Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching CNN yesterday and they were inverviewing this guy who saw the Boston bombings and the Texas explosion. He ran the marathon and was really lucky he crossed the finish line before the bomb went off. He then flew to Texas to visit people.He was driving past the explosion. Talk about close calls
With all that has transpired, we STILL don't know who set the bomb off. All we know is that those 2 kids were there walking along seeming to mind their business like most everyone else there that came to watch.
No we don't. We know a whole lot more than that.
Like, they bragged to guy whose car they stole they were the Boston bombers.
Like, one minute they had backpacks, then they didn't.
Like, one witness actually saw Dzhokar set his backpack down.
So, he and brother either set them off remotely, or had accomplices who did.
There is no doubt, they built and placed those bombs.
It is also no coincidence that Tamerlen and his mother are on terrorist watch lists. She doesn't look particularly upset about any of this. She's also wanted in MA for shoplifting and destroying property - a 2012 charge - which is why she isn't coming back to US.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 04-25-2013 at 10:41 PM..
Like, one minute they had backpacks, then they didn't.
Like, one witness actually saw Dzhokar set his backpack down.
So, he and brother either set them off remotely, or had accomplices who did.
There is no doubt, they built and placed those bombs.
It's also no coincidence that Tamerlen and his mother were on terrorist watch lists. She doesn't look particularly upset about any of this. She's also wanted in MA for shoplifting and destroying property - a 2012 charge - which is why she isn't coming back to US.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Actually, I've seen her as very disraught on TV/video a few times throughout today, but if what I have been hearing about her radical religious views and the influence she has had on her sons in that area are true, she has brought this upon herself and her family. She will deny their involvement 'til the bitter end and therefore she will never apologize of extend regret on behalf her her sons. I've read that the father is coming to the USA to bring his son's body home for burial, but she is undecided due to the warrant out on her for that shoplifting offense.
I noticed about 10 pages back that at least one poster questioned the fact that 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans Citizens were ever put in "concentration" camps (as FDR called them). Well they sure were! Here are the actual documents from his library leading up to FDRs executive order to do so:
".......On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 granting the War Department broad powers to create military exclusion areas. Although the order did not identify any particular group, in practice it was used almost exclusively to intern Americans of Japanese descent. By 1943, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans had been forced from their homes and moved to camps in remote inland areas of the United States........"
I noticed about 10 pages back that at least one poster questioned the fact that 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans Citizens were ever put in "concentration" camps (as FDR called them). Well they sure were! Here are the actual documents from his library leading up to FDRs executive order to do so:
".......On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 granting the War Department broad powers to create military exclusion areas. Although the order did not identify any particular group, in practice it was used almost exclusively to intern Americans of Japanese descent. By 1943, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans had been forced from their homes and moved to camps in remote inland areas of the United States........"
Maybe you should read thru the thread and realize that no one here has claimed to believe and trust everything that they are told, but this particular rant for conspiracy theorists is way over the top. If both brothers were killed, you would have a lot more to base your beliefs upon as dead men tell no tales, but c'mon...there is a brother left standing, so to speak and he has spoken. He will have his day in court with counsel and due process of law... a lot more justice than the innocent murder victims in Boston were granted.
While it is rare for a federal judge to be removed for judicial misconduct it happens all to regularly in state courts. As to the reason that federal judges are rarely impeached, it is for the reason that you sited above, they are appointed to the bench after a considerable vetting process, political flavor notwithstanding and have proven over considerable careers to have the judicial temperament fitting a federal judge.
Well, you sound like a Federal Judge! Now, being a little less proper, which is just my nature, federal judges are political appointees, selected for the ideological leanings. And while it's one of the most prestigious positions, there are many mafia like crooks and scoundrels, just as in politics proper. The Robe doesn't give a man integrity, but only the illusion of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
A link to the case, and the context in which the statement was made if you don't mind.
Just google it ... you'll get more than one reference to many more than one instance. I do not have time, nor am I inclined to provide links to every statement I make. You may cite what ever you like to challenge such statements ... that is your right, and I encourage you to do so ... research and verify .. I don't expect anyone to simply "believe" everything I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That is usually what a judge are charged to do, and such ruling come after pretrial hearings where the motions by attorney's representing both sides are allowed to present arguments pertaining to such impending rulings.
And I not sure sure why you deprecate the role of the appellant courts but that's your burden not ours.
Where do you get the idea that I disprove of the appellant courts? That's illogical, given my rather blunt view of the federal court's rather suspiciously successful conviction rates. I'm a fan of appellant courts, when they serve their true purpose to correct errors in procedures and decisions. But we know that there is another side, which is anything but serving as a safeguard to proper justice. Don't we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
You really should acquaint yourself with Sparf v. United States, 156 US 51 - Supreme Court 1895
Hmmm ... interesting tactic ... use my argument against me? You do realize that if I know anything at all about the topic of Jury Nullification, chances are I might already be aware of this Sparf v. United States, since that is the precedent case which has never since been changed? Perhaps you ought to "acquaint" yourself with the definition of hypocrisy, because it ought to include this asinine opinion of the robed demigods who might have been tarred and feathered had they rendered such a decision 100 years earlier when integrity ruled? For those unfamiliar, it was the court's opinion that while jurors do have the right to ignore judges instructions on the law, the juror should not be aware of that right. Now, if that sounds rather crazy, that's only because it is freaking crazy. It's actually an outrage, and one of the prime evidentiary examples I use when I periodically and mercilessly impugn the integrity of the Supreme Political Hacks that have always infested the SCOTUS.
And it is such an enthusiastically embraced fraud in every court from Miami to Seattle and every little nook and cranny that houses a judge, that they would rather die than inform the jury of this right, and instead, pretend it doesn't exist, and give instructions to jurors which directly implies that they don't have that right. Furthermore, they have taken this to such an extreme level of fraud by disallowing defense attorneys to even mention this right to juries. That to me says everything you need to know about the lack of integrity of the justice system, which the old joke rings so true, that the term really should be spelled "Just-Us".
But with that said, I want to clarify the fact that there have been and still are men and women of integrity and wisdom sitting on the bench (my recent appearance in court was with a female judge, and she was straight up excellent).
So, there are consequently many examples of more honorable opinions than the Sparf case:
Georgia v Brailsford (1794)
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court
Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice 1804, signer of The Declaration of Independence.
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Lysander Spooner "An Essay On the Trial by Jury" 1852
"There are five separate tribunals to veto laws: representative, senate, executive, judicial and jury. It's the right and duty of juries to hold all laws invalid that are unjust or oppressive, in their opinion. If a jury does not have this right, the government is absolute and the people are slaves. Is it absurd that twelve ignorant men should sit by and see the law decided erroneously? The justices are untrustworthy and are fond of power and authority. To allow them to dictate the law would surrender all property, liberty and rights of the people into the hands of arbitrary power." (man, he sounds a lot like me ... what a smart fellow! )
Dean Roscoe Pound (1910)
"Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration."
Oliver Wendel Holmes, Horning v DC 254 US 35,138 (1920)
"The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts."
U.S. v Moylan 417 F.2d 1002 at 1006 (1969)
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. This power of the jury is not always contrary to the interests of justice."
U.S. v Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113 at 1130 (1972)
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
But I will say this for you, you right a mighty fine rant. Short on facts or substantiation but hey...mighty fine nonetheless.
Well, in my best Elvis voice ... thank you ..... thank you very much. (if I were a can of cat food, I would point out that "I write" rather than "I right" ... insinuating that you aren't smart enough to know the difference, but I know you do know, and are a pretty smart person, even if we rarely agree on things! .. and I make those kinds of errors all of the time.
Although I believe that my "rants" are every bit based on facts as they might be entertaining.
The next time you think the government is looking out for your best interests. Think again. The census info is supposed to be "private" but guess what was used to round up the Japanese Americans and bring them to the concentration camps?
These people were forced out of their houses out on the streets for 12 hours in Watertown and some of the real sheeple were justifying what the police were doing! At the end a rogue cop was acting like a real jerk telling the guy reporting that he was "acting irrational" for questioning the police. UNBELIVABLE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mUguCB4T2k
The next time you think the government is looking out for your best interests. Think again. The census info is supposed to be "private" but guess what was used to round up the Japanese Americans and bring them to the concentration camps?
Scary. I was going to dispute this by saying we need the census to get federal funding for important projects, but you're right.
[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0324/The-2010-Census-Will-your-answers-stay-private]The 2010 Census: Will your answers stay private? - CSMonitor.com[/url]
"While the disclosure may have been dated, the bureau’s deceit lasted for more than 60 years and undermines its credibility. And we do not know how many other census confidentiality violations have yet to surface."
So now it isn't just the Alex Jones and Glenn Beck types who are crying foul.
Who do you think has been paying for his Mercedes for the last 3-5 years????
If you're referring to the blogs in the Boston Herald, I wouldn't use that newspaper to pickup dog poop. They weren't living in luxury. Did you see photos of their apartment?
Anyway, I know a lot of people who drive old luxury cars. You can buy a very nice 1995 Mercedes for under $5,000. It's ridiculous to talk about this. Would their crimes (if they committed them) be any more or less heinous if they drove a Kia Rio?
Let's stick to the subject. I don't think any of the injured really care what kind of cars they drove.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, being a little less proper, which is just my nature, federal judges are political appointees, selected for the ideological leanings. And while it's one of the most prestigious positions, there are many mafia like crooks and scoundrels, just as in politics proper. The Robe doesn't give a man integrity, but only the illusion of it.