Breaking: Black Panthers Headed Back To Poll Stations to Monitor Them

[Full-Auto]

We dont need to produce anything.

Let me restate. If you are attempting to win the case on the merits...

we have already won on the merits. They didnt show up.

Case closed, or should have been until the racists dropped the case after having won it.

The only thing left is to point out your apparent racism.

 

[LiberalNut]

we have already won on the merits. They didnt show up.

Umm, that's not winning on the merits. That's called a default or ex-parte decision.

You aren't very bright, are you?

 

[Full-Auto]

we have already won on the merits. They didnt show up.

Umm, that's not winning on the merits. That's called a default or ex-parte decision.

You aren't very bright, are you?

In other words they were to freightened to show and could not challenge the evidence. Thus the no show. Proving the merit by default.

What I do see is you suffering from a prominent liberal illness. SITUATIONAL ETHICS.

 

[LiberalNut]

I was not inferring that the case proceed without a witness.

I was under the impression that we were doing a little moot court exercise. I was contending that you had no evidence. You claimed to have a witness. I asked you to name the witness. You couldn't. Therefore, logically, you don't have a witness.

according to the same logic, it was wrong for the DoJ to dismiss the case since the defendants defaulted on their appearance.

I'm sorry but i don't see your logic. The prosecution is the elected executive branch or "the people" if you will. The people can dismiss at any time prior to verdict and unless there's credible evidence of malfeasance (like say a bribe or something) then that's that. Case closed.

 

[WillowTree]

burn that race card, it's no longer useful.

 

[LiberalNut]

they were to freightened

Lawyer I: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Sustained. Nimwit will refrain from such idiocy, jury will disregard.

 

[Full-Auto]

they were to freightened

Lawyer I: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Sustained. Nimwit will refrain from such idiocy, jury will disregard.

They didnt show up to a legal proceeding, Meaning I am free to describe it at my whim.

Then add the DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests and it becomes clearer.

Quit pissing upwind.

 

[WillowTree]

they were to freightened

Lawyer I: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Sustained. Nimwit will refrain from such idiocy, jury will disregard.

They didnt show up to a legal proceeding, Meaning I am free to describe it at my whim.

Then add the DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests and it becomes clearer.

Quit pissing upwind.

you really should let him piss upwind.

 

[Full-Auto]

they were to freightened

Lawyer I: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Sustained. Nimwit will refrain from such idiocy, jury will disregard.

They didnt show up to a legal proceeding, Meaning I am free to describe it at my whim.

Then add the DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests and it becomes clearer.

Quit pissing upwind.

you really should let him piss upwind.

He is just another run of the mill leftie. Defending the panthers is probably a good indication that he is also a racist.

 

[LiberalNut]

I am free to describe it at my whim.

Of course you are. It's a 1st amendment thing. You just haven't proven any case on the merits.

DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests

Assuming facts not in evidence again. The Freedom of information act is legally binding. If the request passes muster in a court, the DOJ is obliged to follow the court order. You have evidence of such a court order?

I didn't think so.

 

[Full-Auto]

I am free to describe it at my whim.

Of course you are. It's a 1st amendment thing. You just haven't proven any case on the merits.

DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests

Assuming facts not in evidence again. The Freedom of information act is legally binding. If the request passes muster in a court, the DOJ is obliged to follow the court order. You have evidence of such a court order?

I didn't think so.

The merits were decided when they failed to show up, reinforced by the DOJ acting unlawfully.

You are not very bright are you?

 

[LiberalNut]

The merits were decided when they failed to show up

They were not. You can repeat this lie as often as you like but it doesn't become truth through repeated repetition, FOX news methodology notwithstanding.

DOJ acting unlawfully.

Contrary to typical right wing thinking, your opinion does not amount to law. DoJ has not acted unlawfully. The presumption of innocence applies.

 

[Full-Auto]

The merits were decided when they failed to show up

They were not. You can repeat this lie as often as you like but it doesn't become truth through repeated repetition, FOX news methodology notwithstanding.

DOJ acting unlawfully.

Contrary to typical right wing thinking, your opinion does not amount to law. DoJ has not acted unlawfully. The presumption of innocence applies.

When you decline to appear, you have already conceeded that the evidence the prosecution presents is of merit.

Remaining stuck on stupid will not help you.

 

[LiberalNut]

When you decline to appear, you have already conceeded that the evidence the prosecution presents is of merit.

Not so. Indeed, the defendants could have a perfectly legitimate reason not to appear. This would be decided at another proceeding that never actually happened because DoJ dropped the charges.

You don't know anything about the law and apparently, you don't care to know. You have your wedge issue and you will repeat the trained lines.

So it goes.

 

[Sallow]

Then provide some. This was the case that got covered.

That's kinda my point. This seems to be a fairly new federal law.

Which the Justice Department seems to interpret as only to protect minorities, that is not acceptable.

Again..I am asking for a case where that's shown to be true. The law's been on the books since, 2007. I think. If you can find a real case where the law was applied..we have a starting point. There are 2 things I find troubling here with the arguments.

First off..the "crime" was dealt with on a local level. And..they chose not to pursue it.

Second off..this leaves the Federal Government to decide whether or not "the crime" really was a crime, whether they have the evidence to pursure and whether they feel they could win a federal court. They decided they did not. Nothing in this thread really shows they had much of a case.

So we are left with..what FOX built up. An angry reaction to a, for the most part, minor incident that involved two kooks.

At the end of the day..the worst that can happen to these guys is 1 to 5 years in prison and I believe a $5,000 fine. So..although these guys haven't really done anything..the idea is to toss them in Jail..for what? Five years..at a cost of at least 20K a year.

Over what is essentially, outrage and sour grapes.

 

[Full-Auto]

When you decline to appear, you have already conceeded that the evidence the prosecution presents is of merit.

Not so. Indeed, the defendants could have a perfectly legitimate reason not to appear. This would be decided at another proceeding that never actually happened because DoJ dropped the charges.

You don't know anything about the law and apparently, you don't care to know. You have your wedge issue and you will repeat the trained lines.

So it goes.

LOL Reaching into my bag of excuses.

 

[LiberalNut]

Yeah, the actual law is mere excuses and technicalities. It's the opinion of the right wing drone that holds actual sway.

I like to call this particular symptom of right wing dronism "Dirty Harry Syndrome".

 

[Full-Auto]

Yeah, the actual law is mere excuses and technicalities. It's the opinion of the right wing drone that holds actual sway.

I like to call this particular symptom of right wing dronism "Dirty Harry Syndrome".

Did you need some tissue with that whine. Perhaps some cheese.

Next thing you will attempt is no court action has merit if the defendents decide not to show.

Pathetic on a multiple of levels.

 

[daveman]

There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

Would you like me to get you a tissue?

Speaking of which, here comes Synth, who can't quite bring himself to condemn anything Democrats do.

 

[daveman]

There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

Since we have no proof it does happen, that might be a clue for you. LMAO!!

There's proof, but it takes special and dedicated effort to ignore it. You know, like you clowns are doing in this thread.