Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LetterRip

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 21, 2018, 03:06:09 PM »
A compromise was offered and the Republican's refused.  So I think it is pretty easy for the Republicans to take the blame.

Republicans will blame Democrats, Democrats will blame Republicans and Independents are split with a slight lean to blaming Republicans.

Personally I think tying DACA to the FISA would have been a more astute move.

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: December 20, 2017, 05:59:19 PM »

Lol, if you didn't know what was in the bill it wasn't because of secrecy.

It was a 1000 page bill with final changes shortly before the Senate vote.  I looked and there wasn't a version online prior to the vote.  There were only vague claims about what was in the bill.  It certainly wasn't available for any reasonable amount of time for public scrutiny.

General Comments / Re: Uber v Waymo
« on: December 16, 2017, 03:37:29 PM »
And this Wired article goes into a variety of additional allegations in the letter,

And here is the actual letter for those who want to read it,

General Comments / Re: Uber v Waymo
« on: December 16, 2017, 02:59:37 PM »
So, the letter alleging a bunch of shady stuff by uber has been revealed, that Uber decided to pay the author 4.5 million as a 'consultant' and that his lawyer was paid 3 million.  They hid this from discovery (I can see why they would want to - it is pretty damning).

Here is just one allegation in the letter,

Among other explosive claims, the Jacobs Letter specifically says that two named high-level Uber employees, including Craig Clark, a since-fired Uber lawyer and Mat Henley, who still works at Uber and recently testified in court, orchestrated this scheme.

The men "led Uber's efforts to evade current and future discovery requests, court orders, and government investigations in violation of state and federal law as well as ethical rules governing the legal profession. Clark devised training and provided advice intended to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation of several ongoing lawsuits against Uber and in relation to or contemplation of further matters within the jurisdiction of the United States."

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 14, 2017, 06:56:04 PM »
You neglect to mention that Franken also admitted to "crossing the line".

I didn't 'neglect' anything.  The 'crossed a line' was in reference to claims that he touched a woman's butt during a photo op.  I was talking about your false accussations of claims there was a photo showing him sexually assaulting a woman.

Here is the actual quote of what Franken said,

“I’ve learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many,” he said in part.

So you again falsely accuse him.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 13, 2017, 07:08:37 PM »

Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

You have repeatedly stated that the photo shows Al Franken groping the women, even after it has been demonstrated that he is pantomining.  So yes, you believe bad things about Democrats even after there is evidence contradicting your belief.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 13, 2017, 03:12:31 PM »
Regarding allegations  - for rape allegations - 10-20% are credibly false accusations;  20-40% are credibly true accusations.  Everything else there isn't enough evidence one way or the other.

So I'm certainly sympathetic regarding skepticism for a single accusation - depending on the nature of the accusation.

Also I agree with Seriati that people can reasonably have different interpretations and remembrance of events.  Also that people will sometimes consider things harrassment that objectively isn't; (as well as people will not consider things harrassment that objectively are).

Also memories aren't static - they will change each time we access them; the changes will depend on our emotions when accessing them; they can be added to or confused with other memories, confused with others experiences, combined with dreams, or incorporate details from entertainment (books, films).

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 13, 2017, 02:42:31 PM »
As you have been conditioned to believe the man no matter how many women say otherwise. :p

That's not fair - he only believes Republicans no matter what they are accused of.  Any accusation against a Democrat, no matter how outlandish and far fetched, and no matter what the contradictory evidence - he believes the accusation completely.

General Comments / Re: Are in person prison visitations a right?
« on: December 12, 2017, 10:43:37 PM »
I think they are also charging a fee for this system, so the prisons have an economic incentive.

General Comments / Are in person prison visitations a right?
« on: December 12, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »
Apparently some prisons are ending in person visits and requiring instead that all contact is via a skype equivalent, etc.

Do you think this is legal, and if so do you think it should be allowed?

General Comments / Re: Defeat ISIS, check.
« on: December 11, 2017, 03:17:32 PM »
What do you think has changed in the last 10 months that allowed this success?

The arming of the Kurds by the military.

As to the Iraqi Prime Minister praising Trump - it would be surprising if he didn't regardless of Trump's role.  The world is well aware that if you kiss Trump's ass, Trump thinks you are a wonderful person; and if you are in any way critical of Trump he will hate you and try and destroy you.  That is how you easily manipulate malignant narcissists - it costs you nothing but your integrity to offer false praise and to withhold valid criticism.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 10, 2017, 08:06:51 PM »
The hand writing  “expert” hired by Nelson and Alredd confirmed the entire thing as written by the same person.

What is your source for this?  I've never seen that claim made anywhere.

There’s no getting around that Nelson forged at least part of this.

Even Fox News edited their story to eliminate the claim of forgery.

Perhaps it’s just lighting that makes the ink colors change, sure, why not?

It isn't a 'perhaps' situation, you can see other pictures that show they are the same color.  You have to deliberately ignore the evidence to conclude they can be different colors.

Until independent experts are allowed to examine it, I’m not accepting this as proof of anything other than Nelson’s willingness to fake things to help cement her accusations - something she’s admitted to doing.

There is no evidence that she faked anything.

The yearbook has been offerred for examination if Roy Moore will testify about it under penalty of perjury.  He is willing to defame and slander his victims, in the hopes that people like you will believe his lies.

The yearbook thing is similar to his pattern with other young women,

What’s most damning is the handwriting on the card. It’s indistinguishable from the handwriting in the yearbook. Nelson and Gibson didn’t know one another, yet both have old documents bearing Moore’s signature, and the writing matches other samples. To believe that the yearbook inscription is forged, you have to postulate that a master forger somehow got access to both Nelson’s yearbook in Anniston, Alabama, and the scrapbook in Gibson’s attic in Delray Beach, Florida. And you can’t blame the Post, which revealed Gibson’s story but not Nelson’s. Only one person had access to both women: Roy Moore.

Accusations require proof.

There has been proof of the allegations.  And plenty of proof that Moore lied in his claims of 'never having known' these women.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 10, 2017, 04:56:35 PM »
They aren't "different colored inks".  There is a photo that has really inconsistent lighting that the ink color looks different across the page, that is an illusion not actual color differences.  Shots with good lighting show the same color of ink for everything.

A hand writing expert has concluded that it is his signature.

A handwriting expert has concluded that the signature in then-16-year-old Beverly Young Nelson’s yearbook was, in fact, Roy Moore’s, attorney Gloria Allred said at a Friday press conference.

You probably aren't aware that signature analysis it is quite easy to spot a traced or forged signature due to forgers have entirely wrong pressure points in the signature.  Even with photocopies it is almost impossible to fool experts.  For instance here is the result of an experiment with photocopies of forgeries, and 69 out of 72 experts were able to catch all of the forgeries.

Lindblom and Gregory Dawson of the Center of Forensic Sciences in Toronto sent photocopies of signatures—both genuine and forged—to 72 document examiners in Canada, the US, Australia and Britain. Each examiner looked for characteristics such as pen lifts, hesitation and tremor, without knowing whether or not the signature was genuine. All but three of the examiners accurately identified these and produced a list of suspect features that was almost the same as that produced by Lindblom and Dawson from the originals.

Lindblom says these results, reported in Science & Justice (vol 38, p 189), suggest that photocopies can provide stronger evidence than courts have assumed. “We have probably been too conservative,” he says. “In many instances, we can give as strong opinions as with the original.”

General Comments / Re: Defeat ISIS, check.
« on: December 09, 2017, 04:16:55 PM »

Very convenient for Obama to have laid out a plan - kicking the can to the next administration - to take action that would aggravate Turkey and cause more Russia/Turkey/Syria pyrotechnics. If Obama's plan was so precious then why didn't he do it himself?

Obama administration was going to implement it, but the Trump's team asked them to delay doing so because Trump's administration might change policy direction - which they did - completely scrapping the plan.

General Comments / Re: Defeat ISIS, check.
« on: December 09, 2017, 01:50:06 PM »
So Obama planned to arm the Syrian Kurds to help fight the Islamic State in Syria, Trump rejected that.

o on January 17, just three days before the transfer of power, Obama directed his national security adviser to hand over to the Trump team a paper detailing the plan to arm the Kurds, including talking points that President Donald Trump could use to explain the move to Turkey's president, who officials knew would be furious. The Turks viewed the Kurdish fighters as terrorists and their No. 1 enemy.

Obama hoped that his last-minute preparations would clear the way for Trump to authorize a swift assault on the Islamic State's most important stronghold, where U.S. intelligence officials say militants are plotting attacks outside Syria.

Instead of running with the plan, Trump's national security team deemed it wholly insufficient and swiftly tossed it.

Then Mattis apparently convinces Trump to follow Obama's plan.

Defense Secretary Mattis is expected Friday to detail the weapons the U.S. will begin supplying to Syrian Kurds fighting ISIS — over the objections of Turkey.

Now Trump is taking credit because the military followed the plan devised under the Obama administration instead of foolishly rejecting it as Trump had originally done.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:26:48 PM »

Breitbart has claimed forgery, she claimed she added notes regarding the date and location.  To my knowledge that claim she has made has been that he signed her yearbook and added an inscription.  So the "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Roy Moore".

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 04, 2017, 03:43:38 PM »

we are not in a court of law - it is decietful to use a 'term of art' in a discussion that has a normal meaning drastically different from that in a legal context.  I am not excusing her conduct, because excuse in normal discourse is utterly divorced from its usage in a legal conduct.

Also even the legal meaning doesn't apply here.  An excuse in the legal sense is illegal behavior that should not be prosecuted due to circumstances surrounding the behavior.  Such as 'It is true that my client stole a bike, but it was the only way that he could reach the police in time to prevent a murder'.  Stealing a bike is illegal, but because it was to prevent the greater crime of a murder it is excusable.

In this case, the actions of the individual should not be prosecuted, not because of the circumstances surrounding her actions, but the circumstances that resulted in her discovery after the fact.  Thus you are mistaken in referring to this as 'excusing', it is odd that you as a lawyer are misusing a term of art in your own field, though I suppose that your area of practice result in you having had little call to use the word since law school.

Forgoing prosecution due to police misconduct doesn't have a legal term of art (Just confirmed this with a retired municipal court judge and a retired lawyer).

Well first, you haven't identified an illegal behavior, but second, there's no benefit here.  This is not "discovered evidence" that would not have otherwise been discovered.  There is no legal basis to ignore a valid warrant or to "declare it wouldn't have been  found."  There just isn't.  This woman was literally on borrowed time with respect to such warrant.

We have no evidence of that, and substantial evidence to the contrary.  She had been stopped a number of times over her sign by police, and the warrant wasn't discovered.  Suggesting that without specific effort it wouldn't have been discovered. There is no evidence she would have had contact with the law that would result in discovery of the warrant.  About 7% of warrants that are openned in a year are open after 3 years.

So you keep saying, though you ignore that your precedents were is a far more limited context and I am not sure that you are correctly applying them to the current situation.  In any event, it's not clear enough to make any sheriff's actions in such a context an exercise of bad faith, which pretty much completely wipes out the argument that you are trying to make.

"Any Sheriff's actions" you are correct; his specific actions - you are incorrect.  You keep ignoring his actual behavior, and focus on some hypothetical behavior.  It was a specific threat to coerce her to change her political speech.

Again, you've made a mistake.  The warrant wasn't "discovered" it was enforced.

The warrant wasn't in the information he had, it was discovered.  He received knowledge of the warrant via a tip, it wasn't information that he was privy to without his illegal investigation.

None of which applies, because a warrant is NOT EVIDENCE.

I never claimed it was evidence.  I was pointing out that the claim that she would inevitably have been arrested due to the warrant was false.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: December 02, 2017, 11:03:11 PM »

We know that Mannafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner met with a Russian government agent to get dirt on Clinton, and that Trump Sr. tweeted during that time window that he would soon have dirt on Clinton to announce.  That they were told the agents contact with them was on behalf of the Russian government.  We know that Kushner and Trump Jr. lied about the nature of the meeting repeatedly once it was discovered that it occurred.  That Kushner likely committed a felony when he failed to disclose it on his foreign contact disclosure form for his security clearance.

So there is definitely stuff beyond the post election contact.

Also some of the actions taken by Flynn during his contact, that we know about. likely violated the Logan Act, and similarly that Trump made tweets during that time related to the Logan Act violations.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:51:14 PM »

We know that Mannafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner met with a Russian government agent to get dirt on Clinton, and that Trump Sr. tweeted during that time window that he would soon have dirt on Clinton to announce.  That they were told her contact with them was on behalf of the Russian government.  We know that Kushner and Trump Jr. lied about the nature of the meeting repeatedly once it was discovered that it occurred.  That Kushner likely committed a felony when he failed to disclose it on his foreign contact disclosure form for his security clearance.

So there is definitely stuff beyond the post election contact.

Also some of the actions taken by Flynn during his contact, that we know about. likely violated the Logan act.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 02, 2017, 12:52:11 PM »

You've still not demonstrated any direct threat. You had to assert the Sheriff's bad faith a priori in order to be able to then read his statement as a veiled threat.

The threat is obvious - he mentioned potential legal action followed by offering a way to avoid it through compliance.  That is lawfully a threat regardless of how much you deny it.  Bribes, extortion, threats, blackmail, etc. don't have to be 'on the nose' to be illegal.
 Allusion to a criminal prosecution or criminal penalties, or even the use of criminal law labels to describe conduct is sufficient to qualify as a unlawful veiled threat.  The question is - is there any reasonable explanation for him to mention it, other than to influence her decision of whether or not to change her speech.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:45:14 AM »
While I agree in principle with what you're saying, LetterRip, I think the Sheriff is pretty well covered here.

What he basically said was "We live in Redneck, Texas, and I'd like to explain to her face to face that this sticker could cause violence. It could get her hurt."

If he had offered that, and only that, it might have been legal.  The threat of legal consequences if she didn't change her speech is where he broke the law.

I'm with you on being cynical and assuming that it was really an attempt to lead a social media lynch mob. But the man went about it the right way and covered himself. There's nothing to be done here except to wail, gnash teeth, and tear clothes.

Nope he didn't - his stated intent to force her to change her speech was illegal.  He went about it unlawfully.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 02, 2017, 10:40:22 AM »
If you’d stop playing word games and just making up things, this would probably go easier. It was “never”, now it’s “likely have never”.

Unless we are in a court of law, engaged in a scientific publication, or writing contracts, the avoidance of 'hedge words' when writing is correct english language usage - if something is beyond the 'practically plausible or possible' - the word never is appropriately used, even if there is a theoretical possibility.  Again, I should not have to teach you the basics of english language usage and comprehension. Get a teacher to help you with comprehension if you have difficulty.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 01, 2017, 11:50:50 PM »
Deleted at poster's request. -OrneryMod

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: December 01, 2017, 11:46:38 PM »

you are using words entirely different from their typical and standard usage.  If I condemn something as wrong and illegal I'm not 'excusing' it - I'm doing the opposite - I'm condemning it.  If I think the government should not prosecute something because the illegal action of government officials that doesn't excuse the unlawful behavior that shouldn't be prosecuted.  I think the long term interests of justice are better served by not allowing government officials to engage in illegal behavior - or to allow them benefit when they do so.  Here is was trying to suppress free speech.  Allowing the warrant discovered as a result of his attempts to suppress such speech to be prosecuted rewards him for his illegal behavior - thus the greater good might be served by not pursuing it.

There is no police "misconduct" here.  There is just police conduct.  If the police come to your house because the neighbors call in a false noise complaint and catch you burying a body, you don't get a pass on the murder.  Fact is, whether she could be charged or not (and I don't think it's a clear cut as you'd like it to be, that this is an open and shut case of political speak that cant' be constrained) there is nothing at all improper about the police seeking her out.  If for no other reason to convey to her the risk to her safety that is apparently present from the level of community offense being generated.

No, he was not just investigating.  He also engaged in a threat to coerce her to change her speech.  You seem to have ignored that part, it is rather critical to whether it was illegal behavior on his action.  Without the announcement of his intent to coerce her to change her speech it might not have been unlawful.  With the coercive threat, it clearly was.

It's literally excusing the murder.

That word, you keep using that word, but it does not mean what you think it means.

But there's limits on the doctrine in those situations that you apparently don't know or see a need to respect.  For example, the evidence isn't excluded if its deemed that it would have been discovered in any event (so for example, getting an illegal confession that points out the location of the gun in your house, doesn't prevent the gun from coming in if the police would have found it anyway).

There are indeed limits on the exclusion doctrine.  There is no evidence that she would have been discovered, there were numerous police stops while she was driving - police who stopped her over the sign and once she explained her position let her go, that didn't result in such discovery - which is strong evidence against the claim that her warrant would have been discovered without his illegal actions. If you find a relevant exclusion - feel free to suggest it.

And I've never heard of this extension you seem to be advocating, that the police have to ignore a valid warrant that comes to their attention.  In fact, its seems to be settled, and clearly, that the opposite is the case.

I'm not sure what 'extension' you are referring to here.  I'm not claiming that the police need to ignore a valid warrant that comes to their attention.  I'm saying that it was the illegal action of the government that led to the discovery of the warrant, that the goal of the illegal action was to suppress politically protected speech, that enforcing this warrant achieves the goal sought to be achieved in by the illegal action, and as such, should result in the case being dismissed.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 01:39:05 PM »

“If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you,” the sheriff wrote. “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification.”

So he threatened that he would either bring charges or force her to change her speech in his Facebook posting that was subsequently deleted after the ACLU pointed out that it was illegal for him to do either of those.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 12:40:34 PM »
I haven't claimed "she would not have been arrested" - I'm claiming "she may not have been arrested".  We can't predict the future, but you seem to think you can.  There are plenty of people who are never arrested prior to the statute of limitations expiring.

General Comments / Re: Uber v Waymo
« on: November 29, 2017, 01:10:51 AM »
Fascinating development in Waymo vs Uber case, utterly unbelievable in some respects,

Three Uber employees testified today (Nov. 28) in a tense, hours-long hearing that was supposed to be the final one before the case went to trial. US district judge William Alsup ordered them to appear after the US Justice Department informed the court that the company had withheld key evidence. The letter, from an attorney representing Richard Jacobs, a former Uber security analyst, alleged that Uber’s Market Analytics unit existed to acquire “trade secrets, code-based & competitive intelligence.”

“I can no longer trust the words of the lawyers for Uber in this case,” the visibly angry judge said in court. “If even half of what is in that letter is true, it would be an injustice for Waymo to go to trial.” Alsup had referred the lawsuit for a criminal probe in May.


A Waymo attorney asked Jacobs under oath: “Your lawyer sent letter that you approved alleging that Market Analytics exists solely to acquire code and trade secrets from competitors, yes?” according to McPherson. Jacobs reportedly responded: “I disagree with this now. I have no firsthand knowledge. No knowledge at all.”

Jacobs also described Uber’s deliberate efforts to “prevent sensitive info from legal discovery.” “There was legal training around the use of attorney client privilege markings on written materials, and the implementation of encrypted and ephemeral communications, intended to both protect and destroy communications that might be considered sensitive,” he said, according to the Financial Times. Employees were told to use phone or video calls for sensitive conversations, and use the messaging app Wickr, which has encrypted, self-destructing messages.

Uber had fired Jacobs, but after the letter they negotiated a 4.5 million settlement and hired him as a consultant.

If MoFo (Morrison Foerster) knew which it seems almost impossible that they didn't, it seems likely that this could end with MoFo lawyers and Uber executives in jail.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 29, 2017, 12:37:35 AM »

Crunch seemed to be referring to LR's rather odd claim that this was fruit of the poisoned tree.  That's a particular doctrine that has pretty nothing to do with this set of facts (that's related to evidence not arrests).  The police are entitled to seek out interactions with people, and they are entitled to prosecute unrelated crimes of which they become aware during those interactions.

As a result of his public posting, someone turned in a tip regarding her fraud.  It wasn't as a result of his interaction with her that he became aware of it, it was as a result if his illegal pursuit of her for her public speech.

If someone is arrested at a protest, even if that arrest gets dropped or thrown out, they can still be charged for the cocaine they were carrying when booked.

Here is what I suspect is the most relevant Supreme Court ruling, it has a 3 part test, of which the circumstances fail 2.

The Court restated the three-part attenuation test articulated in Brown v. Illinois (422 U.S. 590 (1975)). A court reviewing a claim of attenuation between an alleged illegal stop and seizure of evidence should first consider the temporal proximity between the initially unlawful stop and the search. Here, the officer discovered the warrant and the contraband within moments of the initial stop. Next, the court looks at “the presence of intervening circumstances.” This factor also favored admission of the evidence because the valid warrant for Strieff predated the investigation and was entirely unconnected with the stop. The final factor is “the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” At most, the Court said, “the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house.”

1) temporal proximity - it was a more than a few days between the sheriffs behavior and the resultant discovery of who it was and that she had a warrant. - fail
2) presence of intervening circumstances - it required individuals to report her name and individuals to bring it to the sheriffs attention, but the warrant was preexisting - could go either way.
3) purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct - the officers purpose was not as part of a legitimate investigation - fail

So if likely fails on all 3, and fails on at least 2 parts.

That said - as the courts point out - the remedy isn't necessarily going to be suppression or dismissal, it might be instead a civil suit against the officer/sheriff.

That's exactly what LR is implying by reference to the fruit of the poisoned tree.  That's a standard to disallow legitimate evidence that only comes to the police's attention because of illegally obtained evidence (e.g. disallowing the murder weapon because the police only found it after they interviewed the suspect without reading them their rights).

No that isn't what I'm saying.  I'm not 'excusing' her fraud, but the higher purpose of preventing government suppression of free speech might have to result in the government losing the ability to bring a fraud case as a result of the sheriffs misconduct.  That isn't "excusing" - it is an unfortunate possible result of police misconduct, in order to avoid future politicians from using the power of the state to suppress free speech.

Just as when a murderer or drug dealer goes free due to police misconduct such as planting evidence, it isn't excusing the acts of the murder or dealer, it is seeking to serve the higher cause of justice, by discouraging illegal behavior by the police.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 28, 2017, 07:50:45 PM »
You called it "Arrests and political speech".

Yes, because I was interested in the broader issue of pursing someone for their political speech - resulting in their arrest for an unrelated matter - exactly what appears to have happened in this case.  He posted her political speech, made claims that he intended to arrest and get charges brought against her for her political speech, asked people to identify the individual based on her political speech.

Word games after the fact are pretty weak and the fact that you've doubled down on conflating the two only exposes your original intent.

Your further misconstruing and false allegations are annoying.  I wrote what I meant, and didn't write what you stated.

And that 'fruit of the poisoned tree' bizarreness only further demonstrates you're trying to conflate her arrest with political speech (and don't truly understand the meaning of that phrase)

Her arrest was the result of an investigation into her political speech.  If he had never investigated her for her political speech, the arrest would have never happened.

Her arrest has nothing to do with her decal. The warrant for her arrest was issued several months prior, Fonseca was getting arrested sooner or later regardless of anything else she said or did. The two events are not connected no matter how much you want to make out they are, there was no knowledge gained that led to her arrest.

Her arrest was a direct result of an illegal investigation and public call for information about her.  Without the illegal investigation, he never becomes aware of the warrant (he claims that he was told about the warrant by someone who was responding to his posting).

You presented them in a very misleading way.

No I didn't.  I quoted the material directly, and I linked to further information.  Learn to read more thoroughly.  Of four sentences of my initial posting this is one of the four,

She was then arrested "on an outstanding fraud warrant issued from a nearby town".

How the fvck is that 'misleading'?  Quit making false accusations against me.

She was arrested for committing fraud (actually identity theft) and would have been arrested the next time she had any interaction with police or the state regardless of what she said.

Incorrect, she had in fact had numerous interactions with the police who had pulled her over for her speech, and they let her go.  The sheriff only found out about the warrant from a tip due to his illegal investigation.  There is no evidence she would have ever have been arrested prior to the statute of limitations expiring without his illegal actions.

It is the sheriff's job to respond to complaints and enforce the law.

His legal response to such complaints would be - I'm sorry that you are offended, but it is a free speech issue, and their speech is protected by the US Constitution - you may wish to contact your legislature if you want the Constitution changed.

That's what he did and that's all he did.

No, what he did was unlawfully pursue someone for their political speech.

I'll note that, once again, you are trying to make out that she was arrested because of the decal and that's not true.

I'm saying that the illegal actions of sheriff resulted in him discovering her identity and being made aware of the warrant.  That he had a retaliatory intent against her free speech, in his pursuit based on his posting.

Now, here's the law from Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 42.01 Disorderly Conduct: A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Obviously Fonseca was using profane and vulgar language in a public place. That's indisputable. Let's get to the "tends to incite part as we go along (keep holding on to that part)

Precendent is well established that unless actual violence has occurred as a result of the speech, then it is in fact not 'fighting words'.  There isn't a legal ability to limit speech as fighting words in advance, they can only be fighting words if and only if - they have resulted in an actual fight. 

As you very clearly, and rightly, note, this was in fact directed at certain people as a personal insult so what you thought was a get out of jail free card is actually just the opposite. Add that into the part about incitement mentioned above.

Yeah so you seem to have not understood some words there.  The "Fvck Trump" - if Trump weren't a public figure then their might be something, but nope.  The 'fvck you for voting for him' - that isn't a direct personal insult.  It isn't "Fvck you Bob Jones for voting for him" - it is a generic "fvck you" to any Trump supporter, but not to a specific Trump supporter, even if a specific Trump supporter happens to read it and be offended.

No, you've missed my point. My point was that we would all know, without reservation, that it was designed to target a specific person. We wouldn't have to go through the gyrations you are to twist it into some kind of alternate reality where saying "fvck you" to someone is not incitement. I hope that clears up your confusion.

I wasn't confused.  You wrote one thing, and expected people to interpret as something else.  Learn to write what you actually intend to convey. Regardless, a generic "fvck you" targeted at those who did X is not what the law regulates or is allowed to regulate.  Again private corporations can do what they want, governments are constrained by the Constitution.

A good attorney would laugh you out of his office.

You clearly have zero expertise in anything related to law.  So it is pointless to respond to your claim.

General Comments / Re: Arrests and political speech
« on: November 27, 2017, 10:01:37 PM »
First off, the title.  It’s grossly deceptive and intentionally misleading.

It is neither deceptive nor misleading - I didn't say "women arrested for political speech". The political speech resulted in the sherriff targeting her and seeking her out.  Which then, as a result of citizens doing surveilance and turning her in because of her political speech, led to a discovery of an unrelated crime, for which she was arrested.  If not for the sherriff, possibly illegally, targeting her for her political speech, then the arrest likely wouldn't have occurred.

This seems like a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' - he did something that was likely illegal that resulted in knowledge that resulted in her arrest.

There was no arrest for political speech. Fonseca was arrested for fraud.  Conflating her arrest for fraud with her first amendment rights is dishonest.

She was arrested as a result of an investigation into her based on her political speech and evidence gathered as a part of investigating her for political speech.  I presented those facts.

Second, it’s not the sheriff that was offended but the local citizens. The sheriff was responding to multiple complaints. Kind of the sheriff’s job.  Well, not kind of but exactly the sheriff’s job.

No, it isn't the sheriffs job.  The sheriffs job is to enforce the law.  Harrassment of citizens for exercising their free speech rights is against the law, and not part of his job.

Third, it’s the sheriff’s job because there’s a concept called “fighting words”. Look it up. Driving around and telling everyone “fvck you” is covered under that concept. 

She isn't telling everyone 'fvck you' she is saying that only to those who voted for Trump.  And there is a later ruling - that suggests that political speech using 'fvck' is protected speech.

If anyone on this forum used those words, they’d be suspended and I doubt anyone else would get into a first amendment tizzy.

You have confused a private organization that can enforce its own rules on its own property, with government action.  Free speech applies to government actors, and to government contractors in some cases.  It doesn't apply to corporations that aren't acting on the behalf of the government.

Fourth, there was no attempted retaliation except in the fevered imagination on display in the OP and subsequent comments. Sheriff investigated complaints,  talked to person, found outstanding warrants.

He contacted the prosecutor to see if he could get charges against her for her political speech.  After the ACLU stepped in he deleted his post discussing that.  Then he arrested her on an unrelated matter.  So while you don't think it is retaliatory, I think a good attorney could certainly make the case successfully.

They are selling the stickers now (including a new one specifically target at the sherriff), and she isn't being arrested and charged for that - which makes it pretty clear that the sheriff knows it is legally protected speech.

So yeah, your BS rationalization that it was illegal speech fails.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 24, 2017, 04:50:40 PM »
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 23, 2017, 04:30:37 PM »
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

He pursued a woman who was 14, and engaged in behaviour that meets the definition of sexual molestation with her, and hung out at the mall trying to pick up high school students while he was older than 30.  He hasn't pursued prepubescent girls that we know of.

So he meets the popular usage of the word pedophile, but not the DSM diagnostic criteria for a pedophile.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 21, 2017, 02:10:21 PM »
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

It was consensual.  It was just not fully thought through consent.  They were to rehearse a kiss as part of a skit, he kissed her.  There should have been more and better communication, since clearly it wasn't what she thought she should expect.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 21, 2017, 01:28:56 AM »
There is now a more serious allegation against Franken.  He allegedly put his hand on a woman's ass during a photo at a state fair.

Apparently Minnesota law doesn't view this as a crime (it specifically excludes 'touching of the covered ass' under Minnesota sexual assault and battery law, nor is it covered under their other assault and battery statutes).

Then, as her husband held up her phone and got ready to snap a photo of the two of them, Franken "pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear," Menz said. "It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek."

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 20, 2017, 08:48:41 PM »

If this were the end all of the issue, then someone who graduates with a degree, and someone who completes four years and doesn't get a degree should have substantially the same market value.

For many graduate students what matters is what they publish - aka their work experience.  The degree in and of itself is fairly worthless.

General Comments / Arrests and political speech
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:31:00 PM »
Karen Fonseca, a woman in Texas, had "*censored* Trump and *censored* you for voting for him" as a laminate on the rear window of her truck in Texas.  The local sheriff took offense, and posted a partial photo to track the truck down.

She was then arrested "on an outstanding fraud warrant issued from a nearby town".*censored*-trump-decal-debacle

Since it was clear from his facebook posting that his intent was to retaliate for political speech - what implication does that have, even though the arrest is for a valid outstanding warrant?

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 20, 2017, 01:47:18 PM »

I've had training - both external training required for my job; and internal training required for my job - that were valuable and marketable to future employers.

It is a reasonable question why tuition shouldn't be fully deductible to employers in general.

General Comments / Re: Republican Tax Plan
« on: November 20, 2017, 01:06:16 PM »
A university is essentially offering a student an employee discount, I don't know why it should have special rules. If the societal goal is to promote more education, I would think you'd want it to apply to any potential entity that wants to get in on it.

No, a university is offering employee training.  The knowledge is generally necessary for the research that the graduate student is being paid for.

Do you think that employees should be taxed on the training that they receive from their employers?

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 16, 2017, 03:07:36 PM »

Oh, there it is.  It's just a joke! That's all. Everybody find humor in sexually assaulting unconscious women! That's pretty disgusting.

it was 'just a joke'.   On the level of drawing dicks on peoples faces while they are sleeping.  Pretending to grope boobs as an attempt at humor wasn't that uncommon ten years ago when the incident happened.  'Pranks' regarding unwanted sexual behavior (quick google search shows a sleeping guy with a bananna being held looking like oral sex) were common.

I've never found such behavior funny, but large swaths of the population used to find such things hilarious.  See the film 'Superbad' that gives an idea of how popular and viewed as funny the 'draw dicks on face' thing was in 2007, the year after the above incident occurred.

So see, if you write it out as a comedu skit before hand, why, you can do anything you want to women!

Your reading comprehension hasn't improved.  Consent to a kiss as part of a skit, is consent to kissing. even if you didn't really want to kiss the person.  I wasn't defending his behavior, I was pointing out that legally she likely consented.

You know, my point about Moore is that we should be able to review the evidence and not simply convict him based on accusations alone.

We have an enormous amount of evidence, we also have evidence that Moore lied multiple times.

Your defense of Franken, when there is no doubt whatsoever, is it's perfectly fine to grope women if you call it a joke or write it up first. That some pretty serious bull*censored* there. You should be ashamed.

You must have the reading comprehension abilities of a two year old.  There was no groping, there was a pantomime of a groping.  Just as shadow puppets of a groping isn't a groping.  Only groping is groping.  I can feel his behavior is wrong and inappropriate and should be subject to censorship and something he owes an apology for and should never have done, and yet also acknowledge that he has done nothing illegal.  I think that Franken was a boorish *censored*, just not a criminally boorish *censored*.

If Moore's behavior are accurately described, then he is a pedophile attempted rapist, and engaged in criminal sexual assault and battery of minors.

The fact that you think these are in even remotely the same ballpark is somewhat scary implication about your morality.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 16, 2017, 01:24:52 PM »

regarding the 'groping' by Al Franken - his is pantoming it for a cameraman doing a stupid and crude joke, not actually groping her.  Legally he did nothing inappropriate.  He has juvenile taste in humor.

Regarding the kiss - I personally feel he did something wrong, but lawfully it is more murky.  It was written into the skit script, she consented to practice the skit.  So legally (for purposes of criminal liability of misdemeanor battery) he probably is in the clear (well is fully in the clear, but I mean if it had been pursued within the statute of limitations). Morally he took advantage.  Civilly, again beyond the statute of limitations, but if it had been pursued at the time - she might have won a civil case.  Also it wouldn't fall under sexual harrassment either - he had no authority over her, and she had no reasonable anticipation that he would use it to influence her career.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 09, 2017, 01:35:59 PM »
I don't buy the Trump is working with the Russians angle.  It's clear as day that the Russians were trying to sow discord and taint the election (whether or not they could actually impact it).

We have emails verifying the offers.

We have emails and public statements verifying the meetings of his top staff with Russian operatives.

President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by the president’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

And another Trump campaign aide just admitted meeting with the Russians, after having previously lied about it.

During seven hours of closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 2, Page contradicted his previous public denials of any meetings with Russian government officials. He also urged the campaign to send Trump to Moscow instead of him to “raise the temperature a little bit,” according to an email obtained by the committee.

Page became at least the ninth member of President Trump’s campaign team or White House staff to confirm direct contact with senior officials in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government during the 2016 campaign or during the transition, a pattern that has created a growing headaches for the White House.

 We have Trump holding a press conference shortly after his son sets up the meeting with the Russian operative, that Trump plans to release dirt on Clinton.

Hours after Donald Trump Jr confirmed a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss information on Hillary Clinton, his father promised to make a speech with new information about his former rival for the US presidency. 

“I think you’re going to find it very informative and very very interesting,” the US leader said, adding that it would likely take place next week.

We have a large number of his staff failing to disclose their contact with Russian nationals on federal disclosure forms, and lying under oath that no such contact occurred, and lying under oath that they knew of no such contact.

I'm really curious what rational explanation you have for all of the above.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 09, 2017, 01:17:17 PM »
Theft of industrial IP is industrial espionage, quite separate from information warfare or a disinformation campaign.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 01:53:45 AM »
if Assange says he knows who gave them this data they either do or he's lying.

He wasn't involved at all, he was halfway around the globe in essentially complete isolation.  So rather than lying or telling the truth, he could simply be misinformed.  Now why Russian spys might lie about who they are when doing espionage, I've no idea - personally I thought all spys were totally forthright with exactly who they are and why they are doing things.

Seriously, it is utterly ridiculous to think that it wasn't Russia.  They've made it quite clear it was them. They made overtures to the Trump campaign members about the nature of what they had months before it was even known that the hack had occurred.

We also have file contents (access times, file system information) that strongly suggests it was Russia.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 08, 2017, 12:02:44 AM »
Also Wikileaks doesn't actually do anything in such a way that they are likely to know the identity of leakers.

We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box).


We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any material.

So, how would Assange know who did the leak?  "We uploaded the data via anonymous dropbox, but we totally aren't Russian Hackers, pinky swear promise."

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 04, 2017, 07:42:28 PM »
For those interested, here is the 'memorandum of understanding' between the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

"This Memorandum is intended to memorialize our agreement regarding the creation and operation of Hillary Victory Fund (Victory Fund), a joint fundraising committee of Hillary for America (HFA) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

"HFA is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory. In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.

"Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer, Beth Jones (who is employed by HFA) to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of one million and two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the "Base Amount"). In the event that the Victory Fund is not in possession of adequate net proceeds allocable to the DNC on the first of the month to make such transfer, it shall make the required transfer as soon as adequate funds are available.

"HFA's obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:

With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.
With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.
If asked by a State Party, the DNC will encourage the State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund.
"Once HFA has raised the first $1,200,000 and it has been distributed to the DNC, HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).

"The parties also agree that they will enter into an agreed upon voter file licensing agreement. As consideration for that agreement, HFA will raise an additional $250,000 into the Victory Fund that will be distributed to the DNC no later than March 31, 2016.

"In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project's scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.

"Finally, HFA agrees that on a monthly basis the Victory Fund will provide the DNC a list of receipts and disbursements from the Victory Fund. The DNC agrees to provide monthly financial reports to HFA as it relates to the use of the funds distributed by the Victory Fund to the DNC.

"In the event that there is a disagreement in the operation of this agreement or the use of the Base Amount, the DNC department head and their HFA counterpart will meet and confer to resolve the matter. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, then you and I will resolve it. If there is still no resolution the DNC Chair and the HFA Chair will resolve.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.

"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).

"This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.

"If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – 'Agreed by DNC'."

General Comments / Re: Etiquette question?
« on: November 04, 2017, 06:22:47 PM »
I think the only option here is to ask him what he would prefer - some people are fine going to games alone and would have a great time, other people would be completely self conscious and mortified.

General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: November 04, 2017, 06:13:37 PM »

I see where you’re coming from as this is the outcome of the war on boys and the overall greater war on masculinity: men that don’t know how to be men.

Given the views you've expressed on this forum suggest you are a late geriatric, I understand your need to puff yourself up by insulting others.  Remembering your 'former glory' and imagining yourself a hero and others as weak, I'm sure helps you in your late years.

I cannot imagine Weinstein inappropriately touching or sexually assaulting a woman I care about (mother, sister, wife, daughter) and my response being anything other than beating him into a coma.

And I'm sure you would enjoy prison, and perhaps even life in prison (beat someone to a coma and there is a good chance they die).  It isn't clear to me if you are stupid enough to actually do this (possible) or if you are the macho fantasy type (likely).

Regardless, Gwen was none of those things to Damon, she was the girlfriend of his best friend.  Also what he was told, is likely not sufficient knowledge to draw the conclusion she was sexually assaulted.  What we can surmise is that he knew that Weinstein had done something inappropriate and that Gwen had handled it and didn't want to talk about it.

If one of these women in my life came to me and told me he’d done this to them and I responded I’d have to think about what to do

That isn't the scenario under discussion.  Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension.  None of them were relations, it was a friends girlfriend.  She didn't tell him, she told her husband.  She didn't want anyone to do anything about it, she had handled it.  What he had been told was not the details that we know now - but a less specific and less damning details.

, that it was complex without any easy answer, but I need to act in a way I can still be buddies with Harvey and take advantage of his influence...well, that’s no better than pimping them out and, in a perfect world,  the shame a man should feel for such a response should be damn near fatal. It’s disgraceful that so many women have so few men in their lives that care enough about them and are man enough to defend them from these predators.

Clearly you didn't read or perhaps didn't comprehend what you read.  Next time reread one or two times, so you don't fall into the mistake of confusing your fantasy with reality.

General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: November 03, 2017, 02:39:22 AM »
Looks like Sessions is suddenly remembering that he knew about Papadopoulos' meeting with the Russians now that the FBI has testimony about it from Papadopoulos, which Sessions seems to have forgotten during his testimony before Congress.

General Comments / Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 02, 2017, 06:45:52 PM »
Based on this Senator Warren believes it is a fair to say that the primary was rigged,

"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile added. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Tapper, in his Thursday interview, asked Warren point-blank if she thought the primary was rigged.

"Yes," Warren said.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9