Members banned from this thread: ThatOwlWoman, Guno צְבִי and Doc Dutch |
The Democrats love investigations and one would certainly be merited if she used her political influence as Speaker to hide the arrest video.
Last edited by Earl; 07-07-2022 at 06:28 AM.
Along with an investigation of the Speaker (Not the Speaker after the Nov. elections) a thorough investigation of A/G Garland for not prosecuting the protestors at the homes of the S.C Justices which is a violation of federal law.
Federal law is quite clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1507, it is a criminal violation of federal law to picket or parade “near a building or residence occupied or used by [a federal] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.”
You should really learn to read all the words in each sentence before you go and make a fool of yourself. What do you think the word "excessive" means?
https://www.superlawyers.com/ask/cal...ffef2045a.htmlFor a first-offense DUI in California, consequences for conviction generally include three years of informal probation, fines of $390 plus “penalty assessments” (totally approximately $2000, and completing a first offender alcohol program that consists of a 30-hour class, at a cost of about $500.
There is no required jail time for a first offense when placed on probation. But it is possible to be sentenced to jail if certain aggravating factors are present, such as the presence of a minor child in the car or going 25 miles an hour or more over the speed limit on a roadway or 30 miles per hour on a freeway.
But then I guess you have so much practice making yourself look like a fool you are now a pro so carry on.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Earl (07-07-2022)
Hermes Thoth (07-07-2022)
Supreme Court marshal asks state officials to act on protests ...
https://www.npr.org › 2022/07/03 › protests-at-homes-of-...
4 days ago — The protests have carried on for weeks since the leak of a draft of the court's eventual decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This was BEFORE the final decision and was done to intimidate the S.C. Judges in their final decision...a federal crime that A/G Garland refused to prosecute.
Garland will be impeached after the House turns red after Nov.
Pobre-"How do you think a judge can be influenced if someone is protesting a decision they already made?"
Pobre, you are pobre in more ways than one.
Last edited by Earl; 07-07-2022 at 08:54 AM.
Before the decision was released is not the same thing as before the decision was made. You have to prove that the protests were likely to change a judge's vote.
Go ahead and present your evidence proving that was likely to happen and that you are likely to convince a jury of that. The requirement for federal prosecution is you have to be pretty sure you will get a conviction before you can indict.
A little fact, Durham seems to have ignored.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Earl (07-07-2022)
No, no, no ,Pobre...read the law:
Federal law is quite clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1507, it is a criminal violation of federal law to picket or parade “near a building or residence occupied or used by [a federal] judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty.”
Do you see a time frame requirement? No, you do not.
Shuck and jive, Pobre but you clearly lost this one.
Pobre-"How do you think a judge can be influenced if someone is protesting a decision they already made?" The protests were to change the Justices' decision BEFORE the final decision.
lol!
Last edited by Earl; 07-07-2022 at 09:06 AM.
The word "excessive" wasn't in your post? Now you are denying that you posted something when clearly you posted it?
Funny thing is I used the same source you did, superlawyers.com, and now you want to complain about the source? Perhaps you should have bothered to read your source and understood what the word "excessive" means. You quoted the sentence that includes the word "excessive". You do like to prove you are a fool and continue to do so quite well.
So to recap.
You don't understand the meaning of the word "excessive".
You deny you posted the word "excessive" when you clearly did.
You used a source where you got the word "excessive" and posted it as if it was authoritative.
When I use the same source and point out how it disputes your failure to understand the meaning of "excessive" you claim the source is not authoritative but only an ad for lawyers.
You are certainly playing the fool quite well. Keep digging.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Bookmarks