|
Jarmak posted:Trying a case because you want to lose in a certain way sounds highly unethical They should have received a really terrible, life-in-prison-with-no-parole-possibly-death-penalty type of sentence, but the judge was afraid they would move for a mistrial and win on appeal. Also loving the WE NEED A FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT poo poo. As if the Constitution never changes or whatever.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
The ACLU isn't representing Santilli. They're complaining about the way he's being prosecuted, and how he was denied bail in contrast to the other co-defendants based on his words. IMHO it's a dumb argument to state but it does have 1st amendment implications, "Santilli have a right to say dumb things two years ago and not be treated differently by the courts because of it." (This of course ignores that the "dumb things" were threats against government employees and stating plans to use hidden weapons caches to carry it out.) http://www.aclu-or.org/blog/first-amendment-rights-pete-santilli
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:With any luck the first thing that happens in court is Santilli standing up, saying he doesn't require legal counsel to defend himself in a gold-fringe flagged admiralty court. This reminds me, there was a manual for judges from 1999 on how to deal with sovereign citizens and similar derivatives of Posse Comitatus. The first "tactic" it brings up is the fringed flag and how to effectively deal with it. Along with the usual tactics of "acknowledge the objection and ignore it" and "point out exactly how they're wrong", it also suggested the simple answer: remember that flags are cheap, remove the fringed one for a new one, and continue as normal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
I mean you also have a right to have no job, friends, or connection to a place you're visiting, but those are all valid considerations in a bail decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
The biggest argument for denying bail to any of the militia would be that by using intimidation and threats of violence (possibly actual violence depending on how much stuff they wrecked while staying there) to enact political change, they were engaging in acts of domestic terrorism and arrested during an incident that is still ongoing. Releasing them would risk their return to the ongoing occupation or a possible threat to the police presence there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:The ACLU isn't representing Santilli. They're complaining about the way he's being prosecuted, and how he was denied bail in contrast to the other co-defendants based on his words. IMHO it's a dumb argument to state but it does have 1st amendment implications, "Santilli have a right to say dumb things two years ago and not be treated differently by the courts because of it." (This of course ignores that the "dumb things" were threats against government employees and stating plans to use hidden weapons caches to carry it out.) Wow that's even worse then I thought. ACLU posted:This coverage was the basis for his arrest warrant as well as a threadbare indictment on a charge of conspiracy to impede federal officers by use of force, intimidation and threats. If convicted of this federal felony, Santilli could face up to six years in prison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wow that's even worse then I thought. "Threadbare" when he recorded himself leading the militia against counter-protesters and screaming at an FBI agent to shoot him? Man, I hate to see the chances of the prosecuting the rest of the militia!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:"Threadbare" when he recorded himself leading the militia against counter-protesters and screaming at an FBI agent to shoot him? Man, I hate to see the chances of the prosecuting the rest of the militia! If you're doing legal advocacy on behalf of someone, it behooves you to use the strongest language possible. It's up to the other side to go "no, that argument is stupid and here is why", not you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
it sounds like the Oregon ACLU may have not actually reviewed every detail of the case before coming out so strongly. he was basically part of the leadership of the group, whether he called himself a journalist or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:If you're doing legal advocacy on behalf of someone, it behooves you to use the strongest language possible. It's up to the other side to go "no, that argument is stupid and here is why", not you. well now it's unclear if they're doing legal advocacy, if they are then yeah that makes sense but lol at the Oregon ACLU for volunteering for that. If you're just issuing press releases from the sidelines then you just look like an idiot if you talk like that. edit: That said making obviously stupid arguments is not a good strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:They do not even remotely know what they're talking about a lot of the time, they just think that "I do not consent" and "I am travelling" and so on are magic spells that render the police helpless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:whether he called himself a journalist or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
So here's my approach to evaluating their actions: what happens if the ACLU prevails?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:One of these days a Sovereign Citizen is going to remember to bring his spell component pouch along when he gets pulled over for speeding and then boy are we gonna look dumb. One of these days a patriot is going to drop his Freedmanmancy book and then democracy will be over. Obamamort will have the secrets of sorcery in his hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So here's my approach to evaluating their actions: what happens if the ACLU prevails? Santilli goes free while the rest of them get tossed in prison. I'm sure nothing bad would happen to him by his former audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So here's my approach to evaluating their actions: what happens if the ACLU prevails? Then it provides precedent that it's okay for a journalist to become directly involved with the subject that he claims to be reporting on, to the extent of assisting them in their goals on camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Then it provides precedent that it's okay for a journalist to become directly involved with the subject that he claims to be reporting on, to the extent of assisting them in their goals on camera. It's legal when undercover cops do it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:Here are some words from a III%er The TL;DR summary of that is essentially 'WE THE PEOPLE can't amend the Constitution because then THOSE PEOPLE would probably do something we wouldn't like.' So obviously we need to go back to a time when only white male landowners could vote, then we can get what we want! It's the same selfish logic that Freepers use when whining for the same thing, because they don't actually like Democracy or freedom in the way that the Constitution was designed to provide (which straight up includes amending it, the concept of a living document), because they don't like people they don't agree with getting a say in how the country is run. Or for that matter, being in the country at all. It's also why the phrase 'We the People' is basically a dogwhistle for this sort of bullshit these days, as at least 90% of the time I see people using it, they're using to just mean 'you know, REAL Americans, aka, me and my buddies, not you'. And since they can't guarantee the exact outcome they want via the democratic process, clearly this means they must violently revolt and disenfranchise all of THOSE PEOPLE (and kill them, usually killing them is involved too) rather than compromise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
prefect posted:It's legal when undercover cops do it. I.. uh... are you really trying to argue Pete shouldn't be tried because its legal for the cops to run undercover operations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Then it provides precedent that it's okay for a journalist to become directly involved with the subject that he claims to be reporting on, to the extent of assisting them in their goals on camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I.. uh... are you really trying to argue Pete shouldn't be tried because its legal for the cops to run undercover operations? No, I'm just being more of a flippant jackass. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:That's not at all what the ACLU is defending. They are defending his right to free speech. The ACLU's argument is that he should be out on bail because the courts are using his 1st amendment protected speech as evidence that he's a risk to the community, some of his statements are years old. Free speech should always be protected. I'm sure the FBI has a lot more dirt on him than just what he's said on his show, and they can prosecute him for that. There's good reason to let him be released on bail. Making threats is not protected speech, also speech being protected does not mean it can't be used against you, also I just loving quoted the ACLU defending exactly that like less then a dozen posts ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:I read about a case where the SovCits were so nutty that they ran roughshod over their defender. Do you have a source for this? I have no doubt that it has happened multiple times, but I want a specific case. These Sov Cits get really worrying when they manage any sort of victory (even in the most technical sense) in courts because it means that their babbling nonsense becomes real precedent. Letting such incoherent fantasy gain any sort of foothold is bad news, especially when dealing with domestic terrorists like the Bundy crew.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:10
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:That's not at all what the ACLU is defending. They are defending his right to free speech. The ACLU's argument is that he should be out on bail because the courts are using his 1st amendment protected speech as evidence that he's a risk to the community, some of his statements are years old. Free speech should always be protected. I'm sure the FBI has a lot more dirt on him than just what he's said on his show, and they can prosecute him for that. There's good reason to let him be released on bail. The ACLU are attacking his indictment. The basis of his bail denial wasn't the random earlier threats, but his explicit threats against federal employees during the Malheur events - the judge was very clear about that.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Dickbutt for every office, every election! Since a lot of the election people are elderly/retired (as they're the only ones with enough time on their hands) I'm picturing an old lady going "Richard Butt? Hmm, I don't see him on any of the lists." I swear to god above, i would change my name to Richard Butt if i ever ran for an elected office NathanScottPhillips posted:That's not at all what the ACLU is defending. They are defending his right to free speech. The ACLU's argument is that he should be out on bail because the courts are using his 1st amendment protected speech as evidence that he's a risk to the community, some of his statements are years old. Free speech should always be protected. I'm sure the FBI has a lot more dirt on him than just what he's said on his show, and they can prosecute him for that. There's good reason to let him be released on bail. I'm pretty sure those two year old speeches combined with recent activities are pretty damning. I'm not scared of him being a threat. He's a pussy. I'm more in fear he'll run because that's all he did whenever poo poo got real before, even so much as to have a motel room far away from the refuge so he'd be spared any raids that they were certain would take place SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's fine that the ACLU wants to get a standard set but they have to know that if they were to somehow win then the next militia incident would just have a lot more "reporters" taking part and using the defense that they're preparing for Pete. Though they might simply tell him "hey you hosed up and got caught up in the moment, so take a plea deal if you're smart." If Santelli somehow wins, that'll ultimately be the fault of a judge or a jury, not his defense lawyer - regardless of who pays for his defense, which it doesn't look like they're doing. Besides, the ACLU's stance seems pretty sensible to me? quote:Situations like this - where words alone are used to label a speaker so dangerous or somehow threatening as to warrant the deprivation of his liberty - demand the highest caution. Where there is any question, we should err on the side of the speaker. They're not asserting that he's innocent, they're just complaining that he's being treated differently from the other militiamen based not on his actions at the refuge but rather for things he had said years before the occupation. They seem to be fine if he gets punished for the crimes he physically committed or for his leadership as the refuge, but they are opposed to him being punished for offensive or violent things he said years ago. And if you can't see why there could potentially be a First Amendment issue there, maybe you should open your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:17
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're not asserting that he's innocent, they're just complaining that he's being treated differently from the other militiamen based not on his actions at the refuge but rather for things he had said years before the occupation. They seem to be fine if he gets punished for the crimes he physically committed or for his leadership as the refuge, but they are opposed to him being punished for offensive or violent things he said years ago. And if you can't see why there could potentially be a First Amendment issue there, maybe you should open your eyes. It'd be fine- if it were accurate. The judge was explicit that past, hyperbolic threats (the Clinton one particularly) weren't why Santilli was being held, but rather specific statements about how he would kill federal officers who approached his door, coupled with his direct involvement in the occupation. ACLU likes to play fast and loose with facts to make their argument.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:One of these days a Sovereign Citizen is going to remember to bring his spell component pouch along when he gets pulled over for speeding and then boy are we gonna look dumb. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Santelli somehow wins, that'll ultimately be the fault of a judge or a jury, not his defense lawyer - regardless of who pays for his defense, which it doesn't look like they're doing. Wow you're good at selectively picking out parts of a statement and ignoring everything else in order to create an utterly false narrative, do you work for the Oregon ACLU?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
You have an alarming need to turn every argument into an outsized burnfest war that doesn't accomplish anything. Do you work for the US military?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:You have an alarming need to turn every argument into an outsized burnfest war that doesn't accomplish anything. Do you work for the US military? Ugh, do you have a need to comment on every time somebody makes an inflammatory comment? this is a joke. i am joking
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're not asserting that he's innocent, they're just complaining that he's being treated differently from the other militiamen based not on his actions at the refuge but rather for things he had said years before the occupation. They seem to be fine if he gets punished for the crimes he physically committed or for his leadership as the refuge, but they are opposed to him being punished for offensive or violent things he said years ago. And if you can't see why there could potentially be a First Amendment issue there, maybe you should open your eyes. A person's history is 100% relevant in a bail hearing. When a person has a history of violent comments or potential threats towards government officials and said person is being charged with anti-government activity then those past statements are relevant. You're complaining that if a murderer constantly made statements about hating black people that said statements shouldn't be considered after they killed a black person. If any others have a history of violent statements like Pete's I'm sure they'd get the same treatment. Pete's no being charged for what he said then and he's not being charged for it now. He's even free to keep making those statements. However what he says can and will be used against him in a court of law and that includes to deny bail. Maybe if he was being charged for those comments you'd have grounds for an argument, but he's not and you don't. If the courts decide a person's past actions have no relevance in a bail hearing it's going to cause some serious issues throughout the entire legal system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Here I thought this thread would be the perfect place for a witty rejoinder
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Santelli somehow wins, that'll ultimately be the fault of a judge or a jury, not his defense lawyer - regardless of who pays for his defense, which it doesn't look like they're doing. Adding on to this, the procedure for looking at past comments matters. If Santilli's comments broke the law, then there was plenty of time for a prosecutor to get a conviction. And then the bail denial is just based on past criminal history. And that's a fairly bright line. Since that didn't happen, the judge is declaring that comments are "dangerous" according to some ad-hoc standard that might not actually match our laws around prohibited speech. That's a really bad precedent, particularly when we're talking about denying bail to protestors. If applied by a unsympathetic judge to a sympathetic protestor, it could look like: "Defendant Morello is accused of trespassing in conjunction with a a political protest. Prosecution argues that Defendant Morello has made violent statements including calls for his followers to 'Arm The Homeless'. Defendant Morello additionally purchased a device with the purported purpose of 'Killing Fascists', a group who, according to Morello's affiliates, includes the members of Fox News Network. Due to this history of specific threats, Morello is denied bail until trial. Trial is set to begin in 6 months." There are obvious differences between a Santilli's situation and a that of a guitarist for Rage Against the Machine. But that's kind of the point. The ACLU can and should be pushing for a standard that's more explicit and nuanced than denying people bail because their past statements can be made to sound violent in a bail hearing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Here I thought this thread would be the perfect place for a witty rejoinder I DO NOT WISH TO CREATE JOINDER
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
They are not protesters. This needs to be driven home. They are an armed force that broke into a Federal facility and threatened force on anyone who tried to remove them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The ACLU isn't wrong because Santili is a scumbag, defending the constitutional rights of "undesirables" is important and admirable. This is what I meant. It's absurd to say that actively plotting sedition is protected speech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Fuckin Grant County man. https://twitter.com/LesZaitz/status/697525087402987520 https://twitter.com/LesZaitz/status/697525518720114688
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
theultimo posted:I DO NOT WISH TO CREATE JOINDER I DO NOT CONSENT I DO NOT CONSENT I DO NOT CONSENT AAAAAHHHHHH! HE'S TRYING TO TAZER MY BALLS DON'T TAZE ME BRO
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 22, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is what I meant. It's absurd to say that actively plotting sedition is protected speech. Lol its practically required for a Republican candidate in many places around our country. Even gets winked at for presidential politics. It's absolutely protected. Practically, if not technically. Especially if you're white and wrapped in the flag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:09
|
|