Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Pinetar on August 31, 2016, 08:29:48 PMGood deal. He seemed like a man of his word. Hopefully he will come through and pay up. PM the man JrebelGlad this thread is back up top! Right, wrong, or yet to be determined I did lose a bet on this thead. Figured I would have to go back and read 20 pages to figure out how to pay up. So without looking through 20 or 66 pages! Who did I make that bet with? Was it Jrebel or Pinetar? Send me a PM and we will take care of it. Sorry for being late on this, I did get banned for awhile. And as being on at 6:54 or whatever time last night, guess I was? All my computers as well as my phone are set for being logged on all the time?
Good deal. He seemed like a man of his word. Hopefully he will come through and pay up. PM the man Jrebel
Quote from: OutHouse on August 30, 2016, 03:05:26 PMThe prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney, or you would know not all calls in regional office's are recorded. Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.
The prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.
I'll go on a limb here and say cboom's contribution to the youth hunt may be the only real positive that comes out of this whole situation.
I'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW? If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath.
Quote from: Curly on September 01, 2016, 09:59:52 AMI'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW? If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath. If your buddy told you it was okay for you to go kill a ram right now, and you did, do you actually believe you should not be held accountable, but your buddy should be? Responsibility
Quote from: huntnphool on September 01, 2016, 10:04:05 AMQuote from: Curly on September 01, 2016, 09:59:52 AMI'm wondering if Reichert's companion will get up in court and testify under oath that he called and got permission from WDFW? If he did not get permission, but told TR that shooting was permitted by WDFW, it would be fitting for TR to get off but the companion to be found guilty. I don't know if that is a likely thing or not......... In any event, I hope a trial does happen and the whole story gets told under oath. If your buddy told you it was okay for you to go kill a ram right now, and you did, do you actually believe you should not be held accountable, but your buddy should be? ResponsibilityExactly. I think he should be found guilty. But in a jury trial anything can happen. They can get a sympathetic juror to take pity on the old disabled hunter that was led astray by his friend that supposedly got permission from wdfw. (I wouldn't buy the song and dance from the defense attorney, but I can possibly see some jurors buying it).
The other guy was a hunting guide, so a person would be reasonable to put a little more faith in his word than just any random person. Not only was he a guide, but he was a local to the area, and you would expect that he'd be fully aware that the GMU was not open to the hunting of branch antler bull elk. I could see why Reichert might believe him when he said it was all legal. I don't know if Reichert truly believed he wasn't violating the law, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that he might have put his trust in the "guide."On another note, I'm confused as to why he's being referred to as the "companion hunter." The only reason for that would be so the companion could shoot the bull for the "disabled" hunter. Of course there's no chance Reichert would let someone kill his trophy bull for him, so I don't get why they're claiming the guide was a companion hunter.
Quote from: cboom on September 01, 2016, 07:45:38 AMQuote from: OutHouse on August 30, 2016, 03:05:26 PMThe prosecutor's choice to charge the other guy is A) justified as we know he is a liar--all calls to the game department are recorded and his wasn't i.e. it didn't happen and B) he can still testify in the defense of his friend but the questions asked of him need to be tailored as to not open the door on cross examination to questions that incriminate him. Practically speaking, the companion hunter's attorney is going to tell him not to testify at all. Either way that's probably a good thing because that fake story about the call to the game department is going to be impeached when a representative from the department testifies that the calls are recorded, and this conversation never took place. I do defense work and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the attorney is hoping that someone on the jury is sympathetic to this old fool, and will not vote guilty. It's not a bad idea. If I were advising this fellow, I'd tell him there is plenty of evidence of guilt and you will likely be convicted, but maybe we can get someone on the jury who will feel sympathetic to you. Regardless of what happens, the old fart is a SMEAR on the reputation of all sportsmen.We know the other guy is a liar? Who are you to make that statement and then bring in everybody else with the word we? We know you are not very bright. You say you do defense work, I guess you claim that if you are a janitor or something in a attorneys office. Clearly you are not a defense attorney, or you would know not all calls in regional office's are recorded. Even Morgan Grant who the calls were made to doesn't deny they were made. Stick to cleaning the windows and let the big Kids do do the thinking.You don't know anything about me. If I am wrong about the recording I can accept that. For your info, I am an attorney, I do defense work, and it takes a pretty bright person to finish in the top third of their law school class. You sound like a jealous person--the first thing you did was deny what I am, pretty funny actually. When I used the word "we" I wasn't including whiny, butt-hurt sympathizers like yourself. Even if I was a janitor--how is that a bad thing? You have shown everyone that you have disdain for people who do such work. In so doing, you revealed to everyone that you're a snob. You have embarrassed yourself with such childish attacks.
