PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Nomad is a constitutional scholar......BP told him so......
A federal judge’s gag order against Trump may be satisfying. But it isn’t constituti
- Thread starter ExpressLane
- Start date
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
B.
F.
D.
He's a Constitutional Law expert.
President of Harvard Law Review.
Bet you never agreed with one of his legal opinions while you're slobbering all over this guy's shoes.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Awww Trump hurt their feelings
Wow.
You made a selfie gif.
Don't see those very often.
Way to go.
Trump has not read the Constitution. It is equal to his bible knowledge. ZERO
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Distress Lame was talking about some pro-Trump asslick legal writer who claims the gag orders are unconstitutional.
^Says the fucktard with the failed law school who doesn’t know a regulation from a law from a constitutional requirement.
Your knowledge of law goes no further than filling out templates you find on line, moron.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
rather weak, cuntling.....my law school didn't fail until 40 years after I graduated and you think a regulation imposed by a county election official supercedes a constitutional requirement.......obviously that makes you as stupid as the county election official....neither of you have a knowledge of law greater than I do, let alone the supreme courts who've agreed with me......
QP!
Verified User
And here we go again.
Now the claimed lawyer is arguing that the Constitutional rights are absolute.
That Courts cannot impinge rights when a person is indicted such as your right to free association (limit who you can speak to), your right of movement (cannot cross State Line or leave the country) and your right to free speech (cannot make certain statement about the court proceedings).
Once again the claimed lawyer is unaware of this and thinks i am wrong but soon enough will google and learn based on what i say and pretend this was not his position as he back pedals later.
FLOL. PmP Always 100% predictably wrong on every single area of law and the Constitution.
QP!
Verified User
This is a big positive for you PmP.
Instead of just saying something wrong and stupid with regards to the law, you are now actually asking me to educate you first. Well done. You are learning.
So from law school 101 (which apparently you missed that day)
After a person is indicted they have what is called a Arraignment on the indictment. At the arraignment the accused and his lawyer and the Prosecutor and judge enter in to discussions about whether or not the person will be released (bail) or held in custody, and WHAT THOSE TERMS OF RELEASE will be.
At no time is Trump or any defendant required to accept any terms of release. They can tell the Judge to go fuck themselves and that they will continue to do what they want, when they want, as they are not yet convicted and are innocent to proven guilty. They can tell the judge they are getting on a plane and leaving the country as soon as they leave the hearing. And the judge, despite this person being innocent until proven guilty, can frocibly have their passport taken and lock them up, again, despite them being innocent until proven guilty.
The Constitution ALLOWS for the rights of this innocent (until proven guilty) to be FORCIBLY taken away pending trial. Or... ORRRRRRRRR.... it also allows for that same defendant Trump and his lawyer to negotiate and AGREE with the Judge that he will follow the conditions of release and thus walk free until the trial.
And while you PmP read this and think 'that cannot be true... can it' as you run off and google what i say, i assure you it is.
But i do not want to be that mocking as this is a huge step in you asking for the education first instead of making your stupid statements first to only back pedal later. Congrats.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and yet you pretend you understand the law.......why is that?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
QP!
Verified User
Lesson 2 in Law 101 -
Yes the issue of bail and bond are CONSTANTLY REVISITED by the judge when the defendant is seen to be breaking them or pushing the boundaries on them.
(common PmP, don't slip back in to your prior bad practice by making stupid statements ignorant of the law and instead keep asking me for help first, as you just did prior. You can do this.)
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
Maybe Georgia is different, but generally a judge is empowered to revoke bond status at any time.
Since you don’t have a fucking clue about the difference between a law enacted by a legislature vs a rule promulgated by an agency vs a constitutional requirement, you have ZERO credibility on ANY matters of law. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance time and again.
You’ve had your ignorant ass handed to you many times, yet, here you are, still spewing your garbage.
He’s a genius at evicting tenants who are late on their rent, but that’s about it. This kind of law practice has very little to do with the law. It’s a paperwork practice and possibly a few court appearances where you show the judge where the right paperwork was filed.
It’s been 40 years since, I suspect, he muddled through some law classes, likely cheating in order to get a Barely passing grade at a 3 rate school.
QP!
Verified User
So you are now in backpedaling stage as your position prior was the Constitution does not allow this and now you are ADMITTING (again after my education of you) that in fact it is Constitutional but you just think it is 'silly' to think Trump has crossed any line.
Which just means you hold a different opinion than the judge, which is meaningless as the opinion that matters in a trial is the judges. You can think what you want PmP but the judge will act on what they think.
So i am really trying to help and educate you here on why your feelings are not fact, and you need to stop letting those feelings lead you to claims such as it being unConstitutional, which you inevitable backpedal from later, as you did here.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
