and when the comma is entirely appropriate. I often resort to common sense, but often I give up and let Word confuse me even more.
:(

I really wish I had superb grammar.
 
well, see, yes. however, the crown are not going to admit voluntarily that the confession was obtained along with 9 separate breaches of the police procedures act, so you need to rely on your lawyer to tell you this. now, you've got a lawyer who agreed to an ex-officio indictment, which means the crown have said, "right chaps, let's just speed this right up to trial. we've got a confession here, so let's cut to the chase" idiot lawyer says, "yeah, ok. sounds fine." Um, NO? How about, see you fuckers in court? the confession is inadmissible? see, none of that happened. due to stupidity, it went straight to trial. no hearing beforehand.

Ooh, so even though the confession is inadmissible, it's being admitted as evidence anyway?

WTF.

God, I'm too tired to wrap my brain around this. I'm going to bed! Respect to all of you. :wave:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom