Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. Responding to you is sort of worthless but since you felt compelled to be moronic, show your work. My entire point was that it was perfectly within the law as written for the judge to be arrested. She certainly could be arrested. Was arresting her the right move, that is what I do not know. But she absolutely opened herself up to being arrested. Do you believe her arrest was illegal? What exactly are you arguing?
  2. What are you having trouble with? There is a law, Twice posted it above and I quoted from it. Here it is again: The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." She clearly "aided" the defendant from avoiding apprehension. I do not think anyone really denies this. Do you? I read the stupid other Wisconsin Judge's letter about halting court procedures going forward and how she "“has no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by [Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents] and sent to a concentration camp,” One of the ironies of this ordeal is that it is showing how stupid some of these state judges actually are. No one even considered "taking someone out of my courtroom". No one asked this judge or the other arrested judge to help in any way. The judges got to do whatever they wanted in their courtrooms but once the hearings are over and the defendants leave the courtroom then they are in public areas and are perfectly legally taken into custody based on laws going back to the early 1900s. The fact that these freaking judges do not seem to understand this is kind of scary. It is like Ahoolco is a Wisconsin state judge.
  3. What is your point and what does anything you posted have to do with this case? The ice/dea guys were perfectly within their rights to be at the courthouse and to take the defendant into custody. Do you deny this? The judge stopped the hearing in the middle of it without even telling the prosecutor what was going on and escorted the defendant and his attorney out of a side exit. She did this after she realized that the ice people were there to arrest him. That is a textbook violation of the statute. We can certainly have a legitimate debate over whether it is a bad statute, but we cannot argue that she violated it. You have actual attorneys on this thread advocating for killing people that followed the laws exactly as they are written on the books. Statutes signed by Clinton with a dem controlled congress.
  4. Very interesting response to this situation. Kind of a microcosm of so many issues under Trump. The situation is full of misinformation, no understanding of the law and no understanding of the history of the law. Coupled with Trump's admin pursuing the law to levels generally, but not always, not pursued as aggressively. Considering administrative versus judicial warrants, administrative warrants are 100% enforceable by ICE and have been used to take illegal immigrants into custody by the millions under Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. Not one single court anywhere has ruled that administrative warrants for illegal immigrants are illegal or unconstitutional. The only real practical difference in the 2 types of warrants is that admin warrants have the caveat that they can not be served on private property and they do not, and this is a biggie in this case, REQUIRE cooperation from other law enforcement agencies or courts. US state and Federal courthouses are absolutely public area and ICE is well within the law to arrest people there on admin warrants. However, while these warrants do not REQUIRE cooperation, it is absolutely against the law to actively try and subvert them. 100%. The language in the statute is very clear. From Twices post: "The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." The judge had no obligation to help in the arrest of the defendant. She did not have to have her bailiff or other court officers turn the defendant over to ICE. All she had to do was make whatever ruling they were working on in the case before her and then either let the defendant go or have him taken into custody for the crimes he was being accused of in the proceedings they were litigating. Thats it. The issue is that she absolutely knew that the defendant was going to be taken into custody once he left the courtroom. She admits that knew this. She openly challenged the ICE agents. And I do not think openly challenging them is necessarily wrong and she doesn't deserve any punishment, imo, for challenging them. However, because she knew that they were there and, unarguably, knew their intention to take the defendant into custody, by law, what she she absolutely could not do was violate the above statute. I can see no argument that by actively escorting the defendant to a side exit- importantly in the middle of the actual hearing as opposed to after its conclusion to perhaps avoid a circus- that she "aided the prisoner in avoiding detection and APPREHENSION". It is not even a close call. She absolutely aided the defendant in trying to help him avoid apprehension. Should she have been arrested? I don't know. But there seems to be zero argument that she could under existing law be arrested because she did willfully violate the statute/law. Again, whether the law is justified or rarely enforced or whatever is irrelevant. It is the law as written.
  5. Kudos for digging in I guess. But you still keep missing the main factor. All the witnesses say Anthony said something to the effect of "touch me and see what happens or punch/hit me and see what happens". Legally you can not go up to someone or respond to a confrontation knowing you have a knife and escalate the situation in any way. When Anthony challenged Metcalf, regardless of what Metcalf did first, his self defense claims go out the window. You really seem to not like that but it is the law. Further, Anthony's statements to the cops are "he put his hands on me". Not 2 guys jumping him or tackling him or he punched me or tackled me or some mysterious group surrounding him ready to beat him. Not a single witness said anything about a group of people involved. He, singular, put his hands on me is what he said. Lastly, the ONLY way your ridiculous scenario involving multiple people "standing against" him could be possible would involve multiple people in the middle of the day at a track meet in the bleachers which are visible to everyone at the track meet (parents/coaches/fans/participants) that surrounded Anthony to a point that he could not escape and then attacked him and he used a knife to defend himself. By all accounts, Anthony could have just left the tent when asked to do so. He chose to stay and confront Metcalf and had a knife that he brought out and used. My guess, based on what we know so far, is he will plead to manslaughter and get 7-10 years. I think that would be pretty fair.
  6. You are missing the point. Let's assume that most of what you said is true- even though there is a police report where they interviewed many of the 30 or so people that watched the incident and every one of them basically says the same thing- that Metcalf approached Anthony and told him to leave the tent area, that then Anthony dug in his bag and retrieved something- then Anthony told Metcalf to "touch me or hit me and see what happens" and then Metcalf pushed him and then Anthony stabbed him.- and the knife was still in the bleachers when police arrived and they taped it to the bleachers and photographed it. So lets just assume all of the witnesses are lying and colluding to frame Anthony and that Metcalf somehow did everything you said, it still doesn't matter. Even in your crazy scenario you admit that Anthony "warned" Metcalf not to touch him. To claim self defense you can not, in any way, escalate the situation or act as an aggressor and then stab someone when you had the ability to leave the scene without any harm to anyone. Thats it. I do not want the kid convicted of murder. I think he was young and dumb and made a fatal mistake. But he is going to prison. The only thing now is for how long. I hope they reach a plea agreement where he gets out in time to have a life.
  7. The chainsaw guy has to be trolling at this point. I knew he was a lunatic based on his posts but this is a level beyond stupid. this is all that matters from a legal standpoint. All. Karmelo had time and free will to go and retrieve a knife from his backpack. He absolutely could have left at that point. Unarguable. But he retrieved a weapon and someone died. Hopefully he can plead to 20 or so years. But he is going in. And should.
  8. I read threw some of the lawsuits surrounding these guys and some articles in the NYTimes. Wow. Total scumbags. It certainly says something about our society that these guys have/had a large following. They really are disgusting. Have to love that by their own grandstanding and bragging and profile and flaunting of their wealth that they wound up on someones radar. FAFO The shitty thing is that I am not sure they actually broke any laws. There is tons of smoke and a few allegations but, at least what is available at this point, I am not sure they broke any laws. I certainly hope they did and they get buried under the jail. For discussion purposes only, I am curious what the law is regarding the original claims made by the Jane Doe that started the arrest process. It seems the following are the facts that all parties have agreed to: Tate met Doe, a woman from Florida, who was admittedly an Onlyfans model and they met through Seeking Arrangements (funny that there is a long page about Sugar Babies here on the site). They had sex a few times and Tate went back to Romania. He continued to stay in contact with Doe and told her he wanted a relationship with her and bought her a plane ticket to Romania. Upon arrival, Doe says that she hardly saw Tate and that he moved her into a house where women ere doing Onlyfans (or equivalent) and Tate was taking some of the money. At some point Doe contacted a friend who was a marine and texted that she was being "sex trafficked". The marine wanted to go to the authorities but Doe asked him not to, but he ended up doing it anyway and the ball started rolling. Doe claimed to authorities that she was a "sex slave". Tate's lawyer provided security video of Doe and a friend casually entering and leaving the compound at their leisure. Doe acknowledged that she was being paid, could leave anytime she wanted and still had her passport. There are sketchy texts between Doe and Tate and between Tate and others and between Doe and others. Tate was absolutely grooming her and using money and excitement to lure her in. Doe came though of her own volition and she even admitted to the marine that she did not want the marine to go to the authorities until she could go on a vacation/trip that she was excited about. She texted the marine that she was safe. It is very bizarre. Clearly an older guy manipulated a younger woman but didn't do anything illegal as far as i can tell. Immoral as hell. Disgusting. But I don't think illegal. For what it is worth, after Doe's allegations and the Romanian authorities arrest of Tate and subsequent investigation where they talked to all of the women in the Tate orbit and seized phones and computers etc, a high court in Romania said they did not have enough to warrant a trial. Apparently new allegations are out there and hopefully they will get Tate. Also they may be able to get him on tax/money laundering charges like Capone. I am for anything that gets him behind bars.
  9. I agree completely that as of now there is no tie to illegal border crossings and I think anyone making those is being deliberately obtuse.
  10. I can not understand why any parent, obviously unless there are some underlying medical circumstances, would willingly not vaccinate their children. I agree with you that those people are "breathtakingly stupid". It is actually a problem and, statistically, is getting worse. It is a real problem. But, as has become typical for you and others on here, the rest of your post is just wildly inaccurate. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/press-releases/latin-america-and-caribbean-records-worlds-biggest-drop-childhood-vaccination-over-past-decade from the article: "New UNICEF report shows 1 in 4 children in the region are missing out on vital vaccines, setting immunization coverage rates back almost 30 years." https://www.shadac.org/news/childhood-vaccinations-rate-by-state-ethnicity-insurance Non-Hispanic White children had the highest rate of vaccination at 75.5%, followed by children of multiple races or some other race (non-Hispanic) at 72.8%, Hispanic/Latino children (any race) at 69.9%, and, finally, African-American/Black children at 66.5%. Hard to know the overall reason for the declines. Money? Disinformation? Access? Breathtakingly stupid? Surely a combination of all. But to suggest the problem is "almost entirely" white people is a loser take.
  11. I predict that a large percentage of schools over the next 10 years will implement a 4 day school week. Certainly the smaller school districts. Like any change or program, the implementation is critical and you have to have a Super that is all in, but the results can be pretty good. There is a Super in Wagoner, OK that is sort of creating the mold for the program. Wagoner is a fairly small town with enrollment of around 120 per grade. They are about 60% white and 40% black and hispanic. Some highlights: 1) They have chosen to take Mondays off. Partially because a number of doctors offices and other businesses have limited hours on Fridays. Also, sports, especially football, are still a big thing in small towns in Oklahoma and they wanted the school spirit/pep rallys, homecoming events etc that are usually on Fridays. 2) They added 10 or so minutes per required class and go from 7:45 to 4:00, Tuesday through Friday. Same pay. What they claim is that test scores have gone up across the board, behavior issues have dropped dramatically, truancy has dropped dramatically, teacher retention is greatly improved (they had a teacher leave and without advertising they had more applications than they could get through). They just had their first class graduate that had been in the 4 day program for the entirety of middle school and high school (7 years) and their scholarship pool was around $5M for the seniors versus $750K 7 years ago. They have been very creative on working parents. They had a local non profit offer free babysitting and CPR/safety certification to any students that wanted it and then offered the school as essentially a day care facility manned by students that wanted a little extra money. So parents had the option of sending kids to the school for the day or part of the day for a very nominal fee. When they first decided to go to 4 days many parents were upset but after a few months they only had 5 or 6 kids that showed up on Mondays. The real proof is that they did polling last year and over 85% of students, parents and staff like the 4 day schedule over the 5 day. As for cost savings, it wasn't much. The Super estimated they could retain 2 extra teachers with the savings. They really did t for the benefits mentioned above.
  12. I remember seeing that and it was really cool. Thanks for posting. As for the Departed, I have watched it a few times and I would give it a 7.5-8. Its really good but not great. The last 30 minutes are really jumbled. On the acting: DiCaprio- A Damon- A Farmiga- A Baldwin- A- Nicholson- B. t just seemed like he was playing Jack Nicholson and not the character and his lines were just a series of one liners where some worked and some didn't. Wahlberg- D. I have to actually fast forward through his scenes. He literally can not act when he has to be serious and deliver tight dialogue. Also, while not top 5, the Guy Ritchie movies that had gangster ties (Snatch, RocknRolla, etc) are really fun movies.
  13. You do NOT pass the stoned test.
  14. sheeeit

    High

    Not sure where to put this but this is the safest spot. The male A&M cheerleaders are shockingly gay. They have to know. It’s almost a bit.
  15. For the last few hours I am scoring Ana 1, Jimmy 0. and what the fuck happened to twicehorn? He was smart and helpful/insightful a few years ago and now he is lunatic fringe.
  16. I did some more digging, maybe this has already been hashed out on here and I missed it. If so, it would be pretty easy to direct me to that info. I found TwiceHorn's post interesting. Here is what he said: "Curious that Zuck didn't give that same testimony, in detail, under oath when subpoenaed in that case. See, in particular, Slip. Op. pp. 16-21. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411new_197d.pdf" I read the case he posted and it made zero mention of Zuck at all. So I researched it a bit but could not find anything, at all, related to Zuck testifying or being subpoenaed in that case. Twice is a lawyer so maybe he has access to sites I am unaware of that detail this kind of stuff, which is why I asked him to respond. I did find the stuff where Jim Jordan subpoenaed Meta (and all the big social media companies) for information and where Jordan threatened to hold Zuck in contempt for Meta not providing the requested info in a timely fashion. It appears Jordan was ultimately satisfied with the info Meta provided. I found no instance where Zuck either did testify under oath or refused to testify under oath regarding any of the censorship claims. That is why I asked Twice to elaborate as he is generally truthful in the stuff he posts. I am certain Zuck was cagey about the issue. Twice called him a slimy little fuck, and he very well may be. I would certainly agree that he was a slimy little fuck if he did, in fact, testify under oath, or refuse to testify under oath, in a different manner than he showed on Rogan. I wanted to see what he said under oath which is what Twice implied.
  17. You are one seriously disturbed dude.
  18. Were you able to find Zuck’s testimony?
  19. TwiceHorn can speak for himself, but did Zuck plead the fifth? How does one "refuse to testify" if they are subpoenaed in a federal case?
  20. I find this whole thing kind of fascinating. Virtually impossible to get all of the relevent information to make an informed decision. You stated: "Curious that Zuck didn't give that same testimony, in detail, under oath when subpoenaed in that case." I have searched as much as I can and can not find anywhere where Zuck gave testimony under oath in that case. Can you show that? It would be extremely damaging to Zuck's credibility if he did actually testify differently under oath than he is stating now on shows like Rogans.
  21. We will just have to disagree. You act as if luck and competence have never been considered before when making predictions for military battles. He didn't say it's 60/40 or even 80/20. He said 3 days. That means no amount of luck and/or incompetence can stall this. It would probably take the tanks a few days just to get there unopposed. I readily admit that luck played a big part. It always does. I think only an idiot would stick his neck out there and make a prediction like that to Congress and POTUS. His judgement was terrible. Couple that with his assessment of Afghanistan and he was not competent for his position. Plus, these are not under the radar events where somehow the top people got fooled by their underlings. The Russia invasion was the greatest geopolitical event in years. The US, as well as every other first world country in the world, have been assessing Russia and their competencies for years. I believe, just my opinion, that there were almost certainly factions within the intelligence and military communities that had very different opinions on both Russia and Afghanistan. Milley's job was to sort it out and find the reality. He was comically wrong on both events. This is not political. Some poster said Milley fucks. I merely pointed out that for the 2 most significant events that happened under his watch, he failed miserably in his assessment.
  22. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/kyiv-russia-ukraine-us-intelligence/index.html
  23. The point is that Milley had access to every bit of military intelligence, cia intelligence, international intelligence etc. I mean one of the main tenets of his job is to know this stuff. There are likely hundreds of military people at the Pentagon and across the globe whose job was to know what the state of the Russian military was as well as the Ukrainian military. It is massive incompetence. I get university officials making bad predictions or even politicians making bad predictions, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to do better. One mistake should have had him demoted but 2 spectacular failures is ridiculous.
×
×
  • Create New...