Hmm. Links?

Haven’t done a links post in a while.

  1. Exhibit A, why ivory tower eggheads get ignored. Want to stop it, stop suggesting stupid things.
  2. Answer, … confiscation.
  3. So, GPS mistakes have in the past, by saying “turn now” convinced people to drive into lakes and such. Doctors and nurses sometimes don’t ask “is this reasonable” when a computer error occurs either. Consequences can be deadly to ignoring common sense.
  4. Not fossils.
  5. Guns and society. If you think you can’t trust your neighbor with guns, why trust the state? The state is comprised of people like your neighbors.
  6. Hard to believe.
  7. A statistic to start a conversation.
  8. “Vampire Squid”
  9. Why? Seriously? Answer: Unions.
  10. This is making the rounds (here too). Comparisons to Hitler’s Germany are not apt. But then if the motivations are political then there is also no defense. And … what the heck? You can’t talk about this! That doesn’t sound legal. More importantly, it doesn’t sound ethical and ethics trumps law.
  11. Well that’s because the slaves aren’t homosexuals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    Re #10. What I’m not hearing or seeing in the story (perhaps I read too fast), was “Do you have a warrant” and if the answer was yes then it’s a matter of suing the judge who signed the warrant. If no then she can literally sign a criminal complaint against each one for home invasion, conviction of which would automatically terminate the job and pension benefits of each officer convicted.

    that these very basic questions are not answered in an article, but lots of inflamatory accusations are being mde, makes me suspect some very relevant facts are being left out.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I’m questioning the whole John Doe thing, where apparently there is legal precedent for a SWAT team coming in, terrorizing your family, taking your stuff, filing no charges and telling you “if you inform anyone but your lawyer you are subject to 10k fines and a year in prison.” Whether a judge did or didn’t do that, that kind of thing seems clearly not Constitutional.

  3. Mark says:

    Apparently the judge which issued the warrants, when this started coming to light, suddenly recused herself and retired.

  4. Boonton says:

    I heard about something like that with the Patriot Act. Libraries were told to hand over certain information and were told they couldn’t tell anyone, not even their lawyers because of ‘National Security’.

    Regardless, something about this story doesn’t seem 100% right. It is a little too outrageous, which leads me to suspect something is being left out.

  5. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I think the thing being left out is that it was about 10 people/families subjected to this (I’m going on recollection of my fast read). It’s outrageous but not widespread. And it’s just conservatives so to most of the press, no big deal.

  6. Boonton says:

    Conservatives can’t afford lawyers? A warrantless search is a tort and a very easy case to win if it is as absurdly outrageous as depicted in the article.

  7. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I’m still not past the “don’t tell anyone but your lawyer or you get 10K and a year”.

  8. Mark says:

    Why do you think it was warrantless. Apparently the people shortly to be “in the news” are DA Chissolm and Judge Kluka.

    Again. Under what circumstances can (apparently it has a name) … a John Doe warrant be served? Why are they Constitutional? What oversight do they require?

  9. Boonton says:

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/john-doe-warrant/

    I’m not seeing the relationship. It sounds like a John Doe Warrant would apply if there was a reason to arrest someone who is known by sight but not name. Say a mugger was seen running into her house, police can enter on a John doe warrant.

    But you still have to get probable cause and a Doe Warrant would apply to a person, not cell phones or computers.

  10. Boonton says:

    Likewise http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/us/officers-who-searched-home-cant-be-sued-court-says.html?_r=0 does say you can sue if it is really outrageous:

    A 1986 Supreme Court decision, Malley v. Briggs, said police officers should be denied immunity from such lawsuits “only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable.”

    Hence why I suspect there’s something ‘too good’ about this story (‘too good’ in the sense that its making rounds too quickly on facebook and right wing sites).

  11. Boonton says:

    http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/false-arrest.cfm

    Also seems like false arrest can be charged as well. In reality if the facts were just as described more than a few lawyers would love to take the case even for free. it would be a slam dunk.

  12. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    And we shall see shant we. Again this seems to be a case of “well, why hasn’t this happened already, ergo it must be false”.

    That of course begs the question of how you can find a lawyer “who might take such a case for free” if you can’t actually talk about it without going to jail!!

  13. Boonton says:

    Then talk about it and go to jail. If they arrest you they have to produce charges against you. Exactly what would those charges be? And if that is the case, then exactly how are we hearing about it now?

    Even assuming this all was true, getting a lawyer would still be pretty easy. Any lawyer you talk to about taking your case is ‘your lawyer’ for purposes of the consultation. Even if you choose not to hire him or he declines to accept your case he would be bound by attorney-client privilege.

    And we shall see shant we. Again this seems to be a case of “well, why hasn’t this happened already, ergo it must be false”.

    Not really. The story is false until it is demonstrated to be true, at least as far as intelligent public discourse is concerned.

  14. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Even assuming this all was true, getting a lawyer would still be pretty easy. Any lawyer you talk to about taking your case is ‘your lawyer’ for purposes of the consultation.

    Let’s see. Want to find a doctor or car mechanic, besides searching the web I talk to people. Ask friends and contacts I have to find out their recommendations. But I can’t do that can in this case?

    Not really. The story is false until it is demonstrated to be true, at least as far as intelligent public discourse is concerned.

    You need to start telling your SJW buddies over on the left that is the case. Then we wouldn’t be hearing about rape cases that are false until charges are filed and people are arrested (see Rolling Stone … how many on the left decided the story was true … can you point to comments you left on left leaning sites telling them to shut up until there is a court case?). After all, we can’t have intelligent discourse until it gets to court. I think you have it exactly backwards. There is little to discuss after verdicts have been given. There is a point to discussing things which are proposed, to discussing legal affairs before they reach a court. You’ve gone too far down the “pass it to find out what’s in it” road … now you think you can’t even talk about it until it has passed, or until it the court has ruled.

  15. buddyglass says:

    The comments on that piece about Syrian refugees are truly depressing.

  16. Boonton says:

    I didn’t say court was necessary. In the Rolling Stone article specifics were spelled out, the fraternity responded, others had enough detail to follow up and uncover the story didn’t work…if the story had been true they could have followed up and confirmed it.

    I’m unclear what you’re saying about this story. They can’t get a lawyer because, despite being the victim of a gross abuse of gov’t, they can only get a consultation with a lawyer by asking friends and family for recommendations and they can’t ask that without providing the details they aren’t supposed to talk about? Yet somehow the whole story is able to find its way to National Review?

  17. Mark says:

    And it is likely that there will be responses here. (as there weren’t here)

    So. Where are you on this case? Can it be discussed? Or is it presumed false (on both sides)?

    Still think you might have a double standard when it comes to what can be discussed.

  18. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    How would you engage a lawyer? Just let your fingers choose on at random in the yellow pages or a google search? Or would you seek advice of friends against police/court orders? Hmm?

    As I said, I’m still haven’t seen where the “John Doe Warrant” passes Constitutional muster.

  19. Boonton says:

    So. Where are you on this case? Can it be discussed? Or is it presumed false (on both sides)?

    Both are probably true.

    How would you engage a lawyer? Just let your fingers choose on at random in the yellow pages or a google search? Or would you seek advice of friends against police/court orders?

    Last 4 times I used a lawyer it was from Google/yellow pages and it was for things my friends/family had experience with. Challenging illegal searches doesn’t happen that often so I’m not sure how much input my friends/family would have in finding a good lawyer.

    What do you honestly feel is more likely:

    Outragerous victims of abuse who cant get a lawyer because they are scared to ask friends for recommendations.

    Or some key elements of this story have been left out to create a story that gets more clicks and shares?