RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees"

RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:33:18 PM)
I have made that motion twice and it worked both times. Asking for the citation makes you sound like an idiot. The cases weren't recorded cases. It is rule of evidence and part of confronting witnesses brought against you.

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Hey Mnot, you seem to be afraid to answer the question also, so hey enjoy your razor thin majority while it lasts. between you and locked away, I see nothing that has the courage of a question, what prithee is on your mind? Stand and deliver and ask me forthrightly. Ron What he said. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:39:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway I have made that motion twice and it worked both times. Asking for the citation makes you sound like an idiot. The cases weren't recorded cases. It is rule of evidence and part of confronting witnesses brought against you. I have trouble believing that a Federal Organized Crime/RICO prosecution ended up without a record in either the Court or Newspapers, regardless of disposition.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:39:14 PM)
Hey man, you just wake up? How are you?

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Good God...you are so far off base. We ARE following the law. Can't you pathom that????? The detainees are getting the law that is accorded to them pursuant to their status as illegal combatants. And no, you didn't address Post 101. You haven't addressed it at all. You try to dodge it and it is OBVIOUS but I guess you think you are being clever. Fine, go be impressed with yourself. How exactly do you know they are illegal (whatever that means) combatants? Wait, dont tell me, AnencephalyBoy told you they were. Sinergy

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:43:00 PM)
Fargle, quite will you only look a little dumb. It wasn't a RICO case. It was a distribution of narcotics case. Of course there is a transcript. All cases that appear in court will have a tape that can be turned into a transcript. Understand? It wasn't a reported decision. Do you know what that means? It means that the cases didn't get published in the New Jersey Reports...the case books. Why did it not get reported? Because getting the name of the C.I. is established law and there was nothing novel about the case that would cause it to be reported. Isn't "Hardball" or some Huffington show on, General?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:44:24 PM)
And THAT is the point. When you offer up a $ 5,000 Bounty in Pakistan for "Al Quaida", what you're going to GET Is everyone the local Head-Of-Village thinks is a pain in the ass or miscellaneous threat to their rule. How to sort them out from real criminals? Well, THAT'S why we have Due Process.

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:44:34 PM)
Go read Archer's posts. And don't try to finger poke me in the eyes.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Fargle, quite will you only look a little dumb. It wasn't a RICO case. It was a distribution of narcotics case. Of course there is a transcript. If my SPECIFIC EXAMPLE was the Mafia/RICO Federal Prosecution, why would you offer up a counter-example which WAS NOT a Mafia/RICO case? Was your case even in Federal Court?

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 5:52:03 PM)
If such a motion was made twice, it appears that he cannot search westlaw for it, and it would not appear that he is an idiot, just that he is not a lawyer. Now, the operatives that are collateral to the USA in the spy business are more numerous and are of less overall use than long term deep cover police informants well placed....that your motion in front of the court collapsed an already floundering case, or was not of sufficient worth outting a couple undercovers----is hardly in the realm of germain. Now Sammy the Bull was worth Gotti. Now, regarding say, Alger Hiss, or the Rosenbergs and so on, how many entire networks were required to give up the ghost to indict and execute them. You are certainly raving like a shit-house lawyer. Who was given up in the Mossad when they had to box in Arafat? How many valiant men and women outted in the raid on Entebbe? Who all was lost to us in the Locharbee (sp?) affair? motion denyed due to lack of evidence, and certain unconstitutionalness as well as wrongful arguments in the area of germainity. I will not delve to deeply into this, but not to many people in the hemisphere or even on the face of the globe are unaware of Gitmo....now Abdul abar abar bar har don't show up for work a couple months, and either he is dead, or the amerikanskis have grabbed him up.......not a goddamn bit of intelligence there. Neither case is going to make a fuckin bit of difference, as I could assay that if indeed Saddam is the mother of all terrorists (who got outted there?) his neck stretching on youtube did not convey any meaningful intelligence to either party. Broadcast and reported to the world, now we thought as a government that we had the legal goods on him, the cost of voiceboxes for him wasn't even an issue but according to the here and now, the law was served, Neckties and luchre isn't going to sway the government, this ain't OJ and the daytime soaps, no broncos here, only weapons of mass destruction. Enough with the lame bullshit yourself. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:01:03 PM)
REPEATED: Was your case even in Federal Court?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:02:20 PM)
REPEATED: If my SPECIFIC EXAMPLE was the Mafia/RICO Federal Prosecution, why would you offer up a counter-example which WAS NOT a Mafia/RICO case? Was your case even in Federal Court?

lockedaway -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:11:18 PM)
Concerning your remarkably crazy assertions concerning the Declaration of Independence, the UDHR, the 14th Amendment, the practicality of trying them under the 14th Amendment, etc., your arguments have been shown by many people other than me (but me included) to be entirely bankrupt. You and a very (Thank God) small number of people can believe in extending certain rights to detainees but you are an anathema to this country.

mnottertail -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:12:37 PM)
Yanno, if someone reports this, you are pretty close to a trip to the cooler, there esquire. OK, maker of motions--- how do you say buck-teeth in latin? Motions made before a state court should be searchable ---- give us the link? LOL, Ron (I fuckin' love to see people go off----)

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:27:26 PM)
quote: Jesus Christ. I really don't want to call you an asshole or anything else. You are way off topic here. Do you see what the fucking name of the forum IS on your way in? How could ANYTHING in the Off Topic topic, be Off-Topic? quote: To answer your STUPID, time wasting, ignorant question. The case was in State court. So, I discuss the a Federal Mob/RICO prosecution, and you think that's equivalent to your State drug possession/distro case? I'm certain people will draw their own conclusions about your reasoning based on that. I'm sure the FBI and Federal Prosecutors would do a MUCH BETTER JOB than the some local Jersey Cops and some local Jersey D.A., don't you? IF you were able to practice in a Federal Courthouse, I'm sure your stunt wouldn't have worked. But that's for the Judge to decide if any 6th Amendment violations occurred, isn't it?

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:28:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Concerning your remarkably crazy assertions concerning the Declaration of Independence, the UDHR, the 14th Amendment, the practicality of trying them under the 14th Amendment, etc., your arguments have been shown by many people other than me (but me included) to be entirely bankrupt. You and a very (Thank God) small number of people can believe in extending certain rights to detainees but you are an anathema to this country. They are NOT RIGHTS if you can take them away. They are PRIVILEGES.

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:37:36 PM)
Well, didn't it make a Newspaper?

Sinergy -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Fargle, quite will you only look a little dumb. lockedaway, You would appear much more rational, mature, intelligent, and erudite if you could make a post that did not have some overt insult directed at a particular poster in it. Are you capable of making a point without going on a grade school emotion-laden attack at the other posters? Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: "Senators vow to restore rights to detainees" (4/29/2007 6:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Wow...you don't mind if I ignore what you have to say from now on, do you? You can take away a right...like your right to liberty and even your right to life. NO government which complies with the Declaration of Independence can rightfully do that. They gave you a J.D. without making sure you understood that? Explains a lot about your profession, doesn't it? Rights come from OUR CREATOR. Depending on your point of view, that's possibly YOUR MOTHER, or perhaps G-d. AND MOSES SET MY PEOPLE FREE! You know, WHITESPACE is your friend. Oh, and after poking about, it's clear that the Feds response to a Motion to disclose a CI would simply be an assertion that the CI's identity isn't necessary for the defense of the charges, the Judge can agree, and then you can then next address the issue on appeal, right?

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125