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  
•       •       •

2051 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 46 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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.