January 6 Retribution Begins

#104
#104
volinbham said:
I never said they were the plaintiff - I said they filed on his behalf.

The statute may not draw a distinction but if his injury was he was prevented from exercising his professional duty then I would suspect the filing would be in his professional capacity. As a citizen he was not injured. As a Congressional member he possibly can make the claim since he's alleging his professional position was affected.
Click to expand...

On the other hand he was still paid for his work just like all the other members of congress. In fact, we the people paid them; and we the people have a right to assemble and to seek from the government redress of grievances. The dims do the same, and venue has never seemed to be an issue in doing so. I'd argue it makes more sense to protest in the capitol than in downtown Portland or DC or most other locations when you are requesting that congress listen for a change.
 
#106
#106
SpaceCoastVol said:
It wouldn't be the first time:

Pope Stephen (Stephanus) VI was the bishop of Rome and ruler of the Papal States. He instigated the Cadaver Synod. In January 897, Pope Stephen had the body of deceased Pope Formosus exhumed and placed on trial charging perjury and illegal ascension to the papacy (probably Russian collusion 😁). The corpse was found guilty in a sham trial (impeachment) that was purely politically motivated. Formosus' papacy was retroactively declared null, and his body was thrown into the Tiber River. Days later, the body of Formosus washed up on the banks and, people believed, performed miracles. The illegitimate trial and aftermath caused a public uprising. Pope Stephen was deposed and imprisoned. He was hung while incarcerated. All because he acted on a strong political urge to undo the works of a previous Pope (administration). I don't know if anyone sees a little relevance to current events.



Borrowed from another source.
Click to expand...

I had to log in and give you a like for this one.
 
#108
#108
ajvol01 said:
Where are the criminal charges in this “case”?
Click to expand...

I assume they are coming, but for dims it's far more expedient to keep this in play by filing civil suits. I'm betting if criminal suits come out, the 1st Amendment rights will, too. Right to free speech, right to assemble, right to petition government, ..., and that's going to be a problem for the courts. Because of those rights and prior occupation (think precedence) without penalty, criminal prosecution may be more difficult than people think. A good lawyer should be thinking win/win ... either he has a good chance to win, or the expansion of "free speech" and rights of demonstrators everywhere are going to be nipped. Hopefully someone is willing to fight that battle; there's a lot of potential notoriety at stake for a good lawyer.
 
#113
#113
AM64 said:
I assume they are coming, but for dims it's far more expedient to keep this in play by filing civil suits. I'm betting if criminal suits come out, the 1st Amendment rights will, too. Right to free speech, right to assemble, right to petition government, ..., and that's going to be a problem for the courts. Because of those rights and prior occupation (think precedence) without penalty, criminal prosecution may be more difficult than people think. A good lawyer should be thinking win/win ... either he has a good chance to win, or the expansion of "free speech" and rights of demonstrators everywhere are going to be nipped. Hopefully someone is willing to fight that battle; there's a lot of potential notoriety at stake for a good lawyer.
Click to expand...
You can have acts that fall under both criminal and civil cases but they are most certainly not one and the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#114
#114
hUTch2002 said:
You can have acts that fall under both criminal and civil cases but they are most certainly not one and the same.
Click to expand...

True, but they both have the intention of punishing a person for the same act - just in different ways. And one is usually all about blood money while the other is about "protecting society".
 
#115
#115
AM64 said:
So who has standing to bring this lawsuit? Remember standing was the basic reason none of the election fraud lawsuits went forward. It will be interesting to see how a court could balance the hypocrisy by going forward on one while denying the other when both issues are related to the same issue ... election fraud.
Click to expand...

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties"

"in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."

42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

I assume the Congressman is going to argue that the defendants tried to prevent him from discharging certain duties of a Congressman (accepting the EC votes).
 
#116
#116
AM64 said:
OJ says "Not so fast."
Click to expand...

GlaringMadAztecant-size_restricted.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#117
#117
clarksvol00 said:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties"

"in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."

42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

I assume the Congressman is going to argue that the defendants tried to prevent him from discharging certain duties of a Congressman (accepting the EC votes).
Click to expand...

Good luck to him. He'll need a sympathetic judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#120
#120
AM64 said:
I assume they are coming, but for dims it's far more expedient to keep this in play by filing civil suits. I'm betting if criminal suits come out, the 1st Amendment rights will, too. Right to free speech, right to assemble, right to petition government, ..., and that's going to be a problem for the courts. Because of those rights and prior occupation (think precedence) without penalty, criminal prosecution may be more difficult than people think. A good lawyer should be thinking win/win ... either he has a good chance to win, or the expansion of "free speech" and rights of demonstrators everywhere are going to be nipped. Hopefully someone is willing to fight that battle; there's a lot of potential notoriety at stake for a good lawyer.
Click to expand...

One thing I will point out that may come into play here (and I'm not trying to start a bunch of off-topic "mostly peaceful" debates, but I probably have): there is no "right of the people to assemble," there is a "right of the people peaceably to assemble."
 
#124
#124
clarksvol00 said:
One thing I will point out that may come into play here (and I'm not trying to start a bunch of off-topic "mostly peaceful" debates, but I probably have): there is no "right of the people to assemble," there is a "right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Click to expand...

"Free speech" morphed from written or spoken words to actions - sometimes violent. And "peaceful assembly" has been allowed to include counter demonstrators/protestors ensuring violence and attempting to drown out the message of others. Governments own a lot of the blame for failure to keep the peace. Remember Charlottesville? One group actually had a permit - government failed to remove the counter demonstrators that turned things violent. Did you notice that once inside the halls of government that things were peaceful on Jan 6th. Do you actually think the legislators (the government) would have listened to protestors addressing grievances if the protestors remained outside? If legislators listen, then why do you think people feel the need to demonstrate?
 
#125
#125
hog88 said:
Neither am I but this is clearly a frivolous lawsuit.
Click to expand...

This is based on nothing but me reading the statute but it seems to me his case against Trump and Giuliani is weaker than the people that actually went in. If the allegations regarding coordinated groups of Proud Boys and Oathkeepers going in are correct, the guy may have a better case against those defendants.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top