Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Oregon District Attorney responsible for Portland: Just because Trump's brownshirt DHS thugs arrested a bunch of protesters doesn't mean I have to press charges against them   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Hero, Protest, Crime, Criminal justice, Police, Criminal law, Portland, Oregon, Misdemeanor, Demonstration  
•       •       •

2050 clicks; posted to Politics » and Main » on 12 Aug 2020 at 8:35 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



196 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-08-12 8:34:50 AM  
Wait the protestors or the DHS thugs?
 
2020-08-12 8:37:41 AM  
Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.
 
2020-08-12 8:38:34 AM  

RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.


And as such things go it completely failed
 
2020-08-12 8:39:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

And as such things go it completely failed


Trump's gestapo got beaten into a humiliating retreat by moms and hipsters.

Get f*cked, fascists.
 
2020-08-12 8:39:30 AM  

RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.


They would also have to be willing to come back for a trial.  I can imagine an ACLU defense attorney salivating over that concept.
 
2020-08-12 8:41:06 AM  
At this point, it would be a bigger surprise if he did press charges.  Gotta stick it to the orange man.
 
2020-08-12 8:42:03 AM  
WTF dude? Do your damn job! (unless, of course, you're being ordered not to, then tell us who is ordering you)

Guess we have to leave this to the ACLU
 
2020-08-12 8:43:25 AM  
The DHS knows that Hitler disbanded the brownshirts and had the leaders killed when the Waffen SS replaced them, right?
 
2020-08-12 8:43:49 AM  
Barr will create some kind of super national freedom enforcement prosecutorial accountability task force, that will round up dangerous people, BEFORE they have a chance to damage America, or help Biden hurt God.  Not arrest them, that would require all kinds of messy procedure. They will just be removed from society, for the common good, of course.
 
2020-08-12 8:44:39 AM  

Jake Havechek: The DHS knows that Hitler disbanded the brownshirts and had the leaders killed when the Waffen SS replaced them, right?


Everyone in a fascist movement knows "they're one of the good ones".
 
2020-08-12 8:45:13 AM  

rbuzby: Barr will create some kind of super national freedom enforcement prosecutorial accountability task force, that will round up dangerous people, BEFORE they have a chance to damage America, or help Biden hurt God.  Not arrest them, that would require all kinds of messy procedure. They will just be removed from society, for the common good, of course.


Missouri is trying to do that on a state level right now.
 
2020-08-12 8:46:12 AM  

bthom37: Jake Havechek: The DHS knows that Hitler disbanded the brownshirts and had the leaders killed when the Waffen SS replaced them, right?

Everyone in a fascist movement knows "they're one of the good ones".


Yup fascists never expect the backstabbing coming from their own side... same with communists. People have tunnel vision.
 
2020-08-12 8:48:16 AM  
Hopefully the next step is pursuing charges against whatever stasi have been able to be identified.
 
2020-08-12 8:50:18 AM  
This is not necessarily a good thing if the cops use increased violence as an excuse to bring higher charges, knowing anything less will be dismissed.
 
2020-08-12 8:50:27 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: At this point, it would be a bigger surprise if he did press charges.  Gotta stick it to the orange man.


Yes, by only considering prosecuting protesters who were accused of "deliberate property damage, theft or force against another person or threats of force " instead of just 'being in the vicinity of Trump's goons', he's 'sticking it to the orange man'.

Fark off, fascist.
 
2020-08-12 8:53:00 AM  
I'm waiting for the DoJ to complain about prosecutorial discretion here while defending their actions regards Flynn.
 
2020-08-12 8:53:19 AM  
do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.netView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 8:53:22 AM  
Hang on.  So those "feds" that kidnapped people, need the local AG to press the charges?  If the AG will not press those charges, doesn't that make what those "feds" did kidnapping?
 
2020-08-12 8:53:52 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: At this point, it would be a bigger surprise if he did press charges.  Gotta stick it to the orange man.


By following the laws of the land, yes.  Another corrupt stab against Daddy Trump clearly!
 
2020-08-12 8:54:39 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


I am not sure what you are showing here.  Is it the rubbish or the graf?  Regardless it doesn't show what the "feds" did the night before.
 
2020-08-12 8:56:58 AM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: At this point, it would be a bigger surprise if he did press charges.  Gotta stick it to the orange man.


Well you make it easy to colour you, light orange, because you are not even evil enough to deserve dark orange.
 
2020-08-12 8:57:48 AM  
Not to mention the Feds repeatedly violated their restraining order by targeting the press with weapons, trying to prevent them from recording events, and in some cases, arresting them without cause.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/​f​ederal-agents-shoot-portland-reporter-​hours-after-judge-issues-restraining-o​rder-to-protect-journalists-during-pro​tests/
 
2020-08-12 8:58:17 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


The horror.
 
2020-08-12 8:59:29 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


OMG a janitor would need 20, maybe 30 minutes to to sweep all that up. The horror.
 
2020-08-12 8:59:51 AM  
Makes sense.  Unlawful arrests, inadequate evidence, etc.

Fruit of a poison tree.
 
2020-08-12 8:59:57 AM  
My wife's got a package from her mother that has been sitting in a Los Angeles mail hub since July 27th
 
2020-08-12 9:00:42 AM  
oops wrong thread
 
2020-08-12 9:02:46 AM  

Langdon_777: Hang on.  So those "feds" that kidnapped people, need the local AG to press the charges?  If the AG will not press those charges, doesn't that make what those "feds" did kidnapping?


No, federal charges would be in the hands of the relevant Federal District Attorney anyways. This has nothing to do with people arrested by federal LEOs and the County DA has no say whatsoever. As pretty par for the course, subby is dumb
 
2020-08-12 9:05:31 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Post something not farking dumb someday.
 
2020-08-12 9:09:23 AM  

Jake Havechek: The DHS knows that Hitler disbanded the brownshirts and had the leaders killed when the Waffen SS replaced them, right?


I expect that their knowledge of history extends to reading the chapter title, thinking ""The Night of Long Knives" sounds metal awesome!", and nothing more

/ I mean, if they'd paid attention in history they'd know that the fascists - how should I word this... - didn't win
 
2020-08-12 9:11:02 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Looks clean, compared to after Thunder Over Louisville, or even the Derby.
 
2020-08-12 9:12:06 AM  
They will be brought up on federal charges.
 
2020-08-12 9:12:10 AM  
Also, since federal cops arrested detained/kidnapped the people, with no official (or unofficial) agreement with the state, city, or county, it would seem that these people would have to be charged federally anyway, wouldn't they? I don't remember hearing where the feds swoop in, get to tell you who they think needs to be arrested, make those arrests, and dump them on your doorstep for prosecution anyway...
 
2020-08-12 9:14:59 AM  
Can't prosecute an agent for illegally detaining someone if they don't wear identification.

/eddiemurphy.gif
 
2020-08-12 9:15:20 AM  

dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.


Post something not farking dumb someday.
 
2020-08-12 9:15:21 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 9:16:45 AM  
The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)
 
2020-08-12 9:18:23 AM  

dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.


Who, for what?
 
2020-08-12 9:18:57 AM  
Also LOL at the guy who thinks a former DA is a bad VP pick saying that.
 
2020-08-12 9:21:51 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 9:24:20 AM  
It is morally, ethically, and legally justified to resist unlawful action by trump's gestapo thugs by any means necessary


He's smart enough to know Portland jurors would see that also
 
2020-08-12 9:24:30 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 9:25:18 AM  
So a lot of people in this thread are just as ignorant as subby. Shocking.
 
2020-08-12 9:33:09 AM  

dirkhardly: So a lot of people in this thread are just as ignorant as subby. Shocking.


The important thing is that you feel superior for no reason
 
2020-08-12 9:33:42 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

Who, for what?


If they are destroying federal property, they should receive federal charges and the Portland district attorney should have no say in it.
 
2020-08-12 9:33:48 AM  
And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.
 
2020-08-12 9:35:25 AM  

dwrash: cameroncrazy1984: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

Who, for what?

If they are destroying federal property, they should receive federal charges and the Portland district attorney should have no say in it.


These are people that were arrested nowhere near federal property and released with no bail and no charges. So I'm not sure where you get "destroying federal property" from that
 
2020-08-12 9:35:49 AM  

dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.


They could have, but didn't.
 
2020-08-12 9:36:26 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: dirkhardly: So a lot of people in this thread are just as ignorant as subby. Shocking.

The important thing is that you feel superior for no reason


Feeling superior for being right about basic facts? On an anonymous message board? Maybe you should work on putting less wrong, stupid shiat out into the world. Or did you want to defend the supposed value of you posting stupid, wrong shiat?
 
2020-08-12 9:37:08 AM  

neongoats: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

OMG a janitor would need 20, maybe 30 minutes to to sweep all that up. The horror.


It looks like shiat.  I myself would not be proud to leave a public area looking like that.
 
2020-08-12 9:38:14 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

They could have, but didn't.


I'm sure this conclusion was reached with the same rigorous mental processes you've shown so far, i.e. pulled right out of your ass
 
2020-08-12 9:41:02 AM  

dirkhardly: cameroncrazy1984: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

They could have, but didn't.

I'm sure this conclusion was reached with the same rigorous mental processes you've shown so far, i.e. pulled right out of your ass


You're sure about a lot of things that never happened
 
2020-08-12 9:43:00 AM  

RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.


Would be hilarious if he charged them with kidnapping though.

Which is what it was.
 
2020-08-12 9:50:21 AM  

cannibalparrot: RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

Would be hilarious if he charged them with kidnapping though.

Which is what it was.


You and the person you replied to just have no idea what's going on here do you? And not understanding the basic facts of the situation you go all the way to a County DA prosecuting federal LEOs for kidnapping? Just amazingly ignorant
 
2020-08-12 9:51:20 AM  

PanicAttack: Not to mention the Feds repeatedly violated their restraining order by targeting the press with weapons, trying to prevent them from recording events, and in some cases, arresting them without cause.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/f​ederal-agents-shoot-portland-reporter-​hours-after-judge-issues-restraining-o​rder-to-protect-journalists-during-pro​tests/


I could use some clarification on this.

How are the Feds supposed to know who is a journalist, press or media vs. a yelp blogger?

Is it because they have a camera?  microphone?  wearing a shirt that says "press"?  they printed a press badge and put it on a lanyard?

if so, then just have everyone at the protest wear a shirt that says "press"?
 
2020-08-12 9:55:48 AM  
oh, i can post pics of messes left behind too

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 9:57:46 AM  

Hyjamon: PanicAttack: Not to mention the Feds repeatedly violated their restraining order by targeting the press with weapons, trying to prevent them from recording events, and in some cases, arresting them without cause.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/f​ederal-agents-shoot-portland-reporter-​hours-after-judge-issues-restraining-o​rder-to-protect-journalists-during-pro​tests/

I could use some clarification on this.

How are the Feds supposed to know who is a journalist, press or media vs. a yelp blogger?

Is it because they have a camera?  microphone?  wearing a shirt that says "press"?  they printed a press badge and put it on a lanyard?

if so, then just have everyone at the protest wear a shirt that says "press"?


This aspect of the Freedom of the Press isn't actually clear and doesn't have a lot of case law or a clear rule. As of now it is not clear if members of the Press have any greater right of access to these situations than the general public, especially given something like a lawful order to disperse. This could very well make its way through the Courts and the modern nature of mass media and public access to the means to publish will certainly have an impact
 
2020-08-12 10:02:39 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!
 
2020-08-12 10:05:27 AM  

RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!


I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.
 
2020-08-12 10:08:59 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


That's cleaner than any country music festival I've seen.
 
2020-08-12 10:15:49 AM  

dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.


What about all those wrongly arrested?  All of those injured bystanders?  They should also be paid.

Glad at least that you've recognised it as mischief rather than all-out war against bigotry which you righties can't abide for some strange reason.
 
2020-08-12 10:16:20 AM  

dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.


So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?
 
2020-08-12 10:19:27 AM  
media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 10:19:57 AM  

dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.


Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.
 
2020-08-12 10:20:04 AM  

The Envoy: dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.

What about all those wrongly arrested?  All of those injured bystanders?  They should also be paid.

Glad at least that you've recognised it as mischief rather than all-out war against bigotry which you righties can't abide for some strange reason.


If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.
 
2020-08-12 10:20:24 AM  

dirkhardly: This aspect of the Freedom of the Press isn't actually clear and doesn't have a lot of case law or a clear rule. As of now it is not clear if members of the Press have any greater right of access to these situations than the general public, especially given something like a lawful order to disperse. This could very well make its way through the Courts and the modern nature of mass media and public access to the means to publish will certainly have an impact


thanks.  I have seen embeds where the press labelled body armors in battlefields, which may allow them to be captured rather than killed.

I also remember a Vice report about Ukraine/Russia conflict.  it was at a place where the two forces were at a standoff across a bridge or small patch of land.  reporters interview people on one side then cross the zone of conflict to the other and interview them.  it was wild and ballsy of the reporters to rely on that "press" label to safely cross.
 
2020-08-12 10:21:41 AM  

RyogaM: Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.


Municipal court costs very little... there is no need for this to go to county, state or federal court.  Pretty much exactly like a driving offense.
 
2020-08-12 10:22:15 AM  

RyogaM: That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars,


shiat, did I say hundreds there?  I'm sorry, thousands, if not tens of thousands, per trial.  Good luck.
 
2020-08-12 10:22:29 AM  

dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.


Which federal laws did they violate? Please identify them by U.S. Code sections counselor.
 
2020-08-12 10:24:20 AM  

dwrash: The Envoy: dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.

What about all those wrongly arrested?  All of those injured bystanders?  They should also be paid.

Glad at least that you've recognised it as mischief rather than all-out war against bigotry which you righties can't abide for some strange reason.

If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.


If there[sic] were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 10:24:49 AM  

dwrash: If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.


Good luck with THAT theory in court, counselor.  Oh, wait, you spoke at a BLM protest, didn't you?  And members of BLM spraypainted the federal building in Washington.  Hey, guys, dwarsh is guilty of the graffitti in Portland, make him pay!
 
2020-08-12 10:26:53 AM  

dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.


who paid the overtime for the federal agents that were also there and part of the mess?  how about we call them to clean up?  they are already on the payroll anyway.
 
2020-08-12 10:27:45 AM  

dwrash: RyogaM: Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.

Municipal court costs very little... there is no need for this to go to county, state or federal court.  Pretty much exactly like a driving offense.


You have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally.
 
2020-08-12 10:29:30 AM  

RyogaM: dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.

Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.


Yet it is consistent...look at the 'drug test welfare recipients" in FL, cost more than the savings.

I always use this analogy: some people will hire security at $100 a day to prevent $5 loss due to theft.
 
2020-08-12 10:34:22 AM  

sdd2000: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

Which federal laws did they violate? Please identify them by U.S. Code sections counselor.


Everyone is seeming to make the same conflation, starting with subby. This County DA is talking about people arrested by state/local police on state/local charges. People arrested by federal LEOs on federal charges will have their fates decided by the Federal DA. There is no reason to believe any particular person belongs to both groups but it's certainly not impossible
 
2020-08-12 10:34:36 AM  

Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?


And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?
 
2020-08-12 10:34:47 AM  

RyogaM: dwrash: If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.

Good luck with THAT theory in court, counselor.  Oh, wait, you spoke at a BLM protest, didn't you?  And members of BLM spraypainted the federal building in Washington.  Hey, guys, dwarsh is guilty of the graffitti in Portland, make him pay!


We were very explicit up front that violence and vandalism at our rally would be quelled by the rally members themselves.  It was interesting to hear the local head of the NAACP inform people that if they started to riot and stuff that they themselves would beat you down rather than the police.
 
2020-08-12 10:38:33 AM  

RyogaM: dwrash: RyogaM: Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.

Municipal court costs very little... there is no need for this to go to county, state or federal court.  Pretty much exactly like a driving offense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally.


Someone needs to explain to the diaper rash the concept and costs of trial de novo from municipal court decisions.
 
2020-08-12 10:40:41 AM  

dwrash: RyogaM: dwrash: If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.

Good luck with THAT theory in court, counselor.  Oh, wait, you spoke at a BLM protest, didn't you?  And members of BLM spraypainted the federal building in Washington.  Hey, guys, dwarsh is guilty of the graffitti in Portland, make him pay!

We were very explicit up front that violence and vandalism at our rally would be quelled by the rally members themselves.  It was interesting to hear the local head of the NAACP inform people that if they started to riot and stuff that they themselves would beat you down rather than the police.


So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.
 
2020-08-12 10:42:56 AM  

Hyjamon: dirkhardly: This aspect of the Freedom of the Press isn't actually clear and doesn't have a lot of case law or a clear rule. As of now it is not clear if members of the Press have any greater right of access to these situations than the general public, especially given something like a lawful order to disperse. This could very well make its way through the Courts and the modern nature of mass media and public access to the means to publish will certainly have an impact

thanks.  I have seen embeds where the press labelled body armors in battlefields, which may allow them to be captured rather than killed.

I also remember a Vice report about Ukraine/Russia conflict.  it was at a place where the two forces were at a standoff across a bridge or small patch of land.  reporters interview people on one side then cross the zone of conflict to the other and interview them.  it was wild and ballsy of the reporters to rely on that "press" label to safely cross.


Your instinct on the blurring of the lines between the Press and public is spot on and it'll be interesting to see how that comes out. We've come a long way from when your only real option was to find a printing press. And that line has become especially blurred in the last decade or so and the law hasn't really kept up. Then again it hasn't really needed to do so urgently but it's looking like that may change
 
2020-08-12 10:50:21 AM  

RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.


Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.
 
2020-08-12 10:51:04 AM  

RyogaM: RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.

Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.


I can't wait for the backpedaling
 
2020-08-12 10:53:17 AM  

cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?


They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)
 
2020-08-12 10:57:42 AM  

sdd2000: RyogaM: dwrash: RyogaM: Sure.  If you convict the people who spraypainted the walls in a court of law with proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, you can. That's hundreds of trials, costing the taxpayers hundreds of dollars, which you won't be able to recoup in court costs and fines for grafitti.  That's going to cost more than just hiring someone to just clean it up.  You'd prefer to pay the cost for those hundreds of trials, many of which might find the defendant innocent, than just pony up for a powerwasher?  Not very fiscally conservative of you.

Municipal court costs very little... there is no need for this to go to county, state or federal court.  Pretty much exactly like a driving offense.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Literally.

Someone needs to explain to the diaper rash the concept and costs of trial de novo from municipal court decisions.


Well there's the whole principle of deterrence so you don't have increases in vandalism and even more clean up costs. Also the vast majority of these would be pled out with no trial let alone a second one. Defense attorneys are expensive, especially if you're going to lose anyways
 
2020-08-12 10:58:32 AM  

dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)


I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.
 
2020-08-12 11:06:58 AM  

Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.


Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?
 
2020-08-12 11:10:08 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Yeah, that's almost as bad as the aftermath of a big concert or football game.

savingcountrymusic.comView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 11:15:04 AM  

dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?


Because almost everyone was dressed in black and had a mask?
 
2020-08-12 11:17:02 AM  

Hyjamon: oh, i can post pics of messes left behind too

[Fark user image 425x257]


That's the remains of a Trump rally in Orlando if memory serves.
 
2020-08-12 11:20:09 AM  

dwrash: The Envoy: dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.

What about all those wrongly arrested?  All of those injured bystanders?  They should also be paid.

Glad at least that you've recognised it as mischief rather than all-out war against bigotry which you righties can't abide for some strange reason.

If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.


Collective punishments were a tool of the nazis. Is that really what you want to be?
 
2020-08-12 11:27:13 AM  

dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.


That's adorable, you think police deserve the benefit of the doubt.
 
2020-08-12 11:29:11 AM  

andomania: dwrash: The Envoy: dwrash: RyogaM: Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]

Oh no!  The powerwasher and trash pickup businesses are going to be giving out Christmas bonuses and overtime!  Horrors!

I assume you are going to pay for those bonues' and overtime?

Everyone that is arrested should have to spend community service time to clean up their mess instead of having taxpayers pony up paying for their misguided mischief.

What about all those wrongly arrested?  All of those injured bystanders?  They should also be paid.

Glad at least that you've recognised it as mischief rather than all-out war against bigotry which you righties can't abide for some strange reason.

If there were there, they are complicit.. no one present is innocent.

Collective punishments were a tool of the nazis. Is that really what you want to be?


Don't ask questions you already know the answer to
 
2020-08-12 11:29:45 AM  

dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?


Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."
 
2020-08-12 11:33:47 AM  

dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?


Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.
 
2020-08-12 11:51:33 AM  

GrizzlyPouch: The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)


And at what cost to Taxpayers, the court system, the DA's time (and conviction record), all the cops having to be called in as witnesses, and the life disruption to the people being charged? For hundreds of misdemeanor cases?

No, dropping the charges is absolutely the right thing to do.
 
2020-08-12 11:53:39 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Ermagerd, Graffiti and some trash!

Walk down a couple blocks to Burnside and it doesn't look any different, and that's without months of protests.

(beeteedubbs, they've already powerwashed most of it off).
 
2020-08-12 12:20:27 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


Figured I should post this. I took this directly across the street from those pillars. This is where Donovan Labella got blammed in the face by DHS for standing in the street by himself with his hands in the air holding a speaker playing music. That's his blood all over the sidewalk. If you're upset about the graffiti, this brought the City of Portland out to tell the Fed Goons to get the fark out of our town.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 12:23:07 PM  

Bandito King: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

That's adorable, you think police deserve the benefit of the doubt.


I do. And you'll find I'm in the vast majority, especially in the legal system. And that view is literally and exactly how our justice system works. Good luck on changing it
 
2020-08-12 12:25:20 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."


So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?
 
2020-08-12 12:29:09 PM  

dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

That's adorable, you think police deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I do. And you'll find I'm in the vast majority, especially in the legal system. And that view is literally and exactly how our justice system works. Good luck on changing it


Having served as a foreman on a Jury and rendered a verdict in a criminal case myself (DUI case if that makes any difference) myself, listening to the initiating cop have to explain how he thought the driver ran a Red light when it was in fact a Yield lane, then pulled them over for driving *on* but not *over* the line for 50 feet, and having two other officers give directly contradictory testimony on multiple points during the DA's own questioning, and the DA not get any of those ducks in a row beforehand, you are substantially more trusting of these figures than you should be.
 
2020-08-12 12:29:38 PM  
I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.
 
2020-08-12 12:30:07 PM  

Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.


Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unacquainted with them
 
2020-08-12 12:30:10 PM  

dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?


In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.
 
2020-08-12 12:31:52 PM  

flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.


They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.
 
2020-08-12 12:32:25 PM  

dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.


That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.
 
2020-08-12 12:33:38 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: And people who are alleging illegal arrests let alone anything legally resembling kidnapping, as far as anyone in the general public knows these federal LEOs could have identified protesters suspected of federal crimes, presented evidence of PC to a federal judge and were issued a perfectly legit arrest warrant. This isn't information generally available to the public (at least not initially) and yet look how many people keep claiming that didn't happen without any knowledge or evidence whatsoever. Probably the same kind of people who have no idea how federal vs state jurisdiction works.

That's adorable, you think police deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I do. And you'll find I'm in the vast majority, especially in the legal system. And that view is literally and exactly how our justice system works. Good luck on changing it

Having served as a foreman on a Jury and rendered a verdict in a criminal case myself (DUI case if that makes any difference) myself, listening to the initiating cop have to explain how he thought the driver ran a Red light when it was in fact a Yield lane, then pulled them over for driving *on* but not *over* the line for 50 feet, and having two other officers give directly contradictory testimony on multiple points during the DA's own questioning, and the DA not get any of those ducks in a row beforehand, you are substantially more trusting of these figures than you should be.


Benefit of the doubt /= believe under all circumstances. Look up "good faith" as a legal doctrine, among other examples. It's literally built into our legal system and legal systems around the world, for (at least some) good reasons
 
2020-08-12 12:37:03 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.


Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see
 
2020-08-12 12:41:55 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.


Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing
 
2020-08-12 12:43:10 PM  

zbtop: Donovan Labella


He had to go back into the hospital this past week for another surgery.

https://katu.com/news/local/portland-​p​rotester-seriously-injured-by-federal-​officers-undergoes-another-surgery
 
2020-08-12 12:47:17 PM  

RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.


So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?
 
2020-08-12 12:48:02 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."

So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?


The DOJ lists it as that day or the next day
"Either the same day or the day after a defendant is arrested and charged, they are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. "

And what would you think makes it "necessarily" to delay past this as initial arraignment are available via electronic means and federal magistrates were available, in your vast legal experience, counselor?
 
2020-08-12 12:50:17 PM  

zbtop: GrizzlyPouch: The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)

And at what cost to Taxpayers, the court system, the DA's time (and conviction record), all the cops having to be called in as witnesses, and the life disruption to the people being charged? For hundreds of misdemeanor cases?

No, dropping the charges is absolutely the right thing to do.


Ninety-something percent of convictions are due to plea bargains. Trials are the exception, not the rule
 
2020-08-12 12:52:37 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor?


NO, it's highly unlikely.  In fact, some of the detainees in Portland appeared before a judge in the building and were released with a future court date and on bail.  In the cases you mentioned, the judges could take an initial plea by in court video.


And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors?

Yes, it's reported some have.  I have not heard of any attorney's making deals in Portland.  I do live in Ohio, but am part of the criminal defense community, and the criminal defense group I'm part of on facebook is silent on it.  If deals are being made, the defense bar association would be discussing it.

Do you have access to this information at all?

Some of it, yeah.

And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see

Don't know.  Probably still gathering information, I imagine.  Maybe they are still in the negotiation phase.  I was in personal injury for 4 years.  We wouldn't file a lawsuit until it was absolutely clear that the negotiation was going no where or the statute of limitations was almost up.
 
2020-08-12 12:52:54 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.


As someone who was on the finalist list as a federal magistrate I can tell you that the magistrates in a district are on call even during weekends (depending on the number in a given district it can be a once a month "gig" and in the old days you got a beeper and then would call in) to do an initial appearance and will normally not even allow it to go that long. But hey, dirk has years of practice in federal court so I am sure he will correct us (sarcasm).
 
2020-08-12 12:56:31 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see


You do realize that the criminal docket and all appearances are available via the Pacer system don't you and that reporters can check that? Oh, you didn't learn tat when you got your GED-in-law? Also, I would think a person who was "arraigned" would know that they were arraigned.
 
2020-08-12 12:57:03 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?


No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.
 
2020-08-12 12:57:52 PM  

dirkhardly: zbtop: GrizzlyPouch: The smart thing would be follow through with the charges.  Then you can make a very public spectacle of how ridiculous it was that the people were arrested in the first place and how little evidence there was of wrong doing.

A jury will have no problem acquitting, and everybody can point at laugh at how  Trump's SS nazied the ppl of Portland.

(Unless the evidence doesn't actually show that)

And at what cost to Taxpayers, the court system, the DA's time (and conviction record), all the cops having to be called in as witnesses, and the life disruption to the people being charged? For hundreds of misdemeanor cases?

No, dropping the charges is absolutely the right thing to do.

Ninety-something percent of convictions are due to plea bargains. Trials are the exception, not the rule


GrizzlyPouch was explicitly eferring to taking things through to Trial, and that's what I was responding to.

That said, even plea bargains, it's hard to see where it's worth anyone's time to deal with that many misdeameanor cases all at once.
 
2020-08-12 12:58:36 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: sdd2000: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because if these arrests had been based upon a warrant the requirement under the Federal Criminal Rule 5 require that " (A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer asRule 5(c)provides, unless a statute provides otherwise."

So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

The DOJ lists it as that day or the next day
"Either the same day or the day after a defendant is arrested and charged, they are brought before a magistrate judge for an initial hearing on the case. "

And what would you think makes it "necessarily" to delay past this as initial arraignment are available via electronic means and federal magistrates were available, in your vast legal experience, counselor?


That may be the norm, that doesn't mean that is what is necessary under the Sixth or that those norms are still in effect. I don't know. I have no idea how the Federal Courts there are operating right now. But since some defendants have apparently had their first appearance and bonded out what irregularities or violations of Rights are you even alleging or hinting at? And, most importantly, what evidence do you have?
 
2020-08-12 12:59:48 PM  

dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)


Their only jurisdiction was on/around the federal properties. They didn't identify themselves upon kidnapping citizens, and their reasoning was so suspect that the instant people demanded a lawyer, they were released.

These people had NO jurisdiction where they were operating from. They were there to protect federal property, that's it.
 
2020-08-12 1:02:02 PM  

sdd2000: "arraigned"


Got damn, do you know I forgot the term "arraignment"?  It was on the tip of my brain and I couldn't remember it.  I'm getting old.
 
2020-08-12 1:03:46 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.


Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite
 
2020-08-12 1:08:07 PM  

dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.

Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite


You can assume anything you want, I guess.  And, as has been previously mentioned, some people were taken into custody, not taken before a judge, and released when they requested an attorney, without being charged.  Those are the cases that present as an arrest without probably cause.
 
2020-08-12 1:08:32 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

Uh-huh. And could circumstances like a pandemic or rioting possibly change what is considered reasonable counselor? And do you know if any arrestees have in fact appeared in court or whether they have attorneys or have made deals with prosecutors? Do you have access to this information at all? And where are all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits? Plenty of time by now but we'll see

You do realize that the criminal docket and all appearances are available via the Pacer system don't you and that reporters can check that? Oh, you didn't learn tat when you got your GED-in-law? Also, I would think a person who was "arraigned" would know that they were arraigned.


I am aware. I haven't bothered. And I don't believe hardly anyone ranting about unlawful arrests has either and of course it's their burden to bring evidence to support their claim. It's that whole "evidence" thing I was asking for when I asked if they had that information. And look, the fact that people had their first offense and bonded indicates the system is working pretty much like it always does. And full on JD, but go ahead try and actually prove anything I've said is wrong instead of ad hominem and irrelevant attempted gotchas
 
2020-08-12 1:10:30 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

Their only jurisdiction was on/around the federal properties. They didn't identify themselves upon kidnapping citizens, and their reasoning was so suspect that the instant people demanded a lawyer, they were released.

These people had NO jurisdiction where they were operating from. They were there to protect federal property, that's it.


You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US. And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did
 
2020-08-12 1:15:27 PM  

sdd2000: RyogaM: dirkhardly: So in your vast legal expertise what constitutes a legitimate or necessary delay? Do you really think that language means instantaneously or anything close to it?

In my 17 years of practice as an attorney, it's meant 24-72 hours after arrest.  24 hours, Monday thru Thursday, arrested on Friday, expect to be before a judge on Monday.

As someone who was on the finalist list as a federal magistrate I can tell you that the magistrates in a district are on call even during weekends (depending on the number in a given district it can be a once a month "gig" and in the old days you got a beeper and then would call in) to do an initial appearance and will normally not even allow it to go that long. But hey, dirk has years of practice in federal court so I am sure he will correct us (sarcasm).


Fantastic. Very proud of you. Maybe the Courts in Oregon operated and still operate that way currently. Maybe not, because I've seen numerous Courts not functioning at all like they normally do, especially when it comes to scheduling. But it's irrelevant, the question is do you have any evidence of any Constitutional rights violations? Because that's the context we're operating in here and no one has presented one iota
 
2020-08-12 1:16:16 PM  
For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.
 
2020-08-12 1:18:15 PM  

dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.

Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unac ...


I think we just do not like you.  And you seem to be siding with the stormtroopers, who we also do not like.
 
2020-08-12 1:19:39 PM  

bluejeansonfire: cameroncrazy1984: RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

And as such things go it completely failed

Trump's gestapo got beaten into a humiliating retreat by moms and hipsters.

Get f*cked, fascists.


And goddesses, they also got beaten back by goddesses.
Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-12 1:19:57 PM  

RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: dirkhardly: RyogaM: flondrix: I'll ask again:  Has everyone who was "disappeared" into an unmarked van been accounted for?

I assumed that the people being grabbed by pseudo-federal agents were going to be charged by the feds, not the locals.

They were all accounted for.  They have all been released.  Some were taken before a judge in the building and released on bond.  I can't recall what they were charged with.

So we can assume for now that those who bonded out were arrested with sufficient PC and didn't have their Constitutional rights violated can't we? Got any evidence of cases where it is otherwise?

No you can't.  You can't assume anything based on what happens at a preliminary hearing on the charge.  The criminal defense attorney could have brought it up then, the judge could have overruled him, but he can still bring it up later.  You don't waive any defences by pleading not guilty at the preliminary hearing and getting a future court date and bonding out.

Yes you can presume, "for now" as I stated. If the arrest stands so far then one can presume that it is far more likely that the arrest is not so obviously flawed as to be apparent from the start, I.e. a complete lack of PC. And yet people here and in the media are arguing that these arrests are without legal justification when the available evidence shows the opposite

You can assume anything you want, I guess.  And, as has been previously mentioned, some people were taken into custody, not taken before a judge, and released when they requested an attorney, without being charged.  Those are the cases that present as an arrest without probably cause.


Assume based on the overwhelming weight of logic? I think I will. And, as I'm sure you know, just because charges are dropped that in no way means that the arrest was unlawful. It's that whole PC vs Reasonable Doubt thing if the reason why escapes you. And a defense attorney couldn't remember "arraignment"? Seriously?
 
2020-08-12 1:22:02 PM  

RyogaM: RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.

Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.


Ask them about their own security force they deployed to the rally (a bunch of bouncers and bail bondsmen in black wearing their badges and armed) that patrolled the crowd.  They were having none of it.
 
2020-08-12 1:27:43 PM  

sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.


Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever
 
2020-08-12 1:29:26 PM  

Langdon_777: dirkhardly: Bandito King: dirkhardly: Langdon_777: dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

I am pretty sure the laws they were enforcing outside of the "federal land" were state laws.  All of those stormtroopers need to be held accountable for what they did, and those who ordered them to do it, let the lowbies claim "following orders" then work the way up.

Even if the offense is federal solely because it took place on federal land federal LEOs can arrest you for that offense pretty much anywhere in the US. And how do you know they weren't executing federal arrest warrants after probable cause was submitted before a duly sworn judge or magistrate?

Because that's not what Trump's sturmtruppers know how to do. We aren't talking about rocket scientists, hell you'd be right at home with them.

Your smokescreen is weak and your bit is tired. You spout ignorant shiat and pretend to be dropping pearls of wisdom. Get farked, liar.

Again show me where anything I've said is wrong or a lie. Are you seriously so stupid that you think all these LEOs and judges and DAs didn't exist and do these jobs before Trump was ever elected? It's funny how so many here react to actual facts. If they look like "pearls of wisdom" to you it's because you're so unac ...

I think we just do not like you.  And you seem to be siding with the stormtroopers, who we also do not like.


See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think
 
2020-08-12 1:33:35 PM  

dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think


And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.
 
2020-08-12 1:33:51 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.

Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever


Please read
Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994)

Which negates your "shiatty argument" there is no basis for claiming a constitutional violation for those who were released as soon as they asked for lawyers without a an "initial appearance" or "arraignment", and in particular Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion which indicated " County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44 (1991), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized, made specific the probable-cause promptness requirement of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); McLaughlin instructed that a delay exceeding 48 hours presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment." (at page 83)

Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?
 
2020-08-12 1:39:49 PM  

dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.


For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.
 
2020-08-12 1:41:48 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: sdd2000: For our resident GED-in-law please read
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)


Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that, in a particular case, it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.

Why do you keep attacking my credentials while posting such shiatty arguments? You do know how the "reasonableness" standard works under the law right? Do you think that the current situation might just change what is considered "reasonable" under the circumstances? And again, show me where I stated something incorrectly that you are ostensibly correcting? And, since you still don't seem to get it, I never stated that the feds had an unlimited time to bring arrestees before a judge. This has nothing to do with anything except people are alleging wrongdoing by the feds, including Constitutional violations, and have failed to produce any evidence of it whatsoever

Please read
Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994)

Which negates your "shiatty argument" there is no basis for claiming a constitutional violation for those who were released as soon as they asked for lawyers without a an "initial appearance" or "arraignment", and in particular Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion which indicated " County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44 (1991), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized, made specific the probable-cause promptness requirement of Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); McLaughlin instructed that a delay exceeding 48 hours presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment." (at page 83)

Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?


Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it
 
2020-08-12 1:43:38 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.


You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up
 
2020-08-12 1:44:46 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.


They had police patches on their front and back.  No names though because of doxing.

And that is really what this is about, the police are not giving you the same opportunity that the police were given.  Idiot protesters posting YouTube videos that the feds now have a team of people working through and arresting all the idiots that appear on the videos committing crimes.

Deliciously ironic.
 
2020-08-12 1:49:03 PM  

dirkhardly: Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?

Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it


And your answer to my question about your credentials is what again? It seems to be missing from your reply counselor.
 
2020-08-12 1:54:03 PM  

dwrash: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

They had police patches on their front and back.  No names though because of doxing.

And that is really what this is about, the police are not giving you the same opportunity that the police were given.  Idiot protesters posting YouTube videos that the feds now have a team of people working through and arresting all the idiots that appear on the videos committing crimes.

Deliciously ironic.


O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.
 
2020-08-12 1:54:22 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.


I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity
 
2020-08-12 1:56:58 PM  

Truck Fump: WTF dude? Do your damn job! (unless, of course, you're being ordered not to, then tell us who is ordering you)

Guess we have to leave this to the ACLU


What you did there, I see it.

I give you a 7/10 for that one.
 
2020-08-12 1:58:46 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: Oh and what exactly are your credentials, are you claiming a J.D.? An L.L.M.?

Uh...false arrest/imprisonment is in fact a violation of Constitutional Rights. And again, would-be Magistrate, why do you keep posting these to rebut a claim I never made?Go ahead, quote my post and why you think this rebuts it

And your answer to my question about your credentials is what again? It seems to be missing from your reply counselor.


Read upthread genius. Asked and answered. And someone as legally knowledgeable as yourself surely understands that my credentials have nothing to do with whether my legal analysis is right does it? Now are you going to answer my question and quote where I said something incorrect or answer my challenge and bring any evidence that the feds violated protesters' Constitutional Rights?
 
2020-08-12 2:00:30 PM  

dirkhardly: zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.

I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity


You've clearly been waiting a long time then as you've spent several hours in this thread making dozens of replies to multiple different posters. You obviously care at some level to spend enough time on Fark arguing with people you claim to not care about over reading a book, watching something on Youtube, catching up on Sports, playing a videogame, or anything else ostensibly a better use of your time ;)
 
2020-08-12 2:07:39 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: zbtop: dirkhardly: See it's a problem when people view introducing facts as taking a side. And I give zero farks what people who are much stupider than me and talk a lot of shiat from behind a keyboard think

And yet you seem to be going out of your way to spend a lot of time on Fark responding, often in detail, to every post you think is stupid and talking shiat.

Strange about that.

I'm waiting for something and have the time to take 2 minutes per post or so and it's amusing. Also, I'm generally against making the world a stupider place because it leads to bad shiat. I'm perfectly content to post facts in a neutral manner but the usual crowd of sad man-children have to come out flailing when threatened and insist on endlessly piling on to their initial stupidity

You've clearly been waiting a long time then as you've spent several hours in this thread making dozens of replies to multiple different posters. You obviously care at some level to spend enough time on Fark arguing with people you claim to not care about over reading a book, watching something on Youtube, catching up on Sports, playing a videogame, or anything else ostensibly a better use of your time ;)


The unfortunate thing is that if you don't quash this sort of thing early then these are the kind of people who will get louder and more forceful until we have either terrible laws and public policies or protests and riots. Maybe there is better uses of my time, but then I think that would be truer by orders of magnitude for all the people on here who aren't even right in the first place
 
2020-08-12 2:15:53 PM  

zbtop: O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.


Given that most agitators were/are from out of town I doubt you would hear much about any of them getting arrested back at their homes.
 
2020-08-12 2:17:46 PM  

dwrash: RyogaM: RyogaM: So, you supported an organization that threatened to violently attack people if they didn't do as you demand instead of calling the civil authorities tasked with maintaining order.  Who was that NAACP officials name, I'd like to talk to him.

Oh, hey, nevermind, I found it on the NAACP Pennsylvania website, under Pottstown.  I'll ask him myself.

Ask them about their own security force they deployed to the rally (a bunch of bouncers and bail bondsmen in black wearing their badges and armed) that patrolled the crowd.  They were having none of it.


If he responds to me email, I will.
 
2020-08-12 2:23:49 PM  

dwrash: zbtop: O_o They black-bagged people that were in in the area, literally between the courthouse and justice center (and ultimately had to release at least one without charge as soon as they asked for a lawyer), the Feds aren't going through YouTube videos and arresting people after the fact days/weeks later, especially after being told to stay the fark off our streets, there hasn't been a federal arrest in almost two weeks.

Given that most agitators were/are from out of town I doubt you would hear much about any of them getting arrested back at their homes.


In other words, as you'd have no way of knowing if that's happening or not either, and isn't related to officers arresting people on the streets without ID, you're just making stuff up.
 
2020-08-12 3:03:46 PM  

dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up


Not at all. I mean the people they were randomly picking up blocks away from the protests, as has been widely covered.

Nice try, though.
 
2020-08-12 3:44:02 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


OMG you are right! That building is far too not-on-fire and not-in-smoking-ruin! Do better protestors.

/trash and paint, the HORROR!
//were this a just world it would be blood and the bodies of fascists
 
2020-08-12 3:45:27 PM  

Mikey1969: dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up

Not at all. I mean the people they were randomly picking up blocks away from the protests, as has been widely covered.

Nice try, though.


And how would you, or any observer, know that they were arresting people "randomly" genius? Did the feds announce that they were doing so? How could anyone possibly know whether they had previously identified someone as a suspect in a federal crime before the arrest was made? Did you put one moment of critical thought into this before just accepting what you wanted to be true as factual?
 
2020-08-12 3:49:55 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: RyogaM: Unless the DHS officers gave their full names and governmental identification on the arrest reports, either as the arresting officers or supposed victims, it would be a complete waste of time, anyway.  This was an intimidation tactic, nothing more.

And as such things go it completely failed


Uh, no. It succeeded spectacularly in generating conflict where there was none and dramatic video of "law and order" cracking down on "anarchists" to shoe up support in Trump's base.
 
2020-08-12 4:03:39 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: [do0bihdskp9dy.cloudfront.net image 850x478]


So we throw out the rule of law over graffiti and litter. Yay freedom and small government.
 
2020-08-12 4:28:00 PM  

dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up

Not at all. I mean the people they were randomly picking up blocks away from the protests, as has been widely covered.

Nice try, though.

And how would you, or any observer, know that they were arresting people "randomly" genius? Did the feds announce that they were doing so? How could anyone possibly know whether they had previously identified someone as a suspect in a federal crime before the arrest was made? Did you put one moment of critical thought into this before just accepting what you wanted to be true as factual?


Man you must really be waiting around a lot, you're still here arguing with people you ostensibly don't care about 2 hours later.
 
2020-08-12 5:02:04 PM  

zbtop: dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: Mikey1969: dirkhardly: You are 100% wrong. Federal arrest jurisdiction extends to pretty much the entire US.

For federal crimes. Not for standing on the street.


And they are under no obligation legally to identify themselves more than they did

You mean, by not identifying themselves? Got it.

You mean like vandalizing federal property, trespassing on federal property and assault/battery on fed officers? Yeah once they have PC for any of those they can arrest you anywhere in the country. You are factually wrong. Give up

Not at all. I mean the people they were randomly picking up blocks away from the protests, as has been widely covered.

Nice try, though.

And how would you, or any observer, know that they were arresting people "randomly" genius? Did the feds announce that they were doing so? How could anyone possibly know whether they had previously identified someone as a suspect in a federal crime before the arrest was made? Did you put one moment of critical thought into this before just accepting what you wanted to be true as factual?

Man you must really be waiting around a lot, you're still here arguing with people you ostensibly don't care about 2 hours later.


I was. Thunderstorm caused delays. Now have another 2 minutes. And you seem to have conflated "don't care what some people think about me" with "don't care if people put stupid, potentially toxic, stuff out into the political/legal world." I care that bullshiat gets called out, I don't care what the people who I call out think of me for doing so. Clearer?
 
2020-08-12 5:34:05 PM  
I don't play a lawyer or a doctor, even on Fark.
 
2020-08-12 6:55:02 PM  

2wolves: I don't play a lawyer or a doctor, even on Fark.


And if you did you would probably know that the prosecutor in the federal system is a U.S. Attorney or an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a person would not "have their fates decided by the Federal DA" like someone who claims to have J.D. should know.
 
2020-08-13 4:31:22 AM  

dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing


No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?
 
2020-08-13 6:24:25 AM  

sdd2000: 2wolves: I don't play a lawyer or a doctor, even on Fark.

And if you did you would probably know that the prosecutor in the federal system is a U.S. Attorney or an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a person would not "have their fates decided by the Federal DA" like someone who claims to have J.D. should know.


Dude...really? I was contrasting the federal system with state/county so used similar terms since people here, starting with subby, confused the two. Why don't you answer my question about Constitutional Rights violations? You cite a bunch of irrelevant cases trying to refute a point I never made, where you confused the legal issues in the first place. So since people here and in the media are alleging arrests are being made illegally where is the evidence of a lack of PC for these arrests and where are the lawsuits or even allegations made by those actually taken into custody?
 
2020-08-13 6:51:33 AM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?


Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites has anyone else offered to support the claims they've made? Show me one instance where anything I've posted is wrong. Show me one place where other "legal experts" have corrected me where, according to you, my arguments have amounted to nothing more than No U. And I admit I haven't searched the Portland federal docket. So what? I haven't made the claims so the burden is not on me to do so.

So where are your arguments and cites Champ? Because so far you're just doing the same pathetic shiat talking
 
2020-08-13 6:58:16 AM  

dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?

Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites has anyone else offered t ...


I forgot "thin-skinned".

TL/DR, ta ta soft lad!
 
2020-08-13 8:51:49 AM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?

Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites has anyone else offered t ...

I forgot "thin-skinned".

TL/DR, ta ta soft lad!


Go on however you want with your pathetic little tirade but you'll never get past the basic fact that, beginning with subby, the vast majority of people in this thread have not just been wrong but ridiculously, laughably wrong. While, I, beginning with pointing out subby and others' glaring mistake, am absolutely 100% right. You just keep flailing away while dodging that basic truth. It's exactly why you are who you are
 
2020-08-13 9:25:44 AM  

dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?

Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites ha ...


Nothing you've said here contradicts anything I've said.  Well done.  You seem mad, maybe you should relax?
 
2020-08-13 9:39:09 AM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?

Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites ha ...

Nothing you've said here contradicts anything I've said.  Well done.  You seem mad, maybe you should relax?


So why are you taking shots at me then? Is it because I returned in kind the attitudes and insults people gave me for simply pointing out the ridiculously wrong things they are posting that can serve no possible purpose other than to make things worse? Why don't you have an issue with them? Funny that
 
2020-08-13 9:45:10 AM  

dirkhardly: So why are you taking shots at me then? Is it because I returned in kind the attitudes and insults people gave me for simply pointing out the ridiculously wrong things they are posting that can serve no possible purpose other than to make things worse? Why don't you have an issue with them? Funny that


You mean like calling U.S. Attorneys "federal district attorneys". Something as ridiculously wrong as that? Funny that.
 
2020-08-13 9:48:47 AM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: The Envoy: dirkhardly: It's funny how so many here react to actual facts.

That, or they're reacting to your charming personality.

Their issue with my "personality" seems to be not wanting to be told they are wrong. Me, I blame them for posting wrong shiat without bothering to find out different. Not sure why people would defend posting wrong, dumb shiat and attacking people who correct you. Must be the whole "pathetically insecure" thing

No, their issue with your "personality" is that it's combative, repellent and arrogant.  Coupled with your weak argument it's not a good look for you.

There are legal professionals responding to you and your sum total argument seems to boil down to "NO U!", which is never a solid tactic.  You even admit to not having bothered to look some things up (despite this monster wait you were allegedly going through) so why should anybody take you seriously again?  You haven't provided citations, you're just a mouthpiece stomping his impotent little feet because adults won't pay attention to how you think things SHOULD be.

Any clearer for you?

Combative and arrogant is a matter of perspective isn't it? Me, I see a bunch of people, starting with subby and going quickly off the rails from there, who post wrong, stupid shiat and don't like getting called on it so they double down and start hurling insults. Talking out of your ass in the first place is a fine example of arrogance, and it's even more arrogant when you attack the person who just corrects your mistake even though you know deep down you were talking out of your ass in the first place. See, I know they're wrong because I bother to know what I'm talking about and it's not my fault other people don't. I fully blame them. So do you really need a cite that a county DA has nothing to do with federal arrests/charges? And what cites or even basic arguments has anyone offered to rebut anything I've posted? Show me. What evidence or cites ha ...

Nothing you've said here contradicts anything I've said.  Well done.  You seem mad, maybe you should relax?


And actually it does contradict your characterization of my posts and whether they've been "corrected" by purported "legal experts" and whether they've amounted to "No U." And I'm not mad, I can't take you and the others seriously enough for that. But a combination of irritation and amusement is a pretty rational response to what are presumably adults operating at a playground level
 
2020-08-13 9:55:44 AM  
Definitely mad.
 
2020-08-13 10:15:09 AM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: So why are you taking shots at me then? Is it because I returned in kind the attitudes and insults people gave me for simply pointing out the ridiculously wrong things they are posting that can serve no possible purpose other than to make things worse? Why don't you have an issue with them? Funny that

You mean like calling U.S. Attorneys "federal district attorneys". Something as ridiculously wrong as that? Funny that.


Still dodging my question on Constitutional Rights violations huh? And it's called a colloquialism and failing to use the literal title doesn't change the overall point at all does it? Where subby and others thought a county DA had something to do with federal cases and a simply changed it to federal DA for simplicity's sake and to avoid confusion. So do you think my overall point is incorrect or do you agree that subby and others are ridiculously wrong and you're just engaging in desperate nit-picking?

And speaking of errors, let's talk about your posts so we can see just where you couldn't follow the actual legal issues:
1) People are alleging illegal arrests. They have no offered no evidence that these weren't based on witnessing an offense or pursuant to a warrant. To rebut my asking how anyone knew they weren't pursuant to a warrant you cite FRCP 5 about initial appearance as if that alone proves anything since all arrests would lead to an initial appearance before a magistrate.
2) And when simply citing the rule language and I ask you what you think that vague standard means you and the other purported attorney try to "correct me" on a contradictory position I never took. You also seem to refuse to acknowledge that what is "reasonable" under the law may depend on current circumstances. 3)You then cite cases to support this non-argument and cite an irrelevant holding while seemingly oblivious to the fact that while an early dismissal of charges may alleviate Constitutional defects as to future prosecution it doesn't eliminate the Constitutional cause of action for violations of civil rights for false/arrest imprisonment now does it?
4) So given all these alleged 4th and maybe 6th Amendment violations where are the lawsuits? What evidence do you have that any arrest was improper or that anyone was denied a timely first appearance or any other hearing? That was the whole issue and you've done nothing but go off on tangents and grasp at desperate straws about my credentials and terminology to prove me wrong somehow without actually addressing the actual argument.

I'm starting to believe you're either flat out lying or some District dodged a bullet
 
2020-08-13 10:26:47 AM  

The Envoy: Definitely mad.


Again, no...I don't respect anything you've said enough to reach that level. That's because you post such stupid shiat and I'm sure it's pretty indicative of your life outside Fark when you're not desperately trying to score imaginary points the only way you're capable of: on an anonymous message board where you've got nothing but No U and running away
 
2020-08-13 12:28:13 PM  

dirkhardly: The Envoy: Definitely mad.

Again, no...I don't respect anything you've said enough to reach that level. That's because you post such stupid shiat and I'm sure it's pretty indicative of your life outside Fark when you're not desperately trying to score imaginary points the only way you're capable of: on an anonymous message board where you've got nothing but No U and running away


Not mad, positively crying.  And a shiatload of projection too.  It's the 'Murican way.
 
2020-08-13 12:34:00 PM  

dirkhardly: So why are you taking shots at me then?


Because you seem like an asshole?  You present as a yappy little child bellowing for attention and it's boorish and ignorant.  You might have a point, I am not a lawyer so I haven't followed it, but any point you may have had is drowned out by your petulance and general sh*tty demeanour.  I just saw your lack of response to RyogaM's factual and civil post beyond calling him a "purported" legal expert.  That's not debate, that's childish ad hominem because you didn't like what he said.

Here's a secret for when you're grown up:  adults don't give respect to yappy little dogs who don't show it.  Act like a dick, get treated like one.

Now go cry it off champ.
 
2020-08-13 1:05:45 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: So why are you taking shots at me then?

Because you seem like an asshole?  You present as a yappy little child bellowing for attention and it's boorish and ignorant.  You might have a point, I am not a lawyer so I haven't followed it, but any point you may have had is drowned out by your petulance and general sh*tty demeanour.  I just saw your lack of response to RyogaM's factual and civil post beyond calling him a "purported" legal expert.  That's not debate, that's childish ad hominem because you didn't like what he said.

Here's a secret for when you're grown up:  adults don't give respect to yappy little dogs who don't show it.  Act like a dick, get treated like one.

Now go cry it off champ.


Which post by RyogaM? And did they maybe start the shiat slinging first? Look at my interaction with Hyjamon. They were nothing but civil and I was nothing but civil back. And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning. So you stay safe here in the comments where you can pretend you're smart or have the moral high ground
 
2020-08-13 1:16:02 PM  

dirkhardly: Which post by RyogaM? And did they maybe start the shiat slinging first? Look at my interaction with Hyjamon. They were nothing but civil and I was nothing but civil back. And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning. So you stay safe here in the comments where you can pretend you're smart or have the moral high ground


Ctrl-F "RyogaM".  66 entries.  Go for it.  You read it, because you attempted to denigrate it later.  Feigned ignorance, do you use that tactic in your "grown-up world" too?
 
2020-08-13 1:16:49 PM  
As for "stay safe here in the comments", what does that even mean?!  Have you already gone ITG?  That wouldn't work out well for you.
 
2020-08-13 1:24:45 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: Which post by RyogaM? And did they maybe start the shiat slinging first? Look at my interaction with Hyjamon. They were nothing but civil and I was nothing but civil back. And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning. So you stay safe here in the comments where you can pretend you're smart or have the moral high ground

Ctrl-F "RyogaM".  66 entries.  Go for it.  You read it, because you attempted to denigrate it later.  Feigned ignorance, do you use that tactic in your "grown-up world" too?


You don't even need to go that far to see that his feigned, "I was above that and did not call anyone names" bovine excrement. All you need to do is read his Boobies in this thread where his Boobies said "As pretty par for the course, subby is dumb" That of course in his mind is how a brilliant legal argument should be made.
 
2020-08-13 1:28:01 PM  

dirkhardly: And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning.


Is that different to any other profession?  Odd that you seem to think it is.  I build corporate offices mostly.  You think that's any less rigorous than your profession?  It's odd how you haven't actually posted your credentials here.  Here's your opportunity, why should anybody take your yapping seriously?

What is your experience "in the legal world"?  Are you a lawyer?
 
2020-08-13 1:29:48 PM  

sdd2000: The Envoy: dirkhardly: Which post by RyogaM? And did they maybe start the shiat slinging first? Look at my interaction with Hyjamon. They were nothing but civil and I was nothing but civil back. And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning. So you stay safe here in the comments where you can pretend you're smart or have the moral high ground

Ctrl-F "RyogaM".  66 entries.  Go for it.  You read it, because you attempted to denigrate it later.  Feigned ignorance, do you use that tactic in your "grown-up world" too?

You don't even need to go that far to see that his feigned, "I was above that and did not call anyone names" bovine excrement. All you need to do is read his Boobies in this thread where his Boobies said "As pretty par for the course, subby is dumb" That of course in his mind is how a brilliant legal argument should be made.


Note he's in the "legal world".  I reckon he's a paralegal or an average 2nd year law student.  Possibly a legal secretary who thinks he's going to be the next Erin Brockovich.
 
2020-08-13 1:54:21 PM  
Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.
 
2020-08-13 2:15:28 PM  

Langdon_777: Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.


The federal building is not state turf, its like an embassy.. it is Federal Property.
 
2020-08-13 2:36:57 PM  

dwrash: Langdon_777: Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.

The federal building is not state turf, its like an embassy.. it is Federal Property.


And where the "arrests" all made within or on federal property by the unmarked federal officers or on the basis of some federal crime? Were the vans the people were pushed into on federal property? Were the people arrested taken before a federal magistrate within the 48 hours that Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) and  County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) preemptively demarcates the timeline under Federal Criminal Rule 5 ?
 
2020-08-13 3:14:23 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: Which post by RyogaM? And did they maybe start the shiat slinging first? Look at my interaction with Hyjamon. They were nothing but civil and I was nothing but civil back. And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning. So you stay safe here in the comments where you can pretend you're smart or have the moral high ground

Ctrl-F "RyogaM".  66 entries.  Go for it.  You read it, because you attempted to denigrate it later.  Feigned ignorance, do you use that tactic in your "grown-up world" too?


They made a claim moron, let them back it up with specifics
 
2020-08-13 3:18:31 PM  

The Envoy: As for "stay safe here in the comments", what does that even mean?!  Have you already gone ITG?  That wouldn't work out well for you.


You're the one who brought up the "real world" moron, do I need to connect the dots further. More context?

And you're completely wrong about my credentials. Over fifteen years since law school, married to a law professor. Hang out with a lot of lawyers and legal scholars on a regular basis. More importantly, you keep dodging the whole "prove anything I've said wrong" thing
 
2020-08-13 3:23:49 PM  

The Envoy: dirkhardly: And in the grown-up world I live and operate in, the legal world for instance, you don't spout bullshiat instead of facts or talk shiat without a reckoning.

Is that different to any other profession?  Odd that you seem to think it is.  I build corporate offices mostly.  You think that's any less rigorous than your profession?  It's odd how you haven't actually posted your credentials here.  Here's your opportunity, why should anybody take your yapping seriously?

What is your experience "in the legal world"?  Are you a lawyer?


Yes, yes it is. Much different. You obviously have no idea. For instance, when most people argue it's not in front of a neutral arbiter, the stakes are much lower, and you're not facing a trained professional with no other goal than to challenge everything you argue. Did you really need this explained to you?
 
2020-08-13 3:26:42 PM  

sdd2000: dwrash: Langdon_777: Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.

The federal building is not state turf, its like an embassy.. it is Federal Property.

And where the "arrests" all made within or on federal property by the unmarked federal officers or on the basis of some federal crime? Were the vans the people were pushed into on federal property? Were the people arrested taken before a federal magistrate within the 48 hours that Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) and  County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) preemptively demarcates the timeline under Federal Criminal Rule 5 ?


I don't know. Do you have any evidence they weren't? Do you really think, given the checks in our system, that this could go unnoticed by everyone, especially the Courts, watching? Where has any arrestee or any attorney acting on behalf of a client made such allegations?
 
2020-08-13 3:45:06 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: dwrash: Langdon_777: Over a day later and I find you even less likeable than yesterday.

What the feds did in Portland was wrong and should never have happened, it was a dangerous overstep of federal power in a state's turf.

The federal building is not state turf, its like an embassy.. it is Federal Property.

And where the "arrests" all made within or on federal property by the unmarked federal officers or on the basis of some federal crime? Were the vans the people were pushed into on federal property? Were the people arrested taken before a federal magistrate within the 48 hours that Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) and  County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) preemptively demarcates the timeline under Federal Criminal Rule 5 ?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence they weren't? Do you really think, given the checks in our system, that this could go unnoticed by everyone, especially the Courts, watching? Where has any arrestee or any attorney acting on behalf of a client made such allegations?


Please see the complaint as well as the affidavit attached   https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-hom​e​/news-media-releases/attorney-general-​rosenblum-files-lawsuit-against-u-s-ho​meland-security-announces-criminal-inv​estigation/

And I can assure you with a reasonable degree of certainty that  the Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is aware of Federal Rule 11.
 
2020-08-13 4:10:03 PM  
This is from the U.S. Attorney (not the the federal district attorney- which is a position that does not exist) :

"Based on news accounts circulating that allege federal law enforcement detained two protestors without probable cause, I have requested the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General to open a separate investigation directed specifically at the actions of DHS personnel. "

I am sure that DHS "will investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrongdoing"
 
2020-08-13 4:22:51 PM  
And as a followup to our resident "working in the legal world"'s claim that no lawsuits have been filed based upon the arrest they can also look at this

Please pay particular attention to the allegations starting at paragraph 102.
 
2020-08-13 4:44:52 PM  

sdd2000: And as a followup to our resident "working in the legal world"'s claim that no lawsuits have been filed based upon the arrest they can also look at this

Please pay particular attention to the allegations starting at paragraph 102.


First of all show me where I stated no lawsuit has been filed. I simply asked for evidence of the alleged widespread violation of civil rights. And you produce a lawsuit which is full of allegations that basically challenges the feds to prove they followed proper procedures. Fantastic. Let's see how they respond before we treat this as any more than allegations shall we? You know, how the system is supposed to work. Evidence and all that. And aren't these are the very safeguards that prevent the widespread and undocumented violations of civil rights that people are alleging? And I also know a lawsuit can be next to worthless and still not be frivolous, counselor. The lawsuit by itself proves nothing and that's not just my opinion but true as a matter of law. By the way, were the largely rhetorical questions (since neither you or anyone here knows the answers) you asked about the arrests your idea of "brilliant legal arguments"?
 
2020-08-13 4:57:57 PM  

dirkhardly: sdd2000: And as a followup to our resident "working in the legal world"'s claim that no lawsuits have been filed based upon the arrest they can also look at this

Please pay particular attention to the allegations starting at paragraph 102.

First of all show me where I stated no lawsuit has been filed. I simply asked for evidence of the alleged widespread violation of civil rights. And you produce a lawsuit which is full of allegations that basically challenges the feds to prove they followed proper procedures. Fantastic. Let's see how they respond before we treat this as any more than allegations shall we? You know, how the system is supposed to work. Evidence and all that. And aren't these are the very safeguards that prevent the widespread and undocumented violations of civil rights that people are alleging? And I also know a lawsuit can be next to worthless and still not be frivolous, counselor. The lawsuit by itself proves nothing and that's not just my opinion but true as a matter of law. By the way, were the largely rhetorical questions (since neither you or anyone here knows the answers) you asked about the arrests your idea of "brilliant legal arguments"?


dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)

 
2020-08-13 5:27:18 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: sdd2000: And as a followup to our resident "working in the legal world"'s claim that no lawsuits have been filed based upon the arrest they can also look at this

Please pay particular attention to the allegations starting at paragraph 102.

First of all show me where I stated no lawsuit has been filed. I simply asked for evidence of the alleged widespread violation of civil rights. And you produce a lawsuit which is full of allegations that basically challenges the feds to prove they followed proper procedures. Fantastic. Let's see how they respond before we treat this as any more than allegations shall we? You know, how the system is supposed to work. Evidence and all that. And aren't these are the very safeguards that prevent the widespread and undocumented violations of civil rights that people are alleging? And I also know a lawsuit can be next to worthless and still not be frivolous, counselor. The lawsuit by itself proves nothing and that's not just my opinion but true as a matter of law. By the way, were the largely rhetorical questions (since neither you or anyone here knows the answers) you asked about the arrests your idea of "brilliant legal arguments"?

dirkhardly: cannibalparrot: Mikey1969: dwrash: They will be brought up on federal charges.

So why haven't they been charged already? It was federal agents who detained them, so if it was a legit bust, why weren't they charged immediately?

And if these were legitimate arrests, why did the police hide their identities?

They didn't hide their identities as LEOs but federal LEOs don't typically wear nametags unlike regular police. And how familiar are you with federal criminal processes? Are you under the impression these things move quickly? Especially right now? I'm also waiting anxiously for all these false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits that are sure to come cascading in any day now (unlike other civil rights lawsuits against the government these are pretty easy to prove if valid)


Still doesn't say what you're claiming, counselor. How's your reading comprehension? Asking for examples of lawsuits still doesn't equal stating none have been filed. That's basic English and logic. And one lawsuit, even with multiple plaintiffs, isn't quite a cascade is it? Considering the alleged widespread civil rights violations alleged I mean. And the AG heading a suit isn't quite the same as individual plaintiffs funding their own suits it? So there goes that normal check. And the AG is under no real risk of ethical sanction even if the allegations are partially or wholly false unless they were aware, or should have been aware, of their falsity. So your Rule 11 argument is pretty much doubly worthless. Good job. Finally, none of these allegations have faced any form of legal challenge have they? For instance, the AG's claim relies partly on 1st Amendment FoA claims except people like the AG keep seeming to forget that such protesting on city streets or other public places without a permit has never been Constitutionally protected since SCOTUS has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions. And if said marching in the streets, let alone trespassing on private or Federal property, isn't Constitutionally protected then that changes things quite a bit doesn't it?
 
2020-08-13 5:40:28 PM  

dirkhardly: Still doesn't say what you're claiming, counselor. How's your reading comprehension? Asking for examples of lawsuits still doesn't equal stating none have been filed. That's basic English and logic. And one lawsuit, even with multiple plaintiffs, isn't quite a cascade is it? Considering the alleged widespread civil rights violations alleged I mean. And the AG heading a suit isn't quite the same as individual plaintiffs funding their own suits it? So there goes that normal check. And the AG is under no real risk of ethical sanction even if the allegations are partially or wholly false unless they were aware, or should have been aware, of their falsity. So your Rule 11 argument is pretty much doubly worthless. Good job. Finally, none of these allegations have faced any form of legal challenge have they? For instance, the AG's claim relies partly on 1st Amendment FoA claims except people like the AG keep seeming to forget that such protesting on city streets or other public places without a permit has never been Constitutionally protected since SCOTUS has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions. And if said marching in the streets, let alone trespassing on private or Federal property, isn't Constitutionally protected then that changes things quite a bit doesn't it?


Your comprehension is a problem.
I gave links to two different lawsuits not one.

Also, you asked for " Where has any arrestee or any attorney acting on behalf of a client made such allegations? " and I provided a link where an affidavit under penalty of perjury was set forth.

Also your argument of "For instance, the AG's claim relies partly on 1st Amendment FoA claims except people like the AG keep seeming to forget that such protesting on city streets or other public places without a permit has never been Constitutionally protected since SCOTUS has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions. " ignores the small issue that that even if there was a basis for saying the protestors were in violation of a law it would be a state law and not a federal one if the "public place" was not on federal property would it not and your federal officers would have no jurisdiction, or are you conveniently forgetting that portion in your argument.
 
2020-08-13 5:59:57 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: Still doesn't say what you're claiming, counselor. How's your reading comprehension? Asking for examples of lawsuits still doesn't equal stating none have been filed. That's basic English and logic. And one lawsuit, even with multiple plaintiffs, isn't quite a cascade is it? Considering the alleged widespread civil rights violations alleged I mean. And the AG heading a suit isn't quite the same as individual plaintiffs funding their own suits it? So there goes that normal check. And the AG is under no real risk of ethical sanction even if the allegations are partially or wholly false unless they were aware, or should have been aware, of their falsity. So your Rule 11 argument is pretty much doubly worthless. Good job. Finally, none of these allegations have faced any form of legal challenge have they? For instance, the AG's claim relies partly on 1st Amendment FoA claims except people like the AG keep seeming to forget that such protesting on city streets or other public places without a permit has never been Constitutionally protected since SCOTUS has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions. And if said marching in the streets, let alone trespassing on private or Federal property, isn't Constitutionally protected then that changes things quite a bit doesn't it?

Your comprehension is a problem.
I gave links to two different lawsuits not one.

Also, you asked for " Where has any arrestee or any attorney acting on behalf of a client made such allegations? " and I provided a link where an affidavit under penalty of perjury was set forth.

Also your argument of "For instance, the AG's claim relies partly on 1st Amendment FoA claims except people like the AG keep seeming to forget that such protesting on city streets or other public places without a permit has never been Constitutionally protected since SCOTUS has consistently upheld time, place, and manner restrictions. " ignores the small issue that that even if there was a basis for saying the protestors were in violation of a law it would be a state law and not a federal one if the "public place" was not on federal property would it not and your federal officers would have no jurisdiction, or are you conveniently forgetting that portion in your argument.


You may want to check your links or maybe it was me but I see one lawsuit and one internal investigation. And yes, good, thank you. You finally provided some of the evidence I've been asking for all along. You know, when all those allegations were being made without anyone supplying evidence. Of course it's merely some evidence and not all dispositive. But it is finally something, not much as of yet, but something.

And again you fail at reading comprehension and legal analysis. Part of the complaint and request for relief is based on alleged violations of 1st Amendment rights. It's right there in your link. However, if the speech or assembly is not Constitutionally protected then there can be no Constitutional violation. This is literally Con Law 101, counselor.
 
2020-08-13 6:11:07 PM  
Maybe I should go ahead and connect the dots a little more. A protest in violation of state law or local laws that are themselves Constitutional is not Constitutionally protected. Did you want me to cite Portland's code requiring such permits?
 
2020-08-13 6:13:39 PM  

dirkhardly: Maybe I should go ahead and connect the dots a little more. A protest in violation of state law or local laws that are themselves Constitutional is not Constitutionally protected. Did you want me to cite Portland's code requiring such permits?


Even if they are a violation what is the federal jurisdiction that allows for the detention by federal officers?
 
2020-08-13 6:31:25 PM  

sdd2000: dirkhardly: Maybe I should go ahead and connect the dots a little more. A protest in violation of state law or local laws that are themselves Constitutional is not Constitutionally protected. Did you want me to cite Portland's code requiring such permits?

Even if they are a violation what is the federal jurisdiction that allows for the detention by federal officers?


I'm talking about the 1st Amendment claims in the suit you linked to, not the 4th Amendment or any other claims, counselor. How was that not clear by what I wrote? I'll wait for the DOJs response for the 4th and PC claims. The 1st Amendment issues I don't even need that much. It's right there clear as day if you actually understand the law.

By the way, a really easy way for federal LEOs to have jurisdiction is if rocks, fireworks, or something similar are launched at them. It also happens to be well within the realm of possibility since it's pretty common in riots in general and has been alleged here specifically. Maybe someone who did such a thing would even lie about it.

And the DOJ is almost certainly going to cite safety concerns for themselves and anyone in custody as far as their methods. Whether you believe their motivations or not it's a legitimate legal argument given the conditions and again, if you don't believe the Courts aren't going to at least consider those conditions in re the whole "reasonableness" standard(s) then I don't know what to tell you...except you're wrong. Again.
 
2020-08-13 8:57:36 PM  

dirkhardly: You may want to check your links or maybe it was me but I see one lawsuit and one internal investigation. And yes, good, thank you. You finally provided some of the evidence I've been asking for all along. You know, when all those allegations were being made without anyone supplying evidence. Of course it's merely some evidence and not all dispositive. But it is finally something, not much as of yet, but something.

And again you fail at reading comprehension and legal analysis. Part of the complaint and request for relief is based on alleged violations of 1st Amendment rights. It's right there in your link. However, if the speech or assembly is not Constitutionally protected then there can be no Constitutional violation. This is literally Con Law 101, counselor.


links https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/g​o​v.uscourts.dcd.220374/gov.uscourts.dcd​.220374.1.0_1.pdf
and https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-conten​t​/uploads/2020/07/AG_Rosenblum_vs_John_​Does_1-10_Complaint.pdf

dirkhardly: By the way, a really easy way for federal LEOs to have jurisdiction is if rocks, fireworks, or something similar are launched at them. It also happens to be well within the realm of possibility since it's pretty common in riots in general and has been alleged here specifically. Maybe someone who did such a thing would even lie about it.


It is quite telling that you will quite willingly create your own justification and accept it as being "well within the realm of possibility" even though it apparently was not used as any justification to charge the individual who executed a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, but will waive your hand at the affidavit itself. Your brown shirt is showing.

Also I don't think I ever raised a 1st amendment argument in this thread other than to cite the court cases that raise that issue, so you have clearly created a straw man argument.
 
Displayed 196 of 196 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.