XKV8R

i read golb's motion to suppress evidence seized by the nypd from raphael golb's apartment.

question: why does golb want to suppress evidence??

lol. actually, you must read this motion. if you have kids, and you've ever watched a child attempt to squirm and explain his way out of trouble, this reminds me of that.

it's absolutely hilarious. the tragic thing is, this has actually been submitted as a motion to dismiss.

it's a tragic comedy.

XKV8R

questions:

why has fitter taken such an interest in the golb case on this particular discussion space?

fitter's comments above have been redacted. why?

also, it appears that golb is attempting to spell out examples of all the ways scholars have criticized his father in a motion to suppress evidence. why? is he attempting to argue that since they criticized daddy, i criticized them back??

is raphael golb then going to show us examples of how other scholars impersonated norman golb? how others wrote to norman's grad students pretending to be norman? how they used aliases to set up email accounts to write golb's colleagues and deans complaining about things golb has said and done??? is that the line of defense he is using??

lol.

it boggles the mind..... (and i shake my head).

enjoy.

bc

Toto

It's a legal tactic. If the evidence is suppressed, the case would have to be dismissed. Lawyers generally move to suppress evidence as a routine matter, either because they think it should be dismissed, or just as a way of feeling out the prosecution's case.

XKV8R

understood. my point is: i wonder what evidence he is trying to suppress?

i wonder what is on those computers and in those emails that would warrant attempting to suppress the collection of evidence??

• is evidence that norman golb knew what raphael was doing?
• is evidence that norman golb would review or even write some of the things raphael was saying and posting?
• is evidence that norman golb and raphael acted together?
• and if that evidence comes out in a trial, i wonder what, if anything, the university of chicago will do to norman golb? will they open an investigation if he broke he law? will they open an ethics investigation if he acted unprofessionally or unethically??
• or, is there merely evidence that raphael golb acted alone and sent the emails?

i guess i'm just speculating: what are they trying to suppress??

Toto

Speculating can get you into trouble.

If they had that sort of evidence against Norman Golb, they could have charged him with conspiracy. They haven't.

XKV8R

speculating can lead trouble, but impersonation, forgery, aggravated harassment, and identity theft will definitely get one into trouble.

and who is saying that the ny da's office doesn't have this evidence, and isn't holding onto it as an incentive to get raffa to plead out? i'm no lawyer, but if i'm the da's office, and i am limiting my case narrowly to only the impersonation, forgery, aggravated harassment, and identity theft case (and not to the defamation, libel, and harassment cases that are rightly left for the civil courts), then maybe, if i have evidence that shows that norman golb was knee deep in this whole mess, i hold on to it until such a time as the criminal case is completed. and, if said evidence happens to come out during the course of the criminal trial.... well, let's just say it makes the evidence in any potential civil case against the golbs and their employers and facilitators at the end of the criminal process a little more convincing. no??

but that's mere speculation, right? there's no real evidence that norman golb knew what his son was doing, right? there's no real evidence that norman golb participated in this mess, right??

XKV8R

i'll be out for a while. sorry, but i've had to deal with this mess for much longer than i wanted. i have more important things to do. i'll let the da's office do their thing.

let me know if anything noteworthy happens.

peace. - bc

manwithdream

I didn't read every email on Dr. Cargill's site, but I saw one that mentioned Dr. Cargill that sounded like Golb was calling him anti-semitic. It did not really say Dr. Cargill was anti-semitic based on anything except being a religious Christian. It was more of a general accusation against religious Christians than Dr. Cargill specifically, but I don't know what other emails said.

Kenneth Greifer

fitter

Hi Toto - I haven't been on this site for a few days, but I see you took out some of my quotations from those legal papers.

So I wanted to thank you for taking out my quotations. But I don't really see why they can get me in trouble. Are you saying that the authorities could sue me? I respect your position as moderator of this discussion, but I think I should have the right to quote any passages that I disagree with in any writings.

For example, in these legal papers, they say that this Cargill person got a "degree in Christian ministry" from Pepperdine, and then they say his professor William Schniedewind has been "associated" with the University of the Holy Land which, they say, has a Christian staff, and then they say that the same Cargill person, on p. 45 of his dissertation, refers

and they suggest that this is

Well, I disagree with this, and I should have the right to quote it so I can explain why I think it's wrong. It reminds me of a bunch of articles I remember seeing about a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, which said that the expression "true Israel" was anti-Semitic, and that the exhibit was put together by all kinds of Christian people and the "Jewish perspective" was excluded.

I think this is wrong. How much of the population is Jewish -- 3 percent? If so, why should there be more than 3 percent Jews in a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit? This just shows a disrespect for Christians. Why should a Christian university have Jews on its staff? Why is the expression "true Israel" anti-Semitic? Every Christian has a right to his belief about who is the true Israel. Why is it anti-Semitic to explain that the "Jewish Revolt" was a political uprising? Maybe if you are an Israeli you will want to call it a "Jewish Revolt," but if you are working for reconciliation between Jews and Christians (and Muslims too although I don't agree with the terrorists) then maybe you should avoid loaded terminology like "Jewish Revolt."

So again, I disagree with this approach and I think a message should be sent that these kind of statements are outrageous, possibly illegal and will not be tolerated in a country where we learn to respect all religions and races, and where Christians are just as free to criticize Jews as Jews to criticize Christians.

Toto

Discussion of moderation issues is off topic here. It wasn't clear that you were disagreeing with the quotations, and if so, it is not clear why you would want to give these quotes more publicity (this forum is accessable through various search engines.) You may PM me for more details or post in the complaints forum.

With all due respect, your reasons are not coherent.