Armed man arrested by Kavanaugh Home, Had threatened Kavanaugh recently over SCOTUS Memo leak on Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#81
There is literally no other reason for anyone to be protesting at justices houses other than intimidation and coercion, none. It would make sense if they were protesting after the future vote, but its before. Its intimidation and anyone saying other wise is lying or too stupid to see it.
innocent until PROVEN guilty ?

it this idea they have in US Law. Pretty cool stuff.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#83
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. Do you believe they would be legally justified to restrict protests at the homes of SC justices over this issue?
I posted my thoughts about the statute being discussed now in the original SCOTUS to overturn RvW thread.

A statute could probably be written in a manner that is not facially unconstitutional, but you always have the concern of whether or not a statute is unconstitutional as applied in a particular case. Therefore, whether or not a particular action or prosecution would be constitutional is always a nuanced question dependent deeply upon the facts.

With regards 18 USC 1507, there is exactly one published opinion from the federal courts interpreting it. Furthermore, the Defendant explicitly didn't challenge the constitutionality of the statute in his appeal. Finally, the facts are quite different from this one.

In my opinion, 18 USC 1507 is a facially constitutional statute, that it could be used to arrest and prosecute individual protesters for a violation thereof, but doesn't not give authority to order blanket dispersal orders. Whether or not a conviction would be obtained would be fact and prosecutor dependent, but the one thing I definitely know is that such a conviction wouldn't be "easy".
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,431
10,874
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#84
I posted my thoughts about the statute being discussed now in the original SCOTUS to overturn RvW thread.

A statute could probably be written in a manner that is not facially unconstitutional, but you always have the concern of whether or not a statute is unconstitutional as applied in a particular case. Therefore, whether or not a particular action or prosecution would be constitutional is always a nuanced question dependent deeply upon the facts.

With regards 18 USC 1507, there is exactly one published opinion from the federal courts interpreting it. Furthermore, the Defendant explicitly didn't challenge the constitutionality of the statute in his appeal. Finally, the facts are quite different from this one.

In my opinion, 18 USC 1507 is a facially constitutional statute, that it could be used to arrest and prosecute individual protesters for a violation thereof, but doesn't not give authority to order blanket dispersal orders. Whether or not a conviction would be obtained would be fact and prosecutor dependent, but the one thing I definitely know is that such a conviction wouldn't be "easy".
what are absolute min requirements by law to "Prove" intent?
because a prosecutor would have to Prove intent at the individual level for this right ? Each Person the prosecutor would have to prove the intent of their being at the location was to cause intimidation and they would have to prove that intent without a doubt too right?


Unless the protestor arrested left behind a fully worded online or physical manifesto claiming their intent prior to going to the residence, I think it would be damn near impossible to prove the intent for anyone out there.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,921
21,095
1,743
#85
what are absolute min requirements by law to "Prove" intent?
because a prosecutor would have to Prove intent at the individual level for this right ? Each Person the prosecutor would have to prove the intent of their being at the location was to cause intimidation and they would have to prove that intent without a doubt too right?


Unless the protestor arrested left behind a fully worded online or physical manifesto claiming their intent prior to going to the residence, I think it would be damn near impossible to prove the intent for anyone out there.
It depends upon what the statute says. Some statutes are general intent statutes of various levels (knowingly, willfully, intentionally). Some, like this one, have very specific intent requirements. Those with very specific intent requirements are harder cases to prove.

All intent elements of the crime have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not "without a doubt"....there is a big difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt) to the satisfaction of the jury. It can also be based upon circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences by the jury applied to that evidence. One of the big issues in criminal prosecutions in every case is that there is no jury instruction as to exactly what "reasonable doubt" means or is. That is left up to each and every jury.

And yes, specific intent would have to be proven for every person individually in each prosecution.
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,903
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
#87
what are absolute min requirements by law to "Prove" intent?
because a prosecutor would have to Prove intent at the individual level for this right ? Each Person the prosecutor would have to prove the intent of their being at the location was to cause intimidation and they would have to prove that intent without a doubt too right?

Unless the protestor arrested left behind a fully worded online or physical manifesto claiming their intent prior to going to the residence, I think it would be damn near impossible to prove the intent for anyone out there.
The law also doesn't allow intent to influence, and you don't need any "physical manifesto" to reasonably conclude that; even someone from Norman could arrive at that conclusion. Stop looking for ways to dismiss their actions and just simply admit that what has happened thus far, even from Chuck Schumer, is despicable, illegal, and should be pursued legally by Garland and any other applicable court law enforcement representatives.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,810
1,066
1,743
Edmond
#88
The law also doesn't allow intent to influence, and you don't need any "physical manifesto" to reasonably conclude that; even someone from Norman could arrive at that conclusion. Stop looking for ways to dismiss their actions and just simply admit that what has happened thus far, even from Chuck Schumer, is despicable, illegal, and should be pursued legally by Garland and any other applicable court law enforcement representatives.
Then you have Coons saying Schumer's comments were not bad. Coons has always been pretty reasonable. He is trying to tow the party line though.

Sen. Coons downplays Schumer warning that justices would ‘pay the price’ over abortion rights (msn.com)

"Here's a key distinction: What Sen. Schumer was saying was that he was upset, he was alarmed, he was concerned at the prospect that justices would reverse decades of a well-established fundamental constitutional right in our country. What he did not say was, 'Let's go attack them,'" Coons said.
On Sunday, Coons stopped short of condoning Schumer's words. When asked if he sees no problem with the majority leader's language, Coons made clear, "That's not what I said."

"I think all of us need to reduce the level of our rhetoric and be mindful of the fact that stirring up potential violence is not a good or constructive thing to be doing at this moment in our country, by any political leader," he stated.
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,903
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
#89
Then you have Coons saying Schumer's comments were not bad. Coons has always been pretty reasonable. He is trying to tow the party line though.

Sen. Coons downplays Schumer warning that justices would ‘pay the price’ over abortion rights (msn.com)

"Here's a key distinction: What Sen. Schumer was saying was that he was upset, he was alarmed, he was concerned at the prospect that justices would reverse decades of a well-established fundamental constitutional right in our country. What he did not say was, 'Let's go attack them,'" Coons said.
On Sunday, Coons stopped short of condoning Schumer's words. When asked if he sees no problem with the majority leader's language, Coons made clear, "That's not what I said."

"I think all of us need to reduce the level of our rhetoric and be mindful of the fact that stirring up potential violence is not a good or constructive thing to be doing at this moment in our country, by any political leader," he stated.
Always excuses from that side...."yea, but".
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,903
381
213
59
Broken Arrow
#90
Then you have Coons saying Schumer's comments were not bad. Coons has always been pretty reasonable. He is trying to tow the party line though.

Sen. Coons downplays Schumer warning that justices would ‘pay the price’ over abortion rights (msn.com)

"Here's a key distinction: What President Trump was saying was that he was upset, he was alarmed, he was concerned at the prospect that relaxed voting standards and restrictions would reverse decades of a well-established fundamental right in our country. What he did not say was, 'Let's go attack them,'" Coons said.
On Sunday, Coons stopped short of condoning Trump's words. When asked if he sees no problem with the former president's language, Coons made clear, "That's not what I said."

"I think all of us need to reduce the level of our rhetoric and be mindful of the fact that stirring up potential violence is not a good or constructive thing to be doing at this moment in our country, by any political leader," he stated.
FIFY. See what happens to their argument when you simply change the players and situation?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,010
17,405
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#91
When asked if he sees no problem with the majority leader's language, Coons made clear, "That's not what I said."

"I think all of us need to reduce the level of our rhetoric and be mindful of the fact that stirring up potential violence is not a good or constructive thing to be doing at this moment in our country, by any political leader," he stated.
Then why defend it in the first place?
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,443
1,210
1,743
#93
Then why defend it in the first place?
A symptom of our two party system. It would be incredibly refreshing if Coons had just come out and said it was a completely unacceptable comment, which it was. That's the kind of stuff that should result in losing leadership positions within the party.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,638
18,193
1,743
#94
Keep reading. If they are there to voice their displeasure in the current state of affairs. 100% legal. If you can prove they are there to try to intimidate or change a judges outcome on future proceedings. Then it is Illegal.
What's the obvious reason they were there?



Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) threatens US Supreme Court Justice...

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” That drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who issued a statement declaring that “threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”

We know now that Chief Justice Roberts was right.

Isn't Schumer guilty of this crime as well?

18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
 
Last edited:

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,638
18,193
1,743
#95
innocent until PROVEN guilty ?

it this idea they have in US Law. Pretty cool stuff.
Subpoena their cell phone text messages ..... Shouldn't be too difficult.

Have you read the signs they were holding?


1655148802564.png
 
Last edited:

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,638
18,193
1,743
#96
A symptom of our two party system. It would be incredibly refreshing if Coons had just come out and said it was a completely unacceptable comment, which it was. That's the kind of stuff that should result in losing leadership positions within the party.
One hand people complain about the "two party system" and then on the other hand support the right to assembly.

And people continue to forget we have multiple parties in this country and people are free to join any one of those they want or non at all. They are also free to form a new political party.

The very simple reason we have two parties is because they are practicing their constitutional right to free assembly.

Even the founders who wrote the constitution and voiced concern of political parties are the very same people who formed political parties.

To remove political parties you will have to end peoples rights to free assembly. Is that where you want to go?