Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

mcvey · Feb 13, 2016

Turner72 said: ↑

No, you'll be fine. The Mann Act refers to transporting females.

There will be no problem for you and your boyfriend.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume my partner is male? My partner's name is Glynis ,she is from County Cork.

reznick · Feb 13, 2016

Klompton:

"I have a history degree, you can't argue with me!"

1 post later

"Look Adam, I'm not a lawyer, who cares about legal pity pat. It's irrelevant."

There is so much material on this bozo

reznick · Feb 13, 2016

Unforgiven said: ↑

When the phrases "Charles Manson (charges dropped)" and "semen viscosity" are being used in a thread, I just know we're starting to do some real good work around here. :good
Click to expand...

All you need to know is that Klompton deceives people into reducing boxing legends. He does it by deflating peoples passion through rhetoric aimed to confuse and complicate.

Case in point: He believes Johnson should've been imprisoned via the Mann Act, despite only 8 people being convicted of the charge in the last 100 years. And after Adam, a lawyer, former prosecutor, and chief researcher on Johnsons life presents facts of an obvious mistrial, Klompton continues to insist, because he has to maintain his ego, and opinion as an "expert."

He's dangerous. Because people believe he actually holds credibility. And he abuses it to stroke his ego. A sign of a desperate man who has nothing valuable in life, and whom only seeks to destroy good things.

dpw417 · Feb 13, 2016

Is this a Les Darcy thread in disguise? haha.

mcvey · Feb 14, 2016

dpw417 said: ↑

Is this a Les Darcy thread in disguise? haha.
Click to expand...

Who know where it will take us? Did anyone transport Darcy over a state line for immoral purposes?:hey

mcvey · Feb 14, 2016

reznick said: ↑

Are you a black heavyweight champion of the world?

No? You're in luck, because your chances of being convicted have been cut by 12.5%

Click to expand...

I'm not even the champion of my home, she throws a mean left hook!

mcvey · Feb 14, 2016

Boxed Ears said: ↑

My plonker is an okay size. In some East Asian countries. Certain types of workers have told me. Take that, everyone.
Click to expand...

You can get those vacuum things now B.E. take you up to 14 inches in a minute or so , the process is quite pleasurable too ,or so I'm told!

reznick · Feb 14, 2016

mcvey said: ↑

You can get those vacuum things now B.E. take you up to 14 inches in a minute or so , the process is quite pleasurable too ,or so I'm told!
Click to expand...

Watch your language, and have some respect. We have a history major among us

mcvey · Feb 14, 2016

reznick said: ↑

Watch your language, and have some respect. We have a history major among us
Click to expand...

More like a sergeant major!:yep
Tenshun!!

janitor · Feb 14, 2016

mcvey said: ↑

I'm not even the champion of my home, she throws a mean left hook!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to learn to block with the oven glove?

mcvey · Feb 14, 2016

janitor said: ↑

Perhaps you need to learn to block with the oven glove?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would do it,catch it in my palm instead of my chin!

Unforgiven · Feb 14, 2016

reznick said: ↑

All you need to know is that Klompton deceives people into reducing boxing legends. He does it by deflating peoples passion through rhetoric aimed to confuse and complicate.

Case in point: He believes Johnson should've been imprisoned via the Mann Act, despite only 8 people being convicted of the charge in the last 100 years. And after Adam, a lawyer, former prosecutor, and chief researcher on Johnsons life presents facts of an obvious mistrial, Klompton continues to insist, because he has to maintain his ego, and opinion as an "expert."

He's dangerous. Because people believe he actually holds credibility. And he abuses it to stroke his ego. A sign of a desperate man who has nothing valuable in life, and whom only seeks to destroy good things.
Click to expand...

He holds zero credibility with me. I've never rated him.

dpw417 · Feb 14, 2016

mcvey said: ↑

Who know where it will take us? Did anyone transport Darcy over a state line for immoral purposes?:hey
Click to expand...

Damn...haha! You make up that thread! I'm not going there!:rofl

WhyYouLittle · Feb 14, 2016

reznick said: ↑

All you need to know is that Klompton deceives people into reducing boxing legends. He does it by deflating peoples passion through rhetoric aimed to confuse and complicate.
Click to expand...

reznick said: ↑

He's dangerous. Because people believe he actually holds credibility. And he abuses it to stroke his ego. A sign of a desperate man who has nothing valuable in life, and whom only seeks to destroy good things.
Click to expand...

WIIIIITCH!

You a KCTV news anchor, by chance?

If not you should send your CV, the party seems in dire need for some good vid producers.

apollack said: ↑

Legal technicalities DO MATTER. Before a person is sent to jail, they should be convicted by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and be afforded a fair trial by an impartial jury. All too often in this country innocent men have been convicted by jurors who just go according to what they think happened rather than what the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt can emanate from lack of evidence as much as it can arise from the evidence itself. Constitutional rights matter.

Before I as a juror would want to convict Johnson, I would want to see the alleged telegram he sent. You don't just take Johnson's word? Well I don't just take the word of a prostitute regarding some telegram she claims Johnson sent two years in the past, especially when she destroyed the alleged telegram but kept every single bill of every single hotel she had stayed at and Johnson had paid for over the years. She kept all of that, but not the alleged telegram? She might have been telling the truth, but it wasn't proven by producing the telegram, the best evidence of what the telegram actually said.

No evidence was produced at his trial that he ran prostitutes, made money from them, or was involved in brothels in any way, except for the testimony of Belle Schreiber, something she claimed for the first time on the witness stand. Again, even the Court of Appeals ruled that there was insufficient evidence on the counts alleging that Johnson's purpose was to support her travel for the purpose of prostitution, calling the evidence of such charges "slight and dubious." It reversed his conviction on these counts.

I don't think Johnson ran prostitutes or brothels or made money in any way with them. I think he liked to have intercourse with prostitutes and make them his girlfriends.

The reason why it should be difficult to successfully prosecute someone for something they allegedly did two years ago is lack of proof as a result of lost time. The reason they chose to prosecute him not in 1910 or 1911 is that it wasn't until 1912 that Duryea committed suicide and then Johnson dated white Lucille Cameron over her mother's objections. It was only then that the government took an interest in what Johnson might have done back in 1910. The prosecuting attorney openly admitted that the reason Johnson was prosecuted was racial. And by then, the telegram, if one existed, was destroyed.

Then you have all-white all male grand juries indicting Johnson (including on counts for which there was little or no evidence), and an all-white all-male jury convicting him. The reason why no blacks were on juries or even in the jury pools back then has to do with systemic racism that left out blacks from being qualified to vote or be jurors. The reason no women were on juries is because systematic ***ism did not allow women to vote, and hence they could not be jurors. All of those laws have since been found to be unconstitutional.

You have the judge mentioning his race to the jury, and mentioning his race in the sentencing. The judge allows into evidence irrelevant and inflammatory material. You have the prosecution in its opening statement alleging debauchery and crimes against nature, but then producing zero proof of either, all of which even the court of appeals criticized as improper, saying that the inflammatory, extraneous, and irrelevant evidence and questions "show the atmosphere of prejudice that pervades the record." Yet, despite an "atmosphere of prejudice," Johnson wasn't given a retrial by a fair jury that was not tainted by the improper evidence. I personally feel that he was entitled to a retrial.

Much of the evidence against him, which was credible, was that in the year 1909, before the Mann Act was passed or went into effect, Johnson traveled the country with prostitutes he had met in brothels. He had gotten them out of the brothels, and traveled the country with them, paying all of their travel and hotel expenses. They lived very well. He usually called them his wife, and presented them as such. It was this evidence that led the court of appeals to uphold his conviction on the immorality counts. They believed that since Johnson had *** with Schreiber in the past, and had paid her way in the past, that any time he gave her money thereafter, his intent was to get her to travel so he could have *** with her.

However, the facts surrounding October 1910, after the Mann Act was passed, were different. The implication is that at some point in late 1909, Johnson and Schreiber had a falling out, most likely owing to the fact that she got pregnant, and most likely terminated the pregnancy over his objections. He wanted her to have the baby. So he didn't see her for many months. She was no longer his traveling companion. Plus, he got more and more serious with Etta Duryea.

Many months later, Schreiber reaches out to him after she had been kicked out of her Pittsburg brothel, something she admitted and was verified by the owners of the brothel, who testified at trial. It wasn't as if Johnson reached out to her; quite the contrary, even she admitted that she reached out to him, seeking money. This also was verified by the Pittsburg hotel proprietor who said she was looking for him, made calls trying to find him, and then subsequently returned and cashed the money gram. Schreiber testified she was in need, and felt he owed it to her to help her out. So she reached out. "I thought it was due for him to see me through my trouble."

There is also a question in my mind whether she actually cabled with Johnson as opposed to one of his workers. When she attempted to speak with Johnson via phone, she didn't speak with him, but rather his chauffeur, who told her that he would talk to Johnson and wire her the next day. I have a real question in my mind whether Johnson is the one who cabled her, and if so, what that cable said, if anything.

Interestingly enough, that same hotel proprietor testified that after she got the money, she did not say she was going to Chicago, but rather her sister was, and that she was going elsewhere. It seems that she subsequently changed her mind and decided to go to Chicago and reach out further to a man whom she knew/hoped/believed she could seduce into taking care of her, which he then did. To me, without the telegram, that amounts to reasonable doubt. At the very least, I think he was entitled to a new and fair trial.

But I don't force opinions down people's throats. I lay out the facts in my book and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. If anyone wants to read about the facts in greater detail, purchase In the Ring With Jack Johnson - Part II: the Reign.
Click to expand...

I'll just bump this post cause it's pretty darn good.

WhyYouLittle · Feb 14, 2016

mcvey said: ↑

Yeah, that would do it,catch it in my palm instead of my chin!
Click to expand...

Can I requote this forever for comic effect? Thanks a lot man. Really appreciate it.

Boxed Ears said: ↑

I've also been told that my semen viscosity is very considerable and even "stubborn." I'd compete with any man of any age on this forum in that category. Except frankenfrank. But you can hardly hold that against me, really.
Click to expand...

How do you measure this, BTW? Not that I'm worried or anything.

Log in or Sign up

Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Jack Johnson Will He Be Pardoned?

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member

WhyYouLittle Stand Still Full Member