It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another example of ridiculousness from an American Judge

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Note: I know nothing about Julius Henson. I would certainly never vote for him on the grounds that I'm fairly certain his political views run in complete opposition to my own, but I find this article to be a prime example of the state of the bench in the US. Judges are out of control, inventing both the laws and well overstepping their authority at the same time.

baltimore.cbslocal.com...

A Maryland political campaign consultant is sentenced to jail time. Julius Henson, who was convicted for a notorious robocall during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, has been found guilty of probation violation.
Political reporter Pat Warren explains what happens next.
Henson went into court Thursday confident that he would prevail in a probation violation hearing. Henson was convicted for a campaign violation in the 2010 gubernatorial race, involving a robocall that implied votes were not needed.
The robocall said: “Governor O’ Malley and President Obama have been successful. We’re OK. Relax. Everything is fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.”
Henson was sentenced to jail time and probation with the condition he not work in any capacity on a political campaign. A judge ruled Thursday that he violated that condition by entering a race for state Senate and sentenced him to four months in jail. He has 30 days to appeal.


Where in the hell does the law grant a judge the authority to arbitrarily strip anyone of their ability to run for political office? Last I checked, the Constitution is the only document that identifies requirements for Senator eligibility and they're pretty minor.
1. 30 years old or older
2. US citizen for 9 years
3. A resident of the state you're running to represent
That's it. Decisions such as this should be left to the voters and the voters alone. If that judge is a registered voter, stand in line with the proles and cast your damn vote, which will count as ONE vote. Otherwise, STHU and do your damn job, which is not pulling assinine creative requirements for probation out of your rear end.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well personally I think the terms of probation are almost voluntary. I think you could say no thanks and spend all the time in jail.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

tinner07
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well personally I think the terms of probation are almost voluntary. I think you could say no thanks and spend all the time in jail.



umm...yup



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The judiciary branch of government is completely out of control, and has been since they found that they could make laws, rather than just ruling on them, and no one seemed to mind.

The court rules that you can't run for office? To whom can you appeal for justice? Oh, another judge, highly unlikely to say that the first one was out of line. In Texas this week, we learned that one man's opinion can trump the legislature, governor and overwhelming opinion of the populace.

Gotta admit, though, that they do a pretty good job of deflecting criticism -- there is chronic complaining about the President and Congress, but you don't hear much complaining about legislating judges.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

tinner07
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well personally I think the terms of probation are almost voluntary. I think you could say no thanks and spend all the time in jail.



Exactly. While on probation you don't have rights, you are still technically owned by the state, same as you would be inside jail. You are only allowed out as long as you follow rules, and those rules don't have to respect your rights, because you already went through due process that stripped you of your rights.

If you don't want to agree to the terms of probation or parole, you can simply choose to go to jail, as you would have anyway, and forgo any further violation of your rights.

I don't care what candidate or party that guy was supporting or attacking, what he did was awful and he should rightfully be in jail. I think he got off easy on his parole conditions, he should have served max prison time, Screwing around with elections is NOT OK and that message needs to be sent loud and clear to anyone listening.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

adjensen
The judiciary branch of government is completely out of control, and has been since they found that they could make laws, rather than just ruling on them, and no one seemed to mind.

The court rules that you can't run for office? To whom can you appeal for justice? Oh, another judge, highly unlikely to say that the first one was out of line. In Texas this week, we learned that one man's opinion can trump the legislature, governor and overwhelming opinion of the populace.

Gotta admit, though, that they do a pretty good job of deflecting criticism -- there is chronic complaining about the President and Congress, but you don't hear much complaining about legislating judges.


You do realize, that after being found guilty of a crime, the constitution grants the authority to remove your rights, don't you? You are entitled to your rights, and they can only be removed via due process, meaning a trial. He went through a trial, he was found guilty, the government (for once) is well within their rights to restrict his rights if he wants to wander free. If he doesn't want to, he can choose to serve his prison time instead.

This is no different than a judge ordering no contact with children for sex offenders. You are found guilty, your rights can legally be stripped from you. If a guy tries to fool with elections, it's a good idea to keep him away from elections. And they have full authority to do so. (again, for once)

Do you guys stand for the constitution, or do you stand for simple government hating?

Because there is no constitutional issue here. He had due process, was found guilty, and now is punished accordingly. You loose credibility when you attack people for things they aren't guilty of. The government has done enough real violations we don't need to be making any up.
edit on 28-2-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Like was stated, this was perfectly legal and he actually agreed to it by choosing parole rather than jail time. It's a common trap people fall into. If you're offered a choice, always take the jail time because with parole you're still not free and if they find any violation you're going to goto jail for the full time anyways. So why serve a longer sentence?

This guy agreed to parole and broke the terms.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join