The Ukrainian offensive starts
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Ahhh, Frank you're doing it again.
If I come across anyone's disinformation here, I will routinely respond. It's not just you. You just happen to be a prolific poster.
On the other hand, you shouldn't feel compelled to respond every time I post something. In case you haven't noticed, there's a half dozen or more guys saying similar things.
The idea that anyone could harass Frank seems pretty absurd to several of us who finally had to put him on ignore. A stalker can hardly complain that his target is everywhere he goes! Obviously, I made a different decision about dealing with the Frank problem on this board than Wyatt has made, but I respect Wyatt's decision to continue to engage with him. You should respect it as well.
Normally, I don't get involved in such meta discussions, but you should know that more than Wyatt (I would suggest MANY more) see the situation differently than you do.
Wyatt, you have repeatedly referred to me in posts and are now using backhanded accusations of posting disinformation.
If you use my name in a post don't act shocked when I call you out for not responding directly.
Its just clear that you know you've lost the argument.
Whatever, Wyatt.
You have had a response from me to both your comments and I have limited time. If you want to cite law review articles to real life lawyers to prove some point you want to make, you're in for a pretty choppy ride.
There is no argument. I just don't agree with you almost 100% of the time. What would you call monolithic, ideological posting?
You're not exactly a conversational poster. You're not trying to understand how things are or how they work. You're here to preach. And that's okay, but not everyone is a believer.
mandrill's political empathy might make him feel compelled to get involved but that is a bit much. I called you a "shade of Marxist" and the drama began. Would you understand the sarcasm if I said my Marxist friends don't have a problem with me calling you a Marxist?
Everyone here has to get over themselves. It ain't the first time and last time someone used a label here. I literally have members telling me how I feel about an issue despite posts to the contrary. I think I have been accused of being a right wing Christian in one way or another. Which doesn't really make sense, but if it fits a narrative people have in their head they do what they think they gotta do.
You're going to take this personally, but I have literally said this to several attorneys on social media. Some are friends.
Avoid holding your law degree over people when expressing what is purely an opinion.
Attorneys as a group tend to declare their profession on social media more than other groups. They also tend to make comments with the caveat they have more credibility because of their legal expertise. I can't be the only one to notice that.
I have no idea what this story you're telling yourself about refers to, honestly. I'm sure you called me some kind of name, it happens pretty regularly here and doesn't bother me in the least. Even less so when right wingers, who tend to be 'a shade fascist' like jc or others lob insults. I really don't know what this drama you think is happening about, nor do I care.
I call out right wingers here because I don't see them in my world or work area. They don't exist there and this is the only place where I interact with them.
This is supposed to be a Ukraine thread and it seems you've derailed it, as right wingers do, into attacks on Hunter Biden as if he represents anything about the dems.
So in an attempt to defuse your Hunter obsession can we discuss China now overtly selling shells and ammunition to Putin?
Putin is back to attacking Prigozhin, which means that story is ongoing, but its also worth discussing China ending a more neutral stance and actively supporting Russia through ammunition sales.
There are several crazy aspects of the phenomenon you are accurately describing:
1. A PRUDENT lawyer would not self identify as a lawyer here on a pooner board. No lawyer can be sure who reads these posts. It could be clients, other counsel, law enforcement, even LSO investigators (not to mention spouses, or just other persons with an interest in doing a lawyer some professional harm). Of course, merely claiming to be a lawyer amongst thousands of practising lawyers never gets you very far, so usually the lawyer will add personal details like the area and location of their practice, the length of their time at the bar, the names of public figures they have had contact with, or even details associated with a particular case they were involved with. It is not hard to imagine how that information could be identifying, depending on who was reading the post. It's a dangerous road to travel on - especially in service of the trivial objective of trying to win arguments with strangers on the internet.
2. Even identifying as a lawyer doesn't ensure you will win the argument. You might even be arguing with another lawyer (who hasn't self identified) who is making a better argument.
3. Legal points aren't all that important to political discussions, since most of those discusssions are fundamentally about what the law SHOULD be (as is also often the subject of law review articles).
4. Law is just one institution of our society which has a primary purpose of keeping the peace through providing a conflict resolution mechanism. It is not a social institution for determining the truth, nor is it an institution for creating social policy.
5. Legal opinions are just that - opinions, even when they are constrained to opining about what the law currently is. It's not hard to obtain diametrically opposed opinions from experienced lawyers on MANY questions of law.
For all of these reasons, I think it is an exercise in bad judgement for lawyers to self identify on this board.
I doubt this will be appreciated by everyone, but it is an interesting and well articulated take on things. You might have also mentioned that there can be subtle differences between the Canadian legal system and the American legal system. There are likely good observable reasons for why the American legal system appears to be more political.
I will say the attorney/social media participant thing is more tempered here than other sites. Many self-identified attorneys on social media seem to become experts on U.S. Constitutional law.
If you read some books on nuclear war [yes I'm old] which talk about the subject, it's completely amazballs how many nukes are not expected to reach their targets and of those who do how many are expected not to explode.
Russian and American although ours are a bit more reliable. Those numbers are assumptions based on a soviet union that waas competent, not one whose maintaince procedues were no doubt suspect back in the day and probably got much worse since the fall of the USSR, never mind what we know about how bad the stealing is. Those nukes have a lot of copper et al that could buy private consciptski a lot of vodka. Even during the soviet era it was known to be a bit of an issue [in general]
Not to pick sides but dude. As someone with utterly no life, we can spot our own. You have joined us, it's bliss.
Who are the guys who keep whining about American's losing interest and support for providing Ukraine with BILLIONS of dollars of weapons, non- military assistance, loans, training etc etc?
Because I want to rub your noses in your own dog shit bullshit. NOBODY but mutts and gullible, selfish stooges believes the Russkie propaganda. I guess the same suckers who worshipped Trump and Tucker are mayyyyyybeeeee coming around to seeing how they had been conned and lied to.
In May, 455 of Americans affirmatively supported it. Now, in June... 65% of American's affirmatively support assisting Ukraine fight Russia.
Most Americans support US arming Ukraine, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VJYEGTBGVFNSHPW63FQGKD5TEE.jpg)
www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - Solid majorities of Americans support providing weaponry to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and believe that such aid demonstrates to China and other U.S. rivals a will to protect U.S. interests and allies, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey.
The two-day poll that was concluded on Tuesday charted a sharp rise in backing for arming Ukraine, with 65% of the respondents approving of the shipments compared with 46% in a May poll.
Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 56% of Republicans and 57% of independents favor supplying U.S. weapons to Ukraine, according to the latest poll.
Because I want to rub your noses in your own dog shit bullshit. NOBODY but mutts and gullible, selfish stooges believes the Russkie propaganda. I guess the same suckers who worshipped Trump and Tucker are mayyyyyybeeeee coming around to seeing how they had been conned and lied to.
In May, 455 of Americans affirmatively supported it. Now, in June... 65% of American's affirmatively support assisting Ukraine fight Russia.
Most Americans support US arming Ukraine, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows
Most Americans support US arming Ukraine, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows
Solid majorities of Americans support providing weaponry to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and believe that such aid demonstrates to China and other U.S. rivals a will to protect U.S. interests and allies, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey.
www.reuters.com
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - Solid majorities of Americans support providing weaponry to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and believe that such aid demonstrates to China and other U.S. rivals a will to protect U.S. interests and allies, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey.
The two-day poll that was concluded on Tuesday charted a sharp rise in backing for arming Ukraine, with 65% of the respondents approving of the shipments compared with 46% in a May poll.
Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 56% of Republicans and 57% of independents favor supplying U.S. weapons to Ukraine, according to the latest poll.
Not likely, but there is probably a mix of "you want to show the breadth of stuff he took" to show seriousness and a little bit of protection, not just from how they might be handled differently, but from different arguments about his actual ability to have them.
Yes, but remember the federal sentencing guidelines. These WILL be "grouped" as two or three crimes tops for sentencing purposes.
You list all the various elements, and then for sentencing the ones that are interrelated get bundled.
That's built into the system to prevent people from trying to send someone away for 500 years based on 50 copies of things that were all stolen at once.
Actually, the willfully retaining thing is a big deal. Yes, the obstruction part is what really kicked it into high gear, mostly because it is hard to prove intent about willfully retaining something.
The assumption is that it was retained unwillfully, as a consequence of just so much shit floating about.
Why do you think they spent so much time trying to let him off the hook?
If he just gave it back and said it was an accident, he never would have been charged, even if they had good reason to think he had taken it willfully.
Fair enough, but it isn't like the Harvard Law Review is just nonsense people spouting off.Wyatt, you can quote an academic writing a 1-off article in a law review as much as you want. I'm telling you what real attorneys actually do.
Stacked: Where Criminal Charge Stacking Happens — And Where it
Introduction When prosecutors approached a first-time drug offender who had sold a little over half a kilogram of marijuana, they offered him a deal: plead guilty to fifteen years, or take the case to
harvardlawreview.org
But this seems to be different.Fair enough, but it isn't like the Harvard Law Review is just nonsense people spouting off.
Stacked: Where Criminal Charge Stacking Happens — And Where it
Introduction When prosecutors approached a first-time drug offender who had sold a little over half a kilogram of marijuana, they offered him a deal: plead guilty to fifteen years, or take the case to
What I had in mind was what took place in a recent trial where my client struck the victim with a golf club. He was charged with 3 ascending tiers of assault - just in case the jury felt that the assault didn't quite reach the top tier of severity, or even the middle tier. Plus possession of a weapon.
This was just the Crown covering his ass that one of the charges would fit the facts as they emerged at trial.
What the article you post discusses is something quite different - stacking several identical charges for different acts during the same criminal incident in order to overwhelm the accused with consecutive minimum sentences. Try that shit in Canada and you invite a Charter challenge striking out the minimums and / or the consecutive mandates.
I should check the Trump indictment, but I assume that it charges different incidents during the several month period that Trump illicitly retained the documents. And I am unaware that those counts have minimum sentences or that they are mandated to be served consecutively.
@WyattEarp
Last edited:
Ok, so here we are - the Trump / Nauta indictment. No mandatory minimums. He's appropriately charged with 34 counts, presumably one count for each of the documents or groups of documents retained, plus 3 general charges.Fair enough, but it isn't like the Harvard Law Review is just nonsense people spouting off.
Stacked: Where Criminal Charge Stacking Happens — And Where it
Introduction When prosecutors approached a first-time drug offender who had sold a little over half a kilogram of marijuana, they offered him a deal: plead guilty to fifteen years, or take the case to
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the example in the Harvard Law Review.
@WyattEarp
You should look at the indictment.
It falls far more under the idea of "charge stacking" as described in the Review article.
But the federal mandating guidelines don't let you stack up time served for each incident, that's just not how they work. (A judge can decide to ignore the guidelines, but then they have to explain what they are doing and why. )
The documents basically all fall under "stuff we found in the search that you didn't give back".
I would say the obstruction charges are closer to what you are talking about where the government proposes multiple charges because depending on how the jury views the facts it could fit one model better than another.
C'mon, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss "charge stacking" at all guys.
