Soxbadger

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/199/payroll.jpg According to Kalapse's numbers (a man who is better at numbers than myself), Rios gets $12mil next year. In comparison, Peavy gets 17mil, Dunn 14mil and Konerko 12mil I cant imagine that the Sox will have 4 of the top 20 paid players, my guess is there are at least 30 players who are getting paid $13mil or more.

Are you sure that there arent more than 20 players who are making more than Rios, because my sources say otherwise.

Its April 12. Sox have a better record than the following teams: Twins, Tigers, Yankees and Red Sox. Start of the season has a ton of strange results that you look back on later and say what the hell. Im just hoping that some of this is statistical anomaly and as the season progresses there is a regression toward the mean.

Pena will be replaced by Humber if Peavy can get healthy. That could be a big upgrade.

The worst part about no one at the game, They gave away Frank Thomas bobbleheads. I only heard after it was to late to get there.

I think Jackson was mad he got a grounder to end the inning and our SS booted the ball so bad he didnt even have a shot at getting a guy.

He had to pull Jackson. Jackson didnt have his best stuff, coming off a 120 pitch performance and was already at 100 this game. You cant decimate your starters in April.

For some reason Jackson didnt have his off speed working at all. Defense didnt help him any either.

Come on Edwin, keep that pitch down.

Potentially upper middle class, but thats the point, its a conflict of interest. Most people dont support things that hurt them monetarily.

Its sad that a very wealthy person like Boehner is going to have the say for the rest of America. Taxes need to be raised,there is no way around it. When I look around I see a lot of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt, I see a country that could (or is) fall(ing) behind China in terms of large public works projects. Its time to pay for the freedom that we have. I dont care if he raises my taxes to 50% at this point, Id rather pay 50%and live in America, than 0% and live somewhere crappy.

It still doesnt change the fact that most people agreed that Edwin as a prospect was a potential #1 in the making. Hudson as a prospect was generally considered a 3 at best, Ive never seen a publication say that he is a potential #1. Im not saying that they are right or wrong, just generally speaking Edwin Jackson is considered by most to have better stuff than Hudson. /shrugs

You know Baseball America called Edwin Jackson the Dodgers best pitching prospect since Pedro in 1993. That is the only reason I brought it up, because that comparison was made (not by me). http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...0s/dodgers.html

They have no foundation for the charts without some one from BALCO providing the foundation for what the chart is. A govt witness (imo) could not provide a proper foundation for the charts, unless there was some hearsay exception that the charts would fall under. Basically if they found a bunch of information on my computer, without me testifying what that information is, they couldnt start questioning you about the information, because they have no foundation that you have any knowledge of the information or what that information exactly means. And all of the information would be hearsay You can have foundation problems in a case for collecting a debt, if you bring the wrong person from the company and they dont have actual knowledge of the debt. Just because a piece of paper says, XYZ owes $50k, does not mean it can be put into evidence, without proper foundation. The proper foundation would be something like: * Are you familiar with Exhibit "A" (business records) for identification? * Can you identify these documents? * Were these documents prepared in the ordinary scope of the business of your company? * Where are these documents stored after they are prepared? * Where were these documents retrieved from? * Is it a regular part of your business to keep and maintain records of this type? * Are these documents of the type that would be kept under your custody or control? The problem with BALCO records, is you cant lay the proper foundation without a BALCO employee. You could lay a foundation for an investigator to put them into evidence, but Im not sure you can lay the proper foundation to tie Bonds to them without going into the above. You have to remember a document is generally hearsay because it is a compilation of hearsay statements, thus it can not be admitted into evidence unless there is an exception, business records being one of them. Without the proper foundation for the exception, it just cant be put into evidence. This is why the Grand Jury is so evil, you need no foundation, no evidence rules apply.

Come on now, Jackson has better stuff than Hudson. Stuff doesnt make you a better pitcher, but Edwin has more of it. I have yet to see any publication put Hudson on par with a guy like Pedro, which is the type of talent Jackson was working with.

Does Glazer still own Man U, because if so, thats why Tampa keeps going to England.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) You're saying that Bonds' allegedly perjurious answers were to fishing expedition-type questions that wouldn't even have elicited helpful information against BALCO, correct? That's certainly could be true. Unfortunately, that scenario isn't confined to Grand Jury abuses; its what got Clinton in trouble vis-a-vis Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones civil case. Not only that but the actual evidence of Bonds usage of steroids would need a foundation. Without the testimony of any BALCO people, there was absolutely no foundation to ask Bonds the question, "Did you use steroids". The question had some materiality to the potential BALCO case: "Did BALCO supply steroids". The problem with foundation would be, what foundation do they have to support that Bonds had any idea BALCO was using steroids. First they would have to provide evidence that Bonds had an idea, from my understanding of the evidence there were no smoking guns like "Barry Bonds Steroid sample A" or "Barry Bonds urine sample A while using steroids", I think they were coded etc, and the only way to provide foundation for the codes would be to bring in some one from BALCO to provide a foundation. As presumably all of the BALCO people took the 5th, the govt really would never have called Bonds in the trial. Which I believe is the reason that in the actual trial, Bonds was not a witness (correct me if im wrong).

They are going after Clemens (I believe). Palmeiro wont be prosecuted, his previous employer is named Peter Angelos and he is a pretty influential litigator in the DC area. McGwire didnt technically lie, he just said he didnt want to talk about the past. None of them faced the same type of questions Bonds did.

And 1 more thing to clarify. Im pretty sure that the evidence used against Bonds would not have generally been admissible in trial. Therefore the grand jury was important because they could ask him questions that would have been stricken in a normal trial for lack of foundation. Id actually have to really look at the transcript to see, but my guess is that they were questioning him on BACLO stuff.

You are right, 5th amendment can be plead in potentially any case, the immunity is what could strip the 5th. Im not making a legal argument, Im making a theoretical argument about grand juries and how they are used. The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent facts from being exposed to the public, especially because there are almost no rules of evidence that apply to grand juries. As soon as a grand jury no longer is secretive, it losses its function as a grand jury. As the govt could not deliver a secretive grand jury, they should never have had the right to hold one in the first place, therefore Bonds should not have had to ever testify. Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with the idea the govt can give you immunity and then compel testimony. If I dont want immunity and I dont want to testify, that should be my choice. That is not the law, its more my philosophical point. In the context of the law, the govt can give immunity and force testimony, I just think thats bogus if the person doesnt want it. (edit) To clarify the statement you quoted, the 5th amendment in terms of the exclusionary rule does not apply. Meaning that evidence obtained in violation of the 5th amendment, could still be used in a grand jury, whereas it can not be used at a regular trial. I really wasnt writing very clearly so its all jumbled together, more to be taken as personal position than legal brief.

This isnt about steroid use. Bonds wasnt being prosecuted for steroids, he was summoned to a grand jury for the prosecution of other people for making designer steroids. Bonds refused to testify, the govt said that he would be immune and since it was a grand jury and secret he had no 5th amendment rights. Bonds legal team argued that the govt could not guarantee secrecy and therefore Bonds should have the ability to raise 5th amendment right. Govt argued that they would keep it secret and that he had immunity. Thus the govt is the one who lied to start. Had the govt listened to Bonds attorneys and realized that they could not guarantee secrecy in such a high profile case, this would never have been an issue. Unfortunately most prosecutors could care less about the collateral damage of witnesses, as long as they get their conviction. Bonds is being charged with perjury, he is not being charged for doing steroids. This has nothing to do with steroids, its entirely whether he lied under oath, in a case where he was not even a Defendant. Talk about messed up.

The govt brought Bonds into a grand jury and promised that the transcripts would be secret. They said that he could TELL THE TRUTH, because THEY PROMISED IT WOULD NEVER BE RELEASED. Thus if the transcripts were released, why should Bonds have had to tell the truth. All the govt had to do was a) keep its word and not allow the transcripts to be republished or b ) allowed Bonds to invoke the 5th amendment. The point of the Grand Jury is that its to be done in absolute secrecy, so that no information is ever revealed to the public. As there was no way the govt could guarantee Bonds secrecy, they (imo) had no right to make him waive the 5th amendment. All the govt had to do was tell the truth: "We can not guarantee that these proceedings will be secret, therefore Bonds can invoke the 5th amendment" Its just that simple. Grand juries are almost always unjust, they are antiquated and should be completely done away with. The entire purpose of the Grand Jury was because being accused of a crime is so bad to your reputation, that they wanted a secret hearing to ensure that they only prosecuted people that may actually be guilty. The Grand Jury was never supposed to be what it has evolved into. Its a joke, this trial is a joke, and I hope for all the people who have been screwed by lying prosecutors before, Bonds buries the govt in a shallow grave. Most Defendants dont have the type of money to make the govt pay for their lies, thankfully Bonds does. All the govt had to do was tell the truth and none of this would have happened. They lied to Bonds, they lied to his attorneys, and they disrespected attorneys every where with this bulls***. Furious is the only word that should describe anyone who looks at these facts.

Whats irresponsible is that Bonds should never have been forced into a situation where perjury could occur. Had he simply been allowed to invoke his 5th amendment right against self incrimination, this is non-case. Grand Juries are bulls***, thats the problem here, not how small or big perjury is. This should have never happened had the govt not wanted to screw Bonds.

Well thats the real problem here, what is life and when is it worth protecting.

I think the govt should be funding it. Id rather pay $500 today, than unknown in the future. The problem isnt economical, the problem is moral. And unfortunately I cant put a price on morality. Some people are just adamantly against abortions and regardless of how economical or socially beneficial they are, refuse to allow them. I cant work with those type of people, they might as well be on Mars while Im on Neptune.