Pelosi & DUI Hubby Cavort at Italian resort

[Earl]

They were there with the intent of influencing Justices to change their minds...clearly intimidation.

[AProudLefty]

They were there with the intent of influencing Justices to change their minds...clearly intimidation.

LOL

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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!

I see an "intent" requirement. One can't intend to do something if that can not occur.
How could a majority opinion be leaked if there had been no vote to create a majority? I would love to see your explanation of that so that there can be no doubt as to whether Alito was writing the majority opinion or not.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They were there with the intent of influencing Justices to change their minds...clearly intimidation.

Could you give us an example where protestors changed the mind of a Justice?

[Earl]

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.

Pobre, Pobre, Pobre...the word "excessive" was in the post about Mr. Pelosi, the drunk.

I responded to you now about your erroneous post asking how a S.C. justice could be influenced "after the decision was already made."

How old are you, Pobre?

Good grief.

[Earl]

Could you give us an example where protestors changed the mind of a Justice?

Can you give an example of protestors that did not change the mind of a Justice...I can...the illegal protests in front of the Justices after the Roe vs. Wade leak.

How old are you, Pobre?

[Earl]

I see an "intent" requirement. One can't intend to do something if that can not occur.
How could a majority opinion be leaked if there had been no vote to create a majority? I would love to see your explanation of that so that there can be no doubt as to whether Alito was writing the majority opinion or not.

It was a PRELIMINARY vote, Pobre. It was leaked and then the illegal protests occurred at the homes of the S.C. Justices BEFORE the final vote.

You can't follow two subjects at the same time, Poor Pobre.


Have someone read this to you very slowly, Pobre:


DOJ allowing illegal protests outside SCOTUS justices' homes ...
https://www.foxnews.com › politics › doj-allows-illegal-pr...
Jun 21, 2022 — The Department of Justice has failed to enforce a federal statute which prohibits protests, pickets, and other forms of intimidation outside ...


I realize that there are polysyllabic words in the law but...

[Earl]

Could you give us an example where protestors changed the mind of a Justice?

I'll give you one more free tutorial, Pobre.

It doesn't matter if the Justices' minds are changed.

It is illegal to protest in front of a S.C Justice's home in an attempt to intimidate a Justice into changing his/her voter.

There was even a murder attempt:

Nicholas Roske charged with attempting to murder Supreme ...
https://www.cbsnews.com › news › nicholas-roske-brett...
Jun 9, 2022 — He is charged with attempt to murder a Supreme Court justice. If convicted, Roske faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison

Entiendes?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'll give you one more free tutorial, Pobre.

It doesn't matter if the Justices' minds are changed.

It is illegal to protest in front of a S.C Justice's home in an attempt to intimidate a Justice into changing his/her voter.

There was even a murder attempt:

Nicholas Roske charged with attempting to murder Supreme ...
https://www.cbsnews.com › news › nicholas-roske-brett...
Jun 9, 2022 — He is charged with attempt to murder a Supreme Court justice. If convicted, Roske faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison

Entiendes?

So, let's go down this rabbit hole. Simply showing up and yelling is proof they have intention?

Showing up with a weapon is not the same thing as showing up with a sign. But do you think showing up with a weapon is proof of intent? Is showing up with a sign or a flag proof of intent?

By the way, murdering a judge isn't going to change their vote so it makes it hard to call that intent to influence.

[Earl]

It does appear that Pobre has left the building.

Dragging his shield, not on his shield.

Perhaps he knew that I was going to charge him for the tutorials. ''lol

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It was a PRELIMINARY vote, Pobre. It was leaked and then the illegal protests occurred at the homes of the S.C. Justices BEFORE the final vote.

You can't follow two subjects at the same time, Poor Pobre.


Have someone read this to you very slowly, Pobre:


DOJ allowing illegal protests outside SCOTUS justices' homes ...
https://www.foxnews.com › politics › doj-allows-illegal-pr...
Jun 21, 2022 — The Department of Justice has failed to enforce a federal statute which prohibits protests, pickets, and other forms of intimidation outside ...


I realize that there are polysyllabic words in the law but...

Your link is broken. And the last time I checked FoxNews is not a lawyer and doesn't interpret the law. Simply because Fox claims something doesn't make it true. It only shows you can't think for yourself if you rely on Fox News to tell you what your opinion should be.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It does appear that Pobre has left the building.

Dragging his shield, not on his shield.

Perhaps he knew that I was going to charge him for the tutorials. ''lol

You are not the most important thing in my life. But I do sometimes suffer fools like you.

By the way.. you still haven't responded to this which is the list of how you are a fool.

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.

Are you ready to admit that you used the word "excessive" in a post?
Are you ready to admit that you failed to understand the meaning of the word?
Are you ready to admit that you used a source as your authority that you later claimed was simply a lawyer's ad?
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.

[dukkha]

I see an "intent" requirement. One can't intend to do something if that can not occur.

wrong. intent is intent -it doesnt require an outcome
and the intent to influence is clear when they are protesting a leaked draft decision

[Poor Richard Saunders]

wrong. intent is intent -it doesnt require an outcome
and the intent to influence is clear when they are protesting a leaked draft decision

So simply showing up is proof of intent? They couldn't be there to express their displeasure which would be protected speech?

[dukkha]

So simply showing up is proof of intent? They couldn't be there to express their displeasure which would be protected speech?

statute is clear and expansive even to juries their signage is clear (some even threatening signs) the fact we almost had an assassination is clear.
They can use their free speech rules anywhere but near a judges/court officer/ jury member home .. whether it extends past a courts term is unclear

But use some common sense -this is an attempt to sway = and the statute is saying no dice