• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

Mojo said:
Yes, you did:

That really ought to get you the 20 points for item 23.
Click to expand...
What's really funny is that what he's *explicitly* denying what he himself said. I wrote that the film showed "no such thing", referring exactly to whatever Hercules56 had written. And he responds "Never said it did". He's actually saying: "I never said the thing I said" in as many words.
 
Darat said:
Evidence is not presented at an arraignment hearing. At the next stage - a preliminary hearing is the first time evidence will be put before a judge.

ETA: Remember we are talking about a federal court, not a state court.
Click to expand...
As part of the normal arraignment procedures, yes. What's been said that is if a Judge chooses to allow such, generally under a reasonably trustworthy claim that it is an extremely open and shut frivolous case, they may exercise their discretion to see some evidence to see if that's the case. It's very uncommon for this to actually happen, of course, but uncommon is not never.

When it comes to the Garcia case, specifically, though, raising the potential for such to happen is a red herring, at best. The nationally public and highly politicized nature of the Garcia case effectively guarantees that that wouldn't happen, regardless of whether it is an extremely open and shut frivolous case. The most likely reasons for Hercules56 to try to pretend that the possibility is in any way meaningful to this case are either that he's trolling us or that he's grasping at straws because what he's been pushing is cult level stupid and, like a cultist, he's trying to reached a desired end without actually caring about how nonsensical the means invoked are.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
As I said the DoJ refutes your claim.
Click to expand...
So? Judges preside over courts. Not the DOJ. I gave you a link where a Judge has often dismissed cases during an arraignment because of a lack of probable cause. Where he has watched police videos that show that the charges were false. This is called precedent.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
As part of the normal arraignment procedures, yes. What's been said that is if a Judge chooses to allow such, generally under a reasonably trustworthy claim that it is an extremely open and shut frivolous case, they may exercise their discretion to see some evidence to see if that's the case. It's very uncommon for this to actually happen, of course, but uncommon is not never.

When it comes to the Garcia case, specifically, though, raising the potential for such to happen is a red herring, at best. The nationally public and highly politicized nature of the Garcia case effectively guarantees that that wouldn't happen, regardless of whether it is an extremely open and shut frivolous case. The most likely reasons for Hercules56 to try to pretend that the possibility is in any way meaningful to this case are either that he's trolling us or that he's grasping at straws because what he's been pushing is cult level stupid and, like a cultist, he's trying to reached a desired end without actually caring about how nonsensical the means invoked are.
Click to expand...
It's a federal court so probable cause has already been established - that's what the grand jury does so unless there is a legal defect it is a straightforward charges, rights and plea hearing.

You are correct at the grasping of straws approach, anyone who believes in due process will not say any part of a trial establishes any kind of legal guilt until either the judge or jury makes such a judgement. You'd almost think that "innocent unless guilty" should only apply to certain classes of folk listening to some arguments about him; folks such as Trump and Bondi.

(Of course, as lay folk we are all able to come to a conclusion about guilt regardless of due process.)
 
acbytesla said:
So? Judges preside over courts. Not the DOJ. I gave you a link where a Judge has often dismissed cases during an arraignment because of a lack of probable cause. Where he has watched police videos that show that the charges were false. This is called precedent.
Click to expand...
That is not a federal court. "Probable cause" has already been established by the grand jury, which is its purpose. So there are no grounds for a judge to look at the evidence at this stage and declare there is no probable cause, only a legal defect of some sort could get it thrown out at the arraignment.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
What's really funny is that what he's *explicitly* denying what he himself said. I wrote that the film showed "no such thing", referring exactly to whatever Hercules56 had written. And he responds "Never said it did". He's actually saying: "I never said the thing I said" in as many words.
Click to expand...
Well, I was thinking, "do I need to link to the post he said it in", but then I realised that it was actually quoted in the post he was replying to.

Where's the "facepalm" smiley?
 
Darat said:
That is not a federal court. "Probable cause" has already been established by the grand jury, which is its purpose. So there are no grounds for a judge to look at the evidence at this stage and declare there is no probable cause, only a legal defect of some sort could get it thrown out at the arraignment.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was.
 
WTF is this?

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was detained inside a Lower Manhattan immigration court building Tuesday morning by masked federal agents as he attempted to escort a man from his court appearance there.

Moments ahead of his detention, Lander had linked arms with the man leaving an immigration courtroom on the 12th floor, refusing to let go as masked federal agents pushed into the crowd attempting to pull the man away.

In the chaotic scene at around noon, Lander asked the agents repeatedly to show a judicial warrant.

“You do not have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens,” Lander repeated, as the officers tightened handcuffs to his wrists.

The federal agents escorted him into an elevator, with one member of his NYPD security detail alongside him.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom