I mean I didn't want anyone hurt, I just wanted some crazy admiral flag shit or how the court can't impose an arraignment or something. This is just normal stuff, HAS LAW AND ORDER LIED TO ME!?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That fed courthouse is pretty intimidating overall (super sweet courtrooms). And the lawyers have a strong interest in trying to have their clients appear reasonable at least to some degree.
So supporters of the detainees showed up to sing... breakaway pop hits from teen movies?
...okay.
It wouldn't be the first time a pop song about how an unspecified "you" who is really important in various not explicitly sexual ways was appropriated.
Eh that vote was weirdly confusing, though. 61.15% of those who marked a preference said statehood, but 24% of people didn't mark anything at all. If I am doing the math correctly, that means 46.47% of voters desired statehood and presumably the 24% of people that didn't mark anything did not like any of the choices given (none of which was the status quo apparently). It was also a two part question, and it wasn't clear that people who voted for the status quo in the first question (46% of voters) should even select an answer to the second.
Whoever chose the wording for the choices did not do a good job of making it clear what each vote really meant (well the first one was pretty clear, it was the second part that I think causes problems). It does at least demonstrate that the voters in Puerto Rico are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, but I don't think majority support for statehood has yet been demonstrated (really close though, and it's possible that majority support does exist).
It's not 61% of 54%.
The point is that it gives a voice to people who want to stay a territory but if not, still have an opinion on which way they'd like it to go. If you only asked "Do you want to stay a territory" or "Do you want to become a state" people who have non-binary opinions (IE the vast majority of people) get no say.
Eh that vote was weirdly confusing, though. 61.15% of those who marked a preference said statehood, but 24% of people didn't mark anything at all. If I am doing the math correctly, that means 46.47% of voters desired statehood and presumably the 24% of people that didn't mark anything did not like any of the choices given (none of which was the status quo apparently). It was also a two part question, and it wasn't clear that people who voted for the status quo in the first question (46% of voters) should even select an answer to the second.
Whoever chose the wording for the choices did not do a good job of making it clear what each vote really meant (well the first one was pretty clear, it was the second part that I think causes problems). It does at least demonstrate that the voters in Puerto Rico are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, but I don't think majority support for statehood has yet been demonstrated (really close though, and it's possible that majority support does exist).
It's not 61% of 54%.
The point is that it gives a voice to people who want to stay a territory but if not, still have an opinion on which way they'd like it to go. If you only asked "Do you want to stay a territory" or "Do you want to become a state" people who have non-binary opinions (IE the vast majority of people) get no say.
No it's not 61% of 54%, it's 61% of 76%. Presumably the 24% of the people that did not select one of the choices did not like any of the choices that were presented, or alternatively did not fully understand the way the questions were worded. The status quo was not an option in the second question, so what are people that support the status quo supposed to do? Well one option is to select none of the choices that were given, as none of them represent what you want. That seems like the most reasonable explanation to me, though I am open to hearing other potential explanations.
I do not know the exact wording of the two questions, though the first one was pretty clear. 54% of the voters said they wanted a change from the status quo, which is clearly a majority. Of the 76% of voters that responded to the second question, 61% said they wanted statehood. However, of people that filled out a ballot, roughly 46.5% said they wanted statehood, while the rest chose a different option or no option at all. This is not clearly a majority, though it is very close and I would not be shocked if the majority of people in Puerto Rico right now were in favor of statehood. I just don't think that vote demonstrates that a majority of Puerto Rican voters desire statehood over all the other options. A very strong plurality, for sure, but not yet a majority.
Really what needs to happen is to have one very simple question on the ballot. "Do you want Puerto Rico to be a state?" And really they have demonstrated, with the most recent vote, that a majority want the status of Puerto Rico to change. A plurality support being a state, and maybe that is enough. I certainly have no problem with Puerto Rico being a state, I'm just not sure whether a plurality is enough, or if it should require a clear majority.
Eh that vote was weirdly confusing, though. 61.15% of those who marked a preference said statehood, but 24% of people didn't mark anything at all. If I am doing the math correctly, that means 46.47% of voters desired statehood and presumably the 24% of people that didn't mark anything did not like any of the choices given (none of which was the status quo apparently). It was also a two part question, and it wasn't clear that people who voted for the status quo in the first question (46% of voters) should even select an answer to the second.
Whoever chose the wording for the choices did not do a good job of making it clear what each vote really meant (well the first one was pretty clear, it was the second part that I think causes problems). It does at least demonstrate that the voters in Puerto Rico are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, but I don't think majority support for statehood has yet been demonstrated (really close though, and it's possible that majority support does exist).
It's not 61% of 54%.
The point is that it gives a voice to people who want to stay a territory but if not, still have an opinion on which way they'd like it to go. If you only asked "Do you want to stay a territory" or "Do you want to become a state" people who have non-binary opinions (IE the vast majority of people) get no say.
No it's not 61% of 54%, it's 61% of 76%. Presumably the 24% of the people that did not select one of the choices did not like any of the choices that were presented, or alternatively did not fully understand the way the questions were worded. The status quo was not an option in the second question, so what are people that support the status quo supposed to do? Well one option is to select none of the choices that were given, as none of them represent what you want. That seems like the most reasonable explanation to me, though I am open to hearing other potential explanations.
I do not know the exact wording of the two questions, though the first one was pretty clear. 54% of the voters said they wanted a change from the status quo, which is clearly a majority. Of the 76% of voters that responded to the second question, 61% said they wanted statehood. However, of people that filled out a ballot, roughly 46.5% said they wanted statehood, while the rest chose a different option or no option at all. This is not clearly a majority, though it is very close and I would not be shocked if the majority of people in Puerto Rico right now were in favor of statehood. I just don't think that vote demonstrates that a majority of Puerto Rican voters desire statehood over all the other options. A very strong plurality, for sure, but not yet a majority.
Really what needs to happen is to have one very simple question on the ballot. "Do you want Puerto Rico to be a state?" And really they have demonstrated, with the most recent vote, that a majority want the status of Puerto Rico to change. A plurality support being a state, and maybe that is enough. I certainly have no problem with Puerto Rico being a state, I'm just not sure whether a plurality is enough, or if it should require a clear majority.
As I pointed out above, posing it as a binary question inevitably alienates a portion of the voters. Mainly because it isn't a binary question to begin with.
The eldest boy has that classic look of being forced to be here and would literally rather be anywhere else right now.
I think the younger boy has the same look, while the girls seem to be dealing surprisingly well with Mom using all of her kids as her backup singers while she belts out the song.
I don't know what movie it was, but I remember an old black and white movie where a lawyer represented himself on a murder charge that had an exchange that went something like this.
Judge: "I'm obliged to remind you that any man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Defendent: "Thank you, your honour, but it's better than having a fool for a lawyer."
I don't know what movie it was, but I remember an old black and white movie where a lawyer represented himself on a murder charge that had an exchange that went something like this.
Judge: "I'm obliged to remind you that any man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Defendent: "Thank you, your honour, but it's better than having a fool for a lawyer."
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Unless they get straight-up jury nullification, though, i don't see how it can help. Juries don't get sentencing leeway in federal cases, do they?
I could see a few charges go not-guilty, maybe, in some odd edge-cases, but in terms of providing proof that the things the prosecution say happened actually happened, this is beyond open and shut case. This was the burglars live-streaming their home invasion on twitch, almost literally.
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
I don't think they will get many rural jurors on the case. They aren't being tried in eastern oregon.
Also pretty much all defendants plead not guilty at the beginning of the case.
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
I don't think they will get many rural jurors on the case. They aren't being tried in eastern oregon.
Also pretty much all defendants plead not guilty at the beginning of the case.
Correct me if I am wrong but it is easy to switch, and it's not until after discovery and pre trial motions happen you can get a sense of how fucked the defendent will be. Natural disclaimer that the local court here might not operate the same way so I don't know what exactly is typical in terms of pre trial court appearances. I would expect the shenanigans to start with the pre-trial motions that are complete non-sense outside of the sovereign citizen movement.
0
Options
RobonunIt's all fun and games until someone pisses off ChinaRegistered Userregular
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
I don't think they will get many rural jurors on the case. They aren't being tried in eastern oregon.
Also pretty much all defendants plead not guilty at the beginning of the case.
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
I don't think they will get many rural jurors on the case. They aren't being tried in eastern oregon.
Also pretty much all defendants plead not guilty at the beginning of the case.
Correct me if I am wrong but it is easy to switch, and it's not until after discovery and pre trial motions happen you can get a sense of how fucked the defendent will be. Natural disclaimer that the local court here might not operate the same way so I don't know what exactly is typical in terms of pre trial court appearances. I would expect the shenanigans to start with the pre-trial motions that are complete non-sense outside of the sovereign citizen movement.
It's not that easy to switch. They are in federal court not local court.
I agree there are going to be a lot of crazy motions filed before trial.
I can't even imagine what justification they could try and allege to get a "rural" jury. That whole jury of your peers thing is not an actual thing, as the Monarch pointed out.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There will still be chances for drama and crazy things said. These were just the arraignments after all.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
The same Rurals that desperatley wanted them to fuck off?
A local court might give a lawyer a tiny amount of leeway if the lawyer makes a jury nullification argument to the jury. Like one warning before holding the attorney in contempt.
I don't see a federal court giving even that. Federal court is the big leagues and that bush league stuff doesn't fly.
I could see a scenario where the locals are mad at the group, but in which juries are sympathetic to individuals. There's a slight difference in the guys coming in from out of town and taking over and shitting all over the place and Mr. John Smith, father of three, devout Christian, who believes in the Constitution and America and the right to free speech. It's almost always easier to hate a group than a person in my opinion, and a jury could easily think "Well, he's one of the good ones" or "Well, he was just misguided" and be lenient - potentially even while wondering why the other juries were lenient.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
That fed courthouse is pretty intimidating overall (super sweet courtrooms). And the lawyers have a strong interest in trying to have their clients appear reasonable at least to some degree.
That rarely stops sovereign citizen folks from being total ape shit in court.
Aside from the general whininess that we would have expected ("If we're innocent until proven guilty, why are we shackled?") the most interesting thing is that the FBI is trying to stall for more time to go over the shitload of evidence they have while the judge is wanting to get this show on the road.
Which is a fair concern, since some of these guys have been in jail for weeks already and as such their right to a swift trial is being denied to them.
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
How often does that factor of the 6th amendment really come into play? Like a prosecutor made an arrest on one charge before other charges were ready and the judge banned them from bringing the separate charges in the same trial, or they get arrested and it takes too long to put together the case against them, so they get let off because of a 6th amendment violation.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Part of me thinks that given the nature of the crime, doing absolutely nothing to speed up the process and including all possible relevant, legal delays is appropriate to these folks.
I'd love the prosecution to file every possible motion and requests possible in the book to drag this thing on. It would be karmic.
Apply this also to any other Sovereign Citizen case.
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
It shouldn't be. If you can't nail them don't arrest them. The relative part is entirely a matter of prosecutors gaming the system (which is how Bowder got jailed for three years without a trial)
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
It shouldn't be. If you can't nail them don't arrest them. The relative part is entirely a matter of prosecutors gaming the system (which is how Bowder got jailed for three years without a trial)
Swift Trial is a relative term. Like some people wait a long time before they see the inside of a courtroom. Its why some plea deals have "time served" since they've been in jail/prison for a while.
It shouldn't be. If you can't nail them don't arrest them. The relative part is entirely a matter of prosecutors gaming the system
Not really, no. Again, in this particular case, how are you supposed to start cataloguing and organzing evidence until you had control of the refuge? Does Amon get a free pass because Kylo Dim held out the longest?
What if they bring their most secure charges now and prepare the rest while the defendants are serving their time
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
Aren't you obliged to hold their hand through the proceedings or something?
Not sure if that's a misremembered real thing or a TV show.
The eldest boy has that classic look of being forced to be here and would literally rather be anywhere else right now.
The women are all wearing cowboy boots. I'm guessing it's some kind of thing.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's not 61% of 54%.
The point is that it gives a voice to people who want to stay a territory but if not, still have an opinion on which way they'd like it to go. If you only asked "Do you want to stay a territory" or "Do you want to become a state" people who have non-binary opinions (IE the vast majority of people) get no say.
No it's not 61% of 54%, it's 61% of 76%. Presumably the 24% of the people that did not select one of the choices did not like any of the choices that were presented, or alternatively did not fully understand the way the questions were worded. The status quo was not an option in the second question, so what are people that support the status quo supposed to do? Well one option is to select none of the choices that were given, as none of them represent what you want. That seems like the most reasonable explanation to me, though I am open to hearing other potential explanations.
I do not know the exact wording of the two questions, though the first one was pretty clear. 54% of the voters said they wanted a change from the status quo, which is clearly a majority. Of the 76% of voters that responded to the second question, 61% said they wanted statehood. However, of people that filled out a ballot, roughly 46.5% said they wanted statehood, while the rest chose a different option or no option at all. This is not clearly a majority, though it is very close and I would not be shocked if the majority of people in Puerto Rico right now were in favor of statehood. I just don't think that vote demonstrates that a majority of Puerto Rican voters desire statehood over all the other options. A very strong plurality, for sure, but not yet a majority.
Really what needs to happen is to have one very simple question on the ballot. "Do you want Puerto Rico to be a state?" And really they have demonstrated, with the most recent vote, that a majority want the status of Puerto Rico to change. A plurality support being a state, and maybe that is enough. I certainly have no problem with Puerto Rico being a state, I'm just not sure whether a plurality is enough, or if it should require a clear majority.
As I pointed out above, posing it as a binary question inevitably alienates a portion of the voters. Mainly because it isn't a binary question to begin with.
I think the younger boy has the same look, while the girls seem to be dealing surprisingly well with Mom using all of her kids as her backup singers while she belts out the song.
I thought it was "fool" myself.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Judge: "I'm obliged to remind you that any man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Defendent: "Thank you, your honour, but it's better than having a fool for a lawyer."
Sounds like a Marx Brothers line.
Before there's thunder, there's arraign.
They all entered 'not guilty' pleas. Madness is sure to follow when they try and argue that one.
Actually from a strategic standpoint that's not a bad idea. A jury from rural Oregon would likely be more sympathetic to them than the prosecution is right now. Of course, only the sane lawyers are actually taking that into account right now.
I could see a few charges go not-guilty, maybe, in some odd edge-cases, but in terms of providing proof that the things the prosecution say happened actually happened, this is beyond open and shut case. This was the burglars live-streaming their home invasion on twitch, almost literally.
I don't think they will get many rural jurors on the case. They aren't being tried in eastern oregon.
Also pretty much all defendants plead not guilty at the beginning of the case.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Correct me if I am wrong but it is easy to switch, and it's not until after discovery and pre trial motions happen you can get a sense of how fucked the defendent will be. Natural disclaimer that the local court here might not operate the same way so I don't know what exactly is typical in terms of pre trial court appearances. I would expect the shenanigans to start with the pre-trial motions that are complete non-sense outside of the sovereign citizen movement.
And nolo contendere is Latin for "Who do I make the check out to?"
*vibrates*
did you do this purpose
I will never forget you, rural juror
NNID: Hakkekage
It's not that easy to switch. They are in federal court not local court.
I agree there are going to be a lot of crazy motions filed before trial.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The same Rurals that desperatley wanted them to fuck off?
I don't see a federal court giving even that. Federal court is the big leagues and that bush league stuff doesn't fly.
That rarely stops sovereign citizen folks from being total ape shit in court.
Aside from the general whininess that we would have expected ("If we're innocent until proven guilty, why are we shackled?") the most interesting thing is that the FBI is trying to stall for more time to go over the shitload of evidence they have while the judge is wanting to get this show on the road.
Which is a fair concern, since some of these guys have been in jail for weeks already and as such their right to a swift trial is being denied to them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If Kalief Browder can sit in Rikers for 3 years without a trial after he was arreted for stealing a backpack, then these assholes can wait an extra week or two.
The FBI was actually aiming for a 2017 trial date.
I'd love the prosecution to file every possible motion and requests possible in the book to drag this thing on. It would be karmic.
Apply this also to any other Sovereign Citizen case.
It shouldn't be. If you can't nail them don't arrest them. The relative part is entirely a matter of prosecutors gaming the system (which is how Bowder got jailed for three years without a trial)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.