Umm I dont think anybody forced the P into him.
I have 'lost' a good friend to drugs. She is not dead, but her mind is. And quite frankly (and being very non emotive and blunt) i would not be suprised if i hear in the news her body has stopped living, her brain died years ago with her body holding on with a drug.
So going by this theory Antonie Dixon died a long time ago, just now his body is in the same state as his mind.
Last edited by McDuck; 8th February 2009 at 21:27. Reason: Removed a quote that my responce was not really for, bugger youj Quasi ;)
I am not sorry for Dixon in any way shape or form and would like to see this become fashionable.
Looking forward to the next announcement.
I reckon these so called celebrity lawyers are a big part of the problem, with crime in New Zealand!
They are certainly not part of the solution! (IMHO)
With a bit of luck it might catch on among them too.John.
Any lawyers around?
The papers were saying that his wealth came from P dealing.
There were also reports that he had somewhere around $100K on term deposit about to mature (also from drugs) and that this money will be shared amongst his offspring (9 of them, or thereabouts)
What I want to know, is why the crown aren't looking to seize all these assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act? Does the Act not apply after death? I am presuming they didn't know about it while he was alive (which seems unlikely, but maybe) so they didn't try earlier.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Not at all. But there's a good argument that the law should be changed so that a defendant is required to match every dollar he (or she) spends on their defense with a dollar contributed towards the prosecution's costs (with the extra costs dropped should the defendant be found not guilty).
The greatest pleasure of my recent life has been speed on the road. . . . I lose detail at even moderate speed but gain comprehension. . . . I could write for hours on the lustfulness of moving swiftly.
--T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
Utterly unworkable, given that criminal defendants are impecunious. Its only a very rare case (John Barlow used some of his own money I think) where a criminal defendant has any means to pay at all. And the badass scumbags (your Antonie Dixons, Martin Bells etc) have never had a job, have no assets and would be better with abullet in the head. Hopefully a lot of the recidivist scum in prison will take heed of Dixon's shining example.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
OMG............where the fuck did you dream that up??.........the converse of your argument of course is prosecution paying defendant costs in entirety if/when the defendant is found not guilty and of course the prosecution matching payments while going through due process!?...fairs-fair!
But where does it end?...is their a partial payment back to the defendant if they are bagged for manslaughter and not murder [for instance]??
Crazy idea Forest!
That shows an utter lack of comprehension of the way that the legal system works, the place of a defence barrister and their role in the process. Interestingly some of the best lawyers in the country are criminal defence lawyers, and dont for a second think they're in it for the money. The real money in law in this country is at one of the big 4 firms, doing commercial, resource management or civil litigation.
Equating the lawyers with the actions of their clients is just wrong, and says more about the person doing it than the lawyers involved.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks