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.

 

Rep. Jerry Nadler calls on Justice Department to review Rittenhouse decision.

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Just an example, maybe a far fetched one that wouldn't fly in court, they could charge him for insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 which carries a maximum 10 year sentence. It would be worth it to mention however....Amy Coney Barrett is the circuit justice for the 7th circuit. In any circumstance, this will probably fall flat on its face.

This is just rigor mortis of the dying body of the Democrats.


You do realize that Amy Coney Barrett is a Supreme Court Justice now as of 10/27/2020. She no longer serves on the 7th circuit.

Nadler needs to just stop with his “opinions”; it is not helpful or desirable for the American people. The mindless Democrat drones will eat this up just as they always do. Rinse and repeat, rinse again and repeat until you have holes showing. Freaking dumb poops.


I'm not sure you understand how the circuit courts work...

Again, Amy Coney Barrett is the circuit justice for the 7th circuit court of appeals. I feel like I have to give a rudimentary law lesson right now...

The circuit appellate courts are federally split up regions, into 11 regions. ACB controls the 7th circuit and is the presiding circuit judge. Clarence Thomas controls the 11th circuit which encompasses Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

This is pretty rudimentary research...There are 3 court systems on a federal level. District, Circuit and Supreme court.
edit on 20-11-2021 by JimmyNeutr0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Before you accuse anyone on ATS of being wrong, you should double check with a simple google search what you're claiming.

Here, I'll help...

www.google.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

And here's the codified law explaining such:"



28 U.S. Code § 42 - Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits

The Chief Justice of the United States and the associate justices of the Supreme Court shall from time to time be allotted as circuit justices among the circuits by order of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice may make such allotments in vacation. A justice may be assigned to more than one circuit, and two or more justices may be assigned to the same circuit.


www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 20-11-2021 by JimmyNeutr0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
a reply to: carewemust

Funny that we never heard more about that.


It was not reported by the Mainstream Media (90% of US media). Jerry Nadler gets hospitalized, and its kept under wraps too.

What's needed are more "citizen reporters" to keep tabs on these evil people in charge.

When they go quiet for a time, it's for "reasons"... not because they want to shut-up.

For instance, Adam Schiff was intercepted/whisked away by law enforcement in at CA airport (2019 or 2020).

After that, he was quiet for several months.

If it were not for a "citizen reporter" seeing that happen and sharing it on Twitter, nobody would have known about it.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I totally agree with your interpretation of the text 5th amendment and I agree that if the feds decide to prosecute Kyle it would be in violation of the constitution.

However, my opinion or your opinion respectfully doesn’t matter. Ever since SCOTUS ruled in Marbury vs. Madison that their interpretation is the only interpretation because
Well because they say they have that power and they get that power because they say so.

There is a long history of Case law for the sovereign doctrine.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The double jeopardy clause generally doesn't protect a person from being prosecuted by both a state government and the United States federal government for the same act, nor does it protect a person from being prosecuted by multiple states for the same act. Because United States law considers each of the State governments to be distinct from the federal government of the United States as a whole, with its own laws and court systems, these parallel prosecutions are considered to be different "offenses" under the double jeopardy clause, and the decisions of one government on what to prosecute or not prosecute can't be considered binding on the other. This is known as the "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" doctrine.

The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is Fox v. Ohio in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar. The power to coin money is granted exclusively to Congress, and it was argued that Congress's power precludes the power of any State from prosecuting any crimes pertaining to the money, an argument the Supreme Court rejected in upholding Fox's conviction.[29]

A case that followed on Fox is United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Supreme Court stated that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any State:

This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.[30]
In 1920 the United States was fresh into the Prohibition Era. In one prosecution that occurred in Washington state, a defendant named Lanza was charged under a Washington statute and simultaneously under a United States statute, with the federal indictment stating several facts also stated in the Washington indictment. The Supreme Court addressed the question of the Federal government and a State government having separate prosecutions on the same facts in United States v. Lanza:

We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. (EDITOR'S NOTE: the Barron precedent was superseded 35 years later by the 14th Amendment)[31]
This separation of sovereignty is seen with the separate Federal and State trials of convicted Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted in Federal Court, with Nichols sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, and McVeigh sentenced to death and later executed. While the building was owned by the Federal government, serving as branch locations for multiple Federal agencies, the Federal government had criminal jurisdiction only over 8 of the 168 confirmed deaths. With the express intent of seeing Nichols also sentenced to death, while contemplating the same for McVeigh if his death sentence was overturned on appeal, the State of Oklahoma filed charges against Terry Nichols.[32]

There may also be Federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any State law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. The officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Courts of California, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.






a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
I totally agree with your interpretation of 5th amendment and I agree that if the feds decide to prosecute Kyle it would be in violation of the constitution.

However, my opinion or your opinion respectfully doesn’t matter. Ever since SCOTUS ruled in Marbury vs. Madison that their interpretation is the only interpretation because
Well because they say they have that power and they get that power because they say so.

There is a long history of Case law for the sovereign doctrine.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The double jeopardy clause generally doesn't protect a person from being prosecuted by both a state government and the United States federal government for the same act, nor does it protect a person from being prosecuted by multiple states for the same act. Because United States law considers each of the State governments to be distinct from the federal government of the United States as a whole, with its own laws and court systems, these parallel prosecutions are considered to be different "offenses" under the double jeopardy clause, and the decisions of one government on what to prosecute or not prosecute can't be considered binding on the other. This is known as the "dual sovereignty" or "separate sovereigns" doctrine.

The earliest case at the Supreme Court of the United States to address the matter is Fox v. Ohio in 1847, in which the petitioner, Malinda Fox, was appealing a conviction of a state crime of passing a counterfeit silver dollar. The power to coin money is granted exclusively to Congress, and it was argued that Congress's power precludes the power of any State from prosecuting any crimes pertaining to the money, an argument the Supreme Court rejected in upholding Fox's conviction.[29]

A case that followed on Fox is United States v. Cruikshank, in which the Supreme Court stated that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any State:

This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.[30]
In 1920 the United States was fresh into the Prohibition Era. In one prosecution that occurred in Washington state, a defendant named Lanza was charged under a Washington statute and simultaneously under a United States statute, with the federal indictment stating several facts also stated in the Washington indictment. The Supreme Court addressed the question of the Federal government and a State government having separate prosecutions on the same facts in United States v. Lanza:

We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.

It follows that an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each. The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same authority. (EDITOR'S NOTE: the Barron precedent was superseded 35 years later by the 14th Amendment)[31]
This separation of sovereignty is seen with the separate Federal and State trials of convicted Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted in Federal Court, with Nichols sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, and McVeigh sentenced to death and later executed. While the building was owned by the Federal government, serving as branch locations for multiple Federal agencies, the Federal government had criminal jurisdiction only over 8 of the 168 confirmed deaths. With the express intent of seeing Nichols also sentenced to death, while contemplating the same for McVeigh if his death sentence was overturned on appeal, the State of Oklahoma filed charges against Terry Nichols.[32]

There may also be Federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any State law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. The officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Courts of California, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.






a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened




posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Enduro

Even when we know this will end on nothing, this needs to stop, Politics do not need to be involved in our justice system and that is what this piece of crap Rhino is trying to do.

This is become too often this days, very soon we will be mandate into justice with stupid politicians approval of verdict.

This Rhino is a joke and he needs to freaking retired, it seems we are getting an aging congress that love to suck the political nipple until dead.

15 years in congress, darn that is a lot of nipple sucking

But what bothers me the most is how people keeps voting for this old senile crappy political candidates.




posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 12:25 PM
link   
The way the feds have been acting, eventually, someone will start watering that tree of liberty.

Kyle should now start protecting himself with armed patriots.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
a reply to: Enduro

Only a loser like Nadler would be tasked to take up such a loser cause. The worst of the worst Know there’s no swaying public opinion on this one. Mama Bears of every color Love this kids Heart and good intentions. Let the scum portray violent psychopath / child rapists as “victims” here, cause “Hey they were protesting for Justice! “




Intelligent audiences knew before the trial started that those "protestors" were opportunistic cretins using the chaos to live out their secret anarchist fantasies. They died doing what they loved, and the community is better for it.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043




Even when we know this will end on nothing, this needs to stop, Politics do not need to be involved in our justice system and that is what this piece of crap Rhino is trying to do.


Guess we need someone with the balls to create a bill and make it a federal law that says politicians/media can't run their mouths about on going court cases.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Why would anyone be using google as their search engine?



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It seems incredible when the media outlets had the gut to intimidate jurors with their coverage of the trial exposing their indentities.

I mean how low can this nation tabloids go.


They should be banned for life from court presiding.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
The way the feds have been acting, eventually, someone will start watering that tree of liberty.

Kyle should now start protecting himself with armed patriots.


If someone attacks Kyle, the attacker will be found scattered all over the city/countryside.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Personally I would love to see this happen, but not to re-try Rittenhouse. After all that evidence and a witness being hidden by the prosecution it would be great to see that discussed on a national scale. They couldn't hide those facts in re-trying the case and it would prove the whole thing to be vindictive. It would hasten the fall of the left! So by all means open yourselves up to self-destruction!



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Enduro




It’s not Illegal to Resist being Killed . Imagne that in the U.S. Today ! ...Hmm......



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

This is how it goes this days under the liberal crap, if you defend yourself you are racist, if you get to be tried in a court of law and found innocent the court, the jurors and the judge are racist.


Specially if you are not brown.



posted on Nov, 20 2021 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Enduro

Fat Jerry is just waking up from his diabetic coma. He's an idiot who didn't watch any of the trial and has no grasp on the facts. He should go eat some cake and pie and SFTU about things he no knowledge of.


True.

But good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 21 2021 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Brassmonkey

After researching a bit further, I found that the state and federal are completely separate entities. As such, in THEORY you cannot be tried for the same crime...under the same body. In a technical sense, the fed can persue the exact same charges at a federal level, which is seperate from the state level.

www.shouselaw.com...




It is not double jeopardy to charge a person in state and federal court, provided that he did some act that violated both state and federal laws.

The Double Jeopardy Clause, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense. But jeopardy only attaches, or applies, to prosecutions of the same criminal acts by the same sovereign, or governments.

States are considered “separate sovereigns” from the federal government in the United States. And, according to the dual sovereignty doctrine, more than one sovereign (e.g., a state government and a federal government) may prosecute a person without violating double jeopardy, if he breaks the laws of each sovereignty.


Interesting...

They can perhaps make the argument to include themselves by saying "he crossed state lines"..
edit on 21-11-2021 by JimmyNeutr0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2021 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Why would anyone be using google as their search engine?



Because when I use duckduckgo, all I get is Q hits!


originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Enduro
This Rhino is a joke and he needs to freaking retired, it seems we are getting an aging congress that love to suck the political nipple until dead.


Rino...or Dino?
edit on 21-11-2021 by JimmyNeutr0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2021 @ 04:48 AM
link   
What I find the most disturbing is that voters don't punish Nadler for his sociopath behaviour. His Communist roles in spreading propaganda concerning the fake Russia- Trump dossier, civil unrest, and the Rittenhouse trial are dangerous to his country. He is among the crowd who sought to use MSNBC, CNN and other fake news outlets to ensure that Rittenhouse faced a Stalinist show trial.

I support people's right to elect political representatives whose views don't align with my values and political beliefs. But the likes of Nadler and Schiff are seeking to turn the U.S. into the next Zimbabwe. Perhaps the U.S. will reach another breaking before the combination of 'corporate special interests and political persecution takes hold. But the history of the American Civil serves to remind us why that outcome is best avoided.



posted on Nov, 21 2021 @ 05:43 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join