Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:44 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Rehak and Naylon... 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:55 pm 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 90
Location: Mound, MN
Mr. Unger,

"Temporary Theft." They did infact have to somehow store and move the evidence (money) from the hotel location to the station did they not? If they stopped for a burger on the way is it temporary theft of the evidence? Temporary theft of a government vehicle? Temporary kidnapping of his partner (whomever was driving). Also, Rehak left before the others and he did not have the money in his possession when he left the hotel.

Your explination as to the lack of audio is incorrect. Again, there was audio on the vehicle search video. This is not a wiretapping issue. This is surveilance conducted by the FBI. This is law enforcement investigating other law enforcement in a public location. They (FBI, Local LE) "wire" people all the time.

I wont go into details as to what Rehak said when we were talking as I believe that would be unethical. I am merely stating what I "read" while talking to him and my opinion based on the evidence given.

I am not his lawyer, family or close personal friend. I just happen to believe him.

_________________
--JD Christian (Mr. 609.72)
<b>"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."</b> -Thomas Paine
Proud to be one of the 499 permit holders added in October


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:12 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
There are SIGNIFICANT legal differences between "wiring" people, houses/rooms, and cars. I'm not going to try to explain them because they really don't matter here. You can bet that if the FBI is spying on the local PD they probably have a warrant and they're going to do it by the book so they can get it in front of the jury at trial.

Someone told me a lawyer should always speak with the assumption that the client has a tape recorder in their pocket. As soon as you say something really stupid or illegal there actually will be a tape recorder there and a judge/jury will get to hear it. The same advice would apply to cops and their actions -- you never know where the video camera will be hiding.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:22 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
A big issue would have been intent and since the jury cannot peer into the hearts of the defendants, intent must be inferred from the circumstance. Apparently, the jury decided that he intended to commit the crimes so he was convicted.

I can't remember if I mentioned this earlier but I really wonder if they made statements to police before getting lawyers. I have a feeling that the "practical joke" theory was something that the defense attorneys were stuck with as a result of recorded statements to the police.

It appears from your comments, Mr. Christian, that Mr. Rehak claimed that he was set-up or snowballed or whatever you want to call it.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:34 pm 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 90
Location: Mound, MN
Jeff,

I do believe that there is more going on than just investigating cops.

Just remember, this man has a life too. A wife, kids, etc. Why so quick to judge? Jury convicted him so he is guilty. A Jury found O.J. innocent of murder, so he must be?

I don't believe Rehak is innocent just because he told me he didn't do it or whatever. Either way, of course that's what a person would say! Again, my opinion of him being innocent is purely based on what I saw, read, etc.

_________________
--JD Christian (Mr. 609.72)
<b>"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."</b> -Thomas Paine
Proud to be one of the 499 permit holders added in October


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck. quacks like a duck, and a jury of his peers convicted him of duckitude.

Sir William of Occam and I say that he did it. :)

Oh, and this?

Quote:
Why so quick to judge?


Uh, "quick"? These guys did the deed in 2004.

Quote:
Jury convicted him so he is guilty.

Yeah, that's basically how it works. He was accused of a crime, had competent representation and was found guilty, beyond a reasonable, by unanimous decision of what, nine jurors?

Quote:
A Jury found O.J. innocent of murder, so he must be?


Are you serious? That is hardly a parallel. The jury didn't "find him innocent," but rather, found him not to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Our jury system is skewed massively in favor of defendants, as it should be. It is based on the theory that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to falsely imprison one. To be found guilty, the whole jury must agree that the defendant was guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt."

That's the standard that the Rehak jury reached, after days and days of testimony and evidence.

But one of the convicts said, "I didn't do it!"

That song is sung nightly in many a prison. I ain't dancing.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:13 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
JD Christian wrote:
Mr. Unger,

"Temporary Theft." They did infact have to somehow store and move the evidence (money) from the hotel location to the station did they not? If they stopped for a burger on the way is it temporary theft of the evidence? Temporary theft of a government vehicle? Temporary kidnapping of his partner (whomever was driving). Also, Rehak left before the others and he did not have the money in his possession when he left the hotel.

Your explination as to the lack of audio is incorrect. Again, there was audio on the vehicle search video. This is not a wiretapping issue. This is surveilance conducted by the FBI. This is law enforcement investigating other law enforcement in a public location. They (FBI, Local LE) "wire" people all the time.

I wont go into details as to what Rehak said when we were talking as I believe that would be unethical. I am merely stating what I "read" while talking to him and my opinion based on the evidence given.

I am not his lawyer, family or close personal friend. I just happen to believe him.


You said you were not an expert, his lawyer, family or personal friend. So, you should be an objective person.

I do know some things about the procedure police typically use because I am a lawyer who has defended a few folks, both the guilty and the innoncent. I try to be objective too. I'd rather believe Rehak is innocent, like you said, he has a family, and I like innocent people. I'd like to think this is just all a big mistake.


Now, most officers would not just get a tip and break into a motel. They'd get a warrant and have other officers back them up. They'd then do an extensive search of the room, take lots of pictures, and have the room under survelliance to see who came back for the money. They usually don't keep evidence outside the evidence room because defense attorneys would have a field day with that. (Chain of custody) They have to account for the location of evidence (money) from the time of seizure to the trail of the case. This too, is real basic. Ask any lawyer.

The "legal procedure" Rehak used is not what an officer who expected to bring charges against somebody would use. It's just like what a thief would do, however. (Keep the money, and not tell other police.)

On the other hand, the legal procedure used by the FBI seems to be right out of the book, just plain old everyday stuff they do all the time.

The FBI can't by law get a warrant for audio without specific evidence, and if they had a warrant it would be a matter of record. So, the objection that they didn't supply an audio doesn't help his case in my mind.

I can appreciate that you believe Mr. Rehak. Is there any reason not to believe the FBI agents who were witnesses against him? (Other than the fact they they did not supply illegal audio?) How many mistakes or lies would there have to be for Mr. Rehak to be correct here? Would all of the people involved in the prosecution have an incentive to lie, or be likely to all make the same mistakes?



Mr. Rehak may be innocent, but his general explaination lacks detail. It's the details that can be tested against other facts to determine truthfullness. Which is probably what influenced the jury.

You said giving "details" would be "unethical". Why? The details could win the case for Mr. Rehak. Unless the "details" don't add up. Keep us posted.


Last edited by Dick Unger on Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:25 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Note: Rehak, not Rybak. Easy substitution when typing, and once your fingers wander, easy to just type as you think. Like having the the ina sentence, eventually you don't see it.

If you could take a moment and check your recent posts in this thread and edit them, it may help people searching this forum in the future.

Thanks,
Paul

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:40 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 90
Location: Mound, MN
Andrew – Love the Occam’s Razor referrance :!: ! My comparison between O.J. and Rehak was only to state that juries can in fact “get it wrong.” As none of us were in the courtroom, it’s tough to fully say what when on in there.

Mr. Unger (May I call you Felix? :wink: ) – I am an objective person. Out of those that so far have commented in here, I’m the only one that has read the stories and met Mr. Rehak (You keep saying Rybak, he’s the mayor of Minneapolis. I don’t think he’s a suspect here.) I get chain of custody, I am by no means an expert, I admit that. Could they be guilty of screwing around? Sure. Does it make it criminal? I don't think so. Guilty of poor judgment perhaps. If I were a cop for 20+ years I would probably try and have a sense of humor too as to keep from going crazy in such a high stress job.

There’s so much to cover here. I just have a hard time accepting the media’s twist of absolute guilt. I will stand by my opinion of his innocence.

Why the blind faith in the FBI? Remember, these are the same guys in charge of NICS!

_________________
--JD Christian (Mr. 609.72)
<b>"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."</b> -Thomas Paine
Proud to be one of the 499 permit holders added in October


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:50 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
If this were the only information about Rehak, your absolute faith in the convicted person's assertion of innocence might make sense. Have guilty men gone free? Yep. Have innocent men been found Guilty? Yep.

Eventually, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck often enough, people assume it's a duck. This is not the first questionable event in Rehak's life. His whole "not an officer but doing the job" status is a little fishy. Add using Rehak as a "Reliable informant" to get a warrant which he could not seek himself smells to high heaven. I think they've been gaming his status and circumventing controls on warrants and investigations for a LONG time.

though I think you're wrong, I appreciate you're efforts to disagree while not being disagreeable. EVERY movement or group needs second guessing and questioning, even if only to make people re-evaluate where they stand and what underpins it.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:55 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Western Hennepin County
Ok. Mr. Rehak has a family. So do the majority of the hundreds and hundreds of clients I represent every year in the criminal justice system. There is only so much I can do for the families, especially because of the choices made by my clients.

I disagree that I am quick to judge. My judgment of Mr. Rehak is limited to viewing the video online once, reading the articles in the papers (mostly with a prosecution slant), and discussing the case with colleagues. I saw that he was convicted by the jury so that's the end of the case (unless there is an appeal). I wasn't there so I'm just going to take the jury's word for it. They saw and heard a lot more of the evidence than I was able to.

As Andrew said, O.J. was found not guilty and I believe that was the correct verdict. The prosecution's, the police's, and the crime lab's repeated screw-ups lost them that case. The system worked.

I respect your opinion that he should have been found not guilty.

I'm going to stick with the fact that he was convicted.


JD Christian wrote:
Jeff,

I do believe that there is more going on than just investigating cops.

Just remember, this man has a life too. A wife, kids, etc. Why so quick to judge? Jury convicted him so he is guilty. A Jury found O.J. innocent of murder, so he must be?

I don't believe Rehak is innocent just because he told me he didn't do it or whatever. Either way, of course that's what a person would say! Again, my opinion of him being innocent is purely based on what I saw, read, etc.

_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:58 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 90
Location: Mound, MN
Indeed. As stated, it is just my opinion and I'm standing by it.

"Innocent until proven guilty." I believe in that wholeheartedly. In my mind, it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

He was a decorated St. Paul police officer. He stood up for his son (I'm wishy washy on that bit of "evidence" too). People make mistakes. Mr. Rehak, whether you believe him or not, nothing resulted in injury to anybody or anything remotely close to that. So again I ask you, what crime was commited here?

EDIT: Jeff - I respect your standpoint as it makes sense with the information given. I'm still going to stick with innocent. :wink: The system "works" but not all the time. I do indeed hope there will be an appeal. I would love to see Rehak vindicated.

_________________
--JD Christian (Mr. 609.72)
<b>"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."</b> -Thomas Paine
Proud to be one of the 499 permit holders added in October


Last edited by JD Christian on Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:16 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
JD Christian wrote:
"Innocent until proven guilty." I believe in that wholeheartedly. In my mind, it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction. [...] nothing resulted in injury to anybody or anything remotely close to that. So again I ask you, what crime was committed here?


Well, I would say playing fast and loose with evidence and the investigative process is an injury to all of us. We have standards and rules for a reason. They are there to protect the populace from the people we have empowered to work on our behalf to prosecute the guilty. The problem is ... What happens when they play fast and loose and the subject of their investigation isn't guilty? IF they're willing to steal Money to play a joke, what other rules will they bend to "get" the guy they "know" is guilty?

The bigger and stronger the guard dog you have, the stronger the leash and the more attention you need to pay to keeping it under control.

What crime? Theft. Misappropriation of evidence. Perjury? Not that they've been convicted of but their story stinks.

Based upon talking to the suspect, who a jury of 12 of his peers has unanimously convicted beyond a reasonable doubt after testimony and evidence which none of us has seen in full, you have not been convinced... I'm sue there are one or two people who think OJ was innocent too. Interesting to see the further escapades of OJ in light of past verdicts, right? Perhaps Rehak just hadn't been caught yet?

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:18 am 
Journeyman Member

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 90
Location: Mound, MN
Perhaps I have been "dooped", but I don't think so.

I would rather see the Blaine cops that broke my foot go to jail and pay me a lot of money for the chronic pain I'm now in. THAT is a crime!

Anybody know the statute of limitations on a civil case? (I will be posting this in the correct thread.)

_________________
--JD Christian (Mr. 609.72)
<b>"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."</b> -Thomas Paine
Proud to be one of the 499 permit holders added in October


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:07 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
Jeff wrote:
As Andrew said, O.J. was found not guilty and I believe that was the correct verdict. The prosecution's, the police's, and the crime lab's repeated screw-ups lost them that case. The system worked.


Yes, the ADA's just could not make their case come together.
God knows whether he is innocent (we never do) but the NG verdict is certainly within the range of reasonable decisions considering the evidence p-r-e-s-e-n-t-e-d at the trial.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:36 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
JD Christian wrote:
Indeed. As stated, it is just my opinion and I'm standing by it.

"Innocent until proven guilty." I believe in that wholeheartedly. In my mind, it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.
Sure. But he was proven guilty, to the satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a jury. Friends -- and enemies -- of the accused don't get on juries. You've every right to think that they didn't do anything all that wrong, and to say so in most public places; you certainly have the privilege to argue it here. But the legal standard isn't enough proof of guilt to convince a friend of the guy.
Quote:

He was a decorated St. Paul police officer. He stood up for his son (I'm wishy washy on that bit of evidence). People make mistakes. Mr. Rehak, whether you believe him or not, nothing resulted in injury to anybody or anything remotely close to that. So again I ask you, what crime was commited here?

Oh, that's easy: stealing money. Giving it back doesn't make it not stealing. And do note that they tried to hide that they gave it back; what they told their supervisor is that they'd gone back to the hotel room and "found" it, not that one of them had handed it to the other, who snuck it into his jacket while the supervisor was searching the bathroom.

If the jury had believed the "it was a joke" defense, they wouldn't -- or, at least, shouldn't -- have convicted them. They didn't believe it; they did convict both of them.

As to whether or not anybody involved really believed the defense, you might or might not think that Naylon's lawyer had a Freudian slip: "There is only one verdict you can return,” he boomed at the jury, "and that is guilty."

The judge suggested that he correct himself -- the defense lawyer is supposed to argue for a not guilty verdict -- and he did.

It might be worth thinking about why Rehak and Naylon got targeted in the first place, and why when they were, pay dirt was so easy for the Feds to strike. It certainly wasn't their lack of political connections that got them in the crosshairs; both were known to be very, very thick with Fletcher.

Me, I'm curious as to when the sentencing will be, and what songs -- if any -- will be sung prior to it.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group