4 ms·
So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.
by frandroid 6y ago
So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just never testify to it.
- frandroid 6y agoIt's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.
- JoeSmithson 6y agoI have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 6y agoI don't have experience of extortion, either, but I'm plenty qualified to object. Your position seems to be that there are legitimate reasons it was introduced. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that the process doesn't involve lying in court to deprive people of their rights. You say "conceal a source" but that is precisely depriving the accused of their explicit constitutional right to be "confronted with the witnesses against them". (I will note that I've definitely been speaking with a US focus - not all of my comments will generalize.)
- kls 6y agoExactly there are established legal proceedings to protect sensitive information be it a source that could be endangered, classified information or a method employed, the judge can seal that information, but it has historically been the judges call and that should not be taken out of the courts hands by law enforcement.