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.
originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Xcathdra
according to what I read the offense need not take place in MI
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: vkey08
a reply to: Xcathdra
according to what I read the offense need not take place in MI
Its got to be a state charge. It was the federal judge who seized his guns and according to the info I have seen any person charged in connection to the Jan 6th bull# have all had their weapons seized by the federal courts. Everything hs is charged with is Federal. The state has nothing to do with it.
"I do understand the concern," about self-defense, she said, but the court has to consider other factors, including the safety of pre-trial services officials who will need to visit Kelley's home, she said.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: vkey08
From what little I could glean, the safety of pre-trial personnel visiting the house of the accused among other things is the statement of the judge.
"I do understand the concern," about self-defense, she said, but the court has to consider other factors, including the safety of pre-trial services officials who will need to visit Kelley's home, she said.
Detroit Free Press
I'm not familiar with law, etc, but thought I could provide this info and y'all can debate from there.
A federal judge has the authority to do it (as a condition of bail
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The law affords the judge or magistrate four options, which it places in descending order of
preference.
* - First, he may release the accused on personal recognizance or under an unsecured
appearance bond, subject only to the condition that the accused commit no subsequent federal,
state, or local crime and that he submit a sample for DNA analysis.
* - Second, he may release the accused subject to certain additional conditions.
* - Third, he may order the accused detained for bail revocation, parole revocation, probation revocation, or deportation proceedings.
* - Fourth, he may order the accused detained prior to trial.
Conditional Release
If the judge or magistrate concludes that personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond is insufficient to overcome the risk of flight or to community or individual safety, he may condition the individuals’ release on a refrain from criminal activity, collection of a DNA sample, and the least restrictive combination of conditions. Under the appropriate circumstances, the “community” whose safety is the focus of the judge or magistrate’s inquiry need not be limited geographically to either the district or even the United States. The 14 statutory conditions are
* - third-party supervision
* - seeking or maintaining employment
* - meeting education requirements
* - observing residency, travel, or associational restrictions
* - avoiding contact with victims or witnesses
* - maintaining regular reporting requirements
* - obeying a curfew
* - adhering to firearms limitations
* - avoiding alcohol or controlled-substance abuse
* - undergoing medical treatment
* - entering into a personally secured appearance agreement
* - executing a bail bond
* - submitting to afterhours incarceration
* - complying with any other court-imposed condition.
Section 3142 requires the judge or magistrate to impose electronic monitoring and several of these conditions (noted with an asterisk above) when the accused is ineligible for release on personal recognizance or an unsecured bond and is charged with one of several sex-related offenses against children. Several defendants have successfully challenged this mandatory requirement on Due Process Clause or Excessive Bail Clause grounds
Due process is a legal obligation that states and the Federal government must follow. It is found in the 5th amendment as well as the 14th amendment (Due process clause). Dur process includes legal obligations that extend beyond the courtroom.
Our legal system errors on the side of caution when it comes to the prosecution of people. Our legal system would rather see a guilty person go free instead of seeing an innocent person being sent to jail.
As far as items going missing, respectfully, has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Again though Federal judges under 18 USC 3142 are allowed to set bail conditions, an a weapon restriction is listed as one of the 14 restriction a judge can use when setting bail requirements.
Since the law has been around forever and no one has been able to overturn it via the courts, it seems to be a moot point.
In this case its a condition for bail, to ensure the person shows up to his court dates and takes care of the accusations
originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Fifth Amendment references due process and states what the government may or may not do concerning due process. It is not a definition. In the most general terms, "due process" is simply that process which is due a person accused of a crime. That includes the right to mount and present a defense, restrictions on what evidence the prosecution may use and how it can be obtained, and the right to be heard in front of a jury of one's peers. It can also mean that under extreme conditions, a person can still be denied bail, and that property which is evidence of the crime can be held until the case is adjudicated. But that only applies to extreme circumstances (like where a reasonable person would expect the accused to commit more heinous crimes) or to evidence used to try and convict the accused. It does not apply to whatever one happens to have in their possession at the time.
originally posted by: TheRedneckThe Fifth Amendment specifies, exactly, that a person may not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process. Not the promise of future due process... due process.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
But it also means that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That means that if personal property is seized before due process is complete, it is being seized from an innocent person.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Would such a case not be denial of property?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
18 USC §3142 is a legal statute, aka a law. Laws are subject to constitutionality. It is not unusual for a law to be passed and then struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is the exact same argument that was used to support black slavery, to oppose women's suffrage, to oppose interracial marriage, and for a host of other things we now realize were wrong at their core. Just because something has been around a while, it does not follow that it is correct.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is why bail usually involves a bond unless the court believes the accused will show up of their own volition. In this case, the accused is a GOP candidate for a major political office... I personally cannot think of anyone more apt to show up and handle the accusations. Still, setting a bond would have been far less problematic than seizing his property on the promise that it will be returned later.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Bonds are not typically money paid to the court... they are interest in collateral. For instance, I can bail out anyone in Alabama because I own property... I simply sign over my land as collateral. I still have full use and ownership of it, unless the person I signed for does not appear in court. That is a default judgement against them, which satisfies due process, and allows for the property to be taken from me.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
A bond satisfied by a bondsman is an agreed amount that the bondsman agrees to pay should the accused not appear. The accused pays 10% or so as a fee for the bondsman to guarantee the bond amount. No money is taken by the court, unless the accused skips bail, in which case the bondsman can either pay the bail, or hire a bounty hunter to track down and retrieve the accused. It is not seizure of property before the trial, like happened in this case.
TheRedneck