Reuben Foster

Reading further on the CA law, seems if you had the gun before a certain date, you can register it and it is legal. However, if you have recently purchased it, you can't register it. CA supreme court has upheld that CA can get with it because of their state constitution never said they have the right to bear arms, but a federal supreme court, said the federal constition trumps the CA constitution and now more and more people are going to use that to over rule any charges or overturn the state laws.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by btthepunk:

So would the DA have to prove that Reuben himself put the gun in the bathroom? With everything going on he claim he did not put it there and insinuate she did it.

I know the gun itself is illegal to own in California but I don't know if there can be a charge for it being where it was.

I don't think he can either, I think people are just saying it is another sign of poor judgement.

You were the one to state that right? So many posts

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Indeed he could. You know, years ago I had aspirations of getting a law degree, so much to the point where I studied law for tow years, earned an AA in Paralegal, and was an intern paralegal for a year for a law office when I lived in Florida. One thing I learned about suits is that it's one thing to get a judgement in your favor. But it's quite another to actually to be able to collect on that judgement.

He could sue her, but I don't know how he collects from her. All around he losses, and she isn't punished. Notice who the DA isn't talking about charging her for filing a false police report, even after she admitted to lying?

Agree with the sue stuff...could happen but for what.

If she testifies under oath and says she gave a false report I wonder if that could put her in hot water with the law? She might just plead the 5th and not testify, who knows I sure as s**t don't lol.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Indeed he could. You know, years ago I had aspirations of getting a law degree, so much to the point where I studied law for tow years, earned an AA in Paralegal, and was an intern paralegal for a year for a law office when I lived in Florida. One thing I learned about suits is that it's one thing to get a judgement in your favor. But it's quite another to actually to be able to collect on that judgement.

He could sue her, but I don't know how he collects from her. All around he losses, and she isn't punished. Notice who the DA isn't talking about charging her for filing a false police report, even after she admitted to lying?

Agree with the sue stuff...could happen but for what.

If she testifies under oath and says she gave a false report I wonder if that could put her in hot water with the law? She might just plead the 5th and not testify, who knows I sure as s**t don't lol.

She already admitted she lied, too late on the 5th

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

Indeed he could. You know, years ago I had aspirations of getting a law degree, so much to the point where I studied law for tow years, earned an AA in Paralegal, and was an intern paralegal for a year for a law office when I lived in Florida. One thing I learned about suits is that it's one thing to get a judgement in your favor. But it's quite another to actually to be able to collect on that judgement.

He could sue her, but I don't know how he collects from her. All around he losses, and she isn't punished. Notice who the DA isn't talking about charging her for filing a false police report, even after she admitted to lying?

Agree with the sue stuff...could happen but for what.

If she testifies under oath and says she gave a false report I wonder if that could put her in hot water with the law? She might just plead the 5th and not testify, who knows I sure as s**t don't lol.

She already admitted she lied, too late on the 5th

Doesn't pleading the 5th have to do with testifying under oath (basically not doing it)? I'm just guessing I don't really know...fortunately I've never had to deal with s**t like this lol

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Doesn't pleading the 5th have to do with testifying under oath (basically not doing it)? I'm just guessing I don't really know...fortunately I've never had to deal with s**t like this lol

"Pleading the 5th" means refusing to answer a particular question on the basis that doing so might incriminate oneself, and the 5th amendment ensures we cannot be forced under penalty of perjury to self-incriminate.

The Constitution offers no protections against being "forced" to perjur oneself; it offers protections agains being forced to incriminate oneself.

I study medicine, not law, but my feeling is that if she were asked under oath whether she was in fact assaulted by Reuben, she would likely have to answer or be held in contempt.

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

"Pleading the 5th" means refusing to answer a particular question on the basis that doing so might incriminate oneself, and the 5th amendment ensures we cannot be forced under penalty of perjury to self-incriminate.

The Constitution offers no protections against being "forced" to perjur oneself; it offers protections agains being forced to incriminate oneself.

I study medicine, not law, but my feeling is that if she were asked under oath whether she was in fact assaulted by Reuben, she would likely have to answer or be held in contempt.

Okay so if she did testify and was asked did you lie in the first report to police.... she could say "I plead the fifth"?

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

"Pleading the 5th" means refusing to answer a particular question on the basis that doing so might incriminate oneself, and the 5th amendment ensures we cannot be forced under penalty of perjury to self-incriminate.

The Constitution offers no protections against being "forced" to perjur oneself; it offers protections agains being forced to incriminate oneself.

I study medicine, not law, but my feeling is that if she were asked under oath whether she was in fact assaulted by Reuben, she would likely have to answer or be held in contempt.

Okay so if she did testify and was asked did you lie in the first report to police.... she could say "I plead the fifth"?

If the previous lie would constitute a crime, then yes. She doesn't have to testify that she committed a crime. But that would be a dumb question and likely evoke an objection by the opposing attorney. She isn't on trial. The question is whether Reuben hit her. I feel like she'd have to answer that question.

Originally posted by GoldBrick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by GoldBrick:
"Pleading the 5th" means refusing to answer a particular question on the basis that doing so might incriminate oneself, and the 5th amendment ensures we cannot be forced under penalty of perjury to self-incriminate.

The Constitution offers no protections against being "forced" to perjur oneself; it offers protections agains being forced to incriminate oneself.

I study medicine, not law, but my feeling is that if she were asked under oath whether she was in fact assaulted by Reuben, she would likely have to answer or be held in contempt.

Okay so if she did testify and was asked did you lie in the first report to police.... she could say "I plead the fifth"?

If the previous lie would constitute a crime, then yes. She doesn't have to testify that she committed a crime. But that would be a dumb question and likely evoke an objection by the opposing attorney. She isn't on trial. The question is whether Reuben hit her. I feel like she'd have to answer that question.

even if they let her.. they have her recanted story documented along with the Video. thats proof right there without her saying anything on the stand

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
even if they let her.. they have her recanted story documented along with the Video. thats proof right there without her saying anything on the stand

It isn't proof of anything other than there is a video showing she was in a fight, and that she made a public statement. Full stop.

There are likely two scenarios at play here:

1) She made the initial statement, and as reported, she went to the DA 48 hours later and recanted. This shows remorse. She was emotional, made a false statement, and then recanted when she calmed down. In this case, Ennis' role helps Foster. Further, it is unlikely any charges would be sought concerning her giving a false statement to the police. She is human. It is understandable that with emotion, stress, etc. comes irrational behavior. This is the best case scenario for both Foster and Ennis, legally speaking.

2) She didn't recant after two days as was reported. Instead, she waited six weeks, hired a lawyer, and then recanted. This looks like part of a larger strategy to get a desired outcome. If this is the case, Ennis' role will be detrimental to Foster.

As it concerns the trial itself, people want to hope Ennis will be the linchpin. She won't be. If this goes to trial (and at this point it's probably 50/50), it's because the DDA believes the evidence (both physical and non-physical) is enough to establish Foster's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
even if they let her.. they have her recanted story documented along with the Video. thats proof right there without her saying anything on the stand

It isn't proof of anything other than there is a video showing she was in a fight, and that she made a public statement. Full stop.

There are likely two scenarios at play here:

1) She made the initial statement, and as reported, she went to the DA 48 hours later and recanted. This shows remorse. She was emotional, made a false statement, and then recanted when she calmed down. In this case, Ennis' role helps Foster. Further, it is unlikely any charges would be sought concerning her giving a false statement to the police. She is human. It is understandable that with emotion, stress, etc. comes irrational behavior. This is the best case scenario for both Foster and Ennis, legally speaking.

2) She didn't recant after two days as was reported. Instead, she waited six weeks, hired a lawyer, and then recanted. This looks like part of a larger strategy to get a desired outcome. If this is the case, Ennis' role will be detrimental to Foster.

As it concerns the trial itself, people want to hope Ennis will be the linchpin. She won't be. If this goes to trial (and at this point it's probably 50/50), it's because the DDA believes the evidence (both physical and non-physical) is enough to establish Foster's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I thought that was already posted as fact? (Recanted her story a day or two after the incident)

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I thought that was already posted as fact? (Recanted her story a day or two after the incident)

I have not seen where the DA's office confirmed she recanted. They may have. I thought it was stated by her / her lawyer. That being said, it's unlikely her lawyer would not have confirmed the facts before the public statement. But, you never want to assume anything

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I thought that was already posted as fact? (Recanted her story a day or two after the incident)

I have not seen where the DA's office confirmed she recanted. They may have. I thought it was stated by her / her lawyer. That being said, it's unlikely her lawyer would not have confirmed the facts before the public statement. But, you never want to assume anything

thats best advice anyone should consider

Originally posted by Polkadots:

It isn't proof of anything other than there is a video showing she was in a fight, and that she made a public statement. Full stop.

There are likely two scenarios at play here:

1) She made the initial statement, and as reported, she went to the DA 48 hours later and recanted. This shows remorse. She was emotional, made a false statement, and then recanted when she calmed down. In this case, Ennis' role helps Foster. Further, it is unlikely any charges would be sought concerning her giving a false statement to the police. She is human. It is understandable that with emotion, stress, etc. comes irrational behavior. This is the best case scenario for both Foster and Ennis, legally speaking.

2) She didn't recant after two days as was reported. Instead, she waited six weeks, hired a lawyer, and then recanted. This looks like part of a larger strategy to get a desired outcome. If this is the case, Ennis' role will be detrimental to Foster.

As it concerns the trial itself, people want to hope Ennis will be the linchpin. She won't be. If this goes to trial (and at this point it's probably 50/50), it's because the DDA believes the evidence (both physical and non-physical) is enough to establish Foster's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could be wrong, but I swear I read that she went back to the DA right after her initial report (not 48hrs) to recant and was pretty much told it's too late and the DA ran with it anyways. That alone rules out the remorse and emotional stuff that accumulates with time in my opinion