Noteworthy News

[Brian37]

Yes I did say that. He should be arrested for contempt of congress. If I can be arrested for ignoring a traffic court ticket date, he damned sure should be arrested for contempt of congress.

He can (and probably will) be arrested, but that comes later. After the due process stuff you hate so much.

Boru

Having been falsely accused myself I damned sure know the value of due process. Bannon's crime was not showing  up. Every time in my life, traffic ticket, or witness, I always show up.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He can (and probably will) be arrested, but that comes later. After the due process stuff you hate so much.

Boru

Having been falsely accused myself I damned sure know the value of due process. Bannon's crime was not showing  up. Every time in my life, traffic ticket, or witness, I always show up.

Good for you. But you understand that - legally - Bannon can’t be arrested yet, right?

Boru

[Brian37]

Having been falsely accused myself I damned sure know the value of due process. Bannon's crime was not showing  up. Every time in my life, traffic ticket, or witness, I always show up.

Good for you. But you understand that - legally - Bannon can’t be arrested yet, right?

Boru

It depends on what congress does and and the DOJ does. Considering his act of contempt, I'd say he deserves to be arrested.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Having been falsely accused myself I damned sure know the value of due process. Bannon's crime was not showing  up. Every time in my life, traffic ticket, or witness, I always show up.

Good for you. But you understand that - legally - Bannon can’t be arrested yet, right?

Boru

 I don't understand (I'm Australian)

Here, he would be issued with summons or subpoena to appear in court. If he failed to show, then  a warrant would be issued for his arrest.

I have known several lawyes socially.  They all said some similar things.  Two stick in my mind: we do not have  justice system. We have a legal system. Sometimes justice is done and seen to be done.  This is a matter of happy accident rather than design.

 The other is never talk to the police without a lawyer----they are not your friends. Their job is to seek evidence for a conviction. It's not all that hard for an innocent person to incriminate him/herself .

There's a terrific set of (2) lectures given by a Harvard (?) Law professor I urge you to watch if you haven't seen it. Australia doesn't have bill of rights, but we do have the right to silence.  Below part one. "In praise of the Fifth Amendment" One of the many points he makes is that contrary to popular belief, the Fifth Amendment is there to protect the innocent. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Good for you. But you understand that - legally - Bannon can’t be arrested yet, right?

Boru

 I don't understand (I'm Australian)

Here, he would be issued with summons or subpoena to appear in court. If he failed to show, then  a warrant would be issued for his arrest.

I have known several lawyes socially.  They all said some similar things.  Two stick in my mind: we do not have  justice system. We have a legal system. Sometimes justice is done and seen to be done.  This is a matter of happy accident rather than design.

 The other is never talk to the police without a lawyer----they are not your friends. Their job is to seek evidence for a conviction. It's not all that hard for an innocent person to incriminate him/herself .

There's a terrific set of (2) lectures given by a Harvard (?) Law professor I urge you to watch if you haven't seen it. Australia doesn't have bill of rights, but we do have the right to silence.  Below part one. "In praise of the Fifth Amendment" One of the many points he makes is that contrary to popular belief, the Fifth Amendment is there to protect the innocent. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

As I understand it, the US Congress works differently that the lower courts - Congress does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants (except to current members of the executive). This looks to be the process:

1) Bannon refused to answer the subpoena.

2) A committee held a hearing on whether to refer this to the full House as a criminal matter. They voted ‘yes’.

3) The House debated whether to pursue it and voted ‘yes’.

4) It was then referred to the attorney general who has to decide if it is serious enough to convene a Grand Jury. Don’t know if this has been decided.

5) The GJ will hear testimony and review evidence from both sides. If they decide it is merited, the presiding judge will issue an arrest warrant.

Boru

[Jackalope]

 I don't understand (I'm Australian)

Here, he would be issued with summons or subpoena to appear in court. If he failed to show, then  a warrant would be issued for his arrest.

I have known several lawyes socially.  They all said some similar things.  Two stick in my mind: we do not have  justice system. We have a legal system. Sometimes justice is done and seen to be done.  This is a matter of happy accident rather than design.

 The other is never talk to the police without a lawyer----they are not your friends. Their job is to seek evidence for a conviction. It's not all that hard for an innocent person to incriminate him/herself .

There's a terrific set of (2) lectures given by a Harvard (?) Law professor I urge you to watch if you haven't seen it. Australia doesn't have bill of rights, but we do have the right to silence.  Below part one. "In praise of the Fifth Amendment" One of the many points he makes is that contrary to popular belief, the Fifth Amendment is there to protect the innocent. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

As I understand it, the US Congress works differently that the lower courts - Congress does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants (except to current members of the executive). This looks to be the process:

1) Bannon refused to answer the subpoena.

2) A committee held a hearing on whether to refer this to the full House as a criminal matter. They voted ‘yes’.

3) The House debated whether to pursue it and voted ‘yes’.

4) It was then referred to the attorney general who has to decide if it is serious enough to convene a Grand Jury. Don’t know if this has been decided.

5) The GJ will hear testimony and review evidence from both sides. If they decide it is merited, the presiding judge will issue an arrest warrant.

Boru

This is correct, although I am not certain a GJ is required. It is most certainly in DOJ's hands at this point. The wheels of justice grind slowly.

[Fireball]

As I understand it, the US Congress works differently that the lower courts - Congress does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants (except to current members of the executive). This looks to be the process:

1) Bannon refused to answer the subpoena.

2) A committee held a hearing on whether to refer this to the full House as a criminal matter. They voted ‘yes’.

3) The House debated whether to pursue it and voted ‘yes’.

4) It was then referred to the attorney general who has to decide if it is serious enough to convene a Grand Jury. Don’t know if this has been decided.

5) The GJ will hear testimony and review evidence from both sides. If they decide it is merited, the presiding judge will issue an arrest warrant.

Boru

This is correct, although I am not certain a GJ is required.  It is most certainly in DOJ's hands at this point.  The wheels of justice grind slowly.

And we all know the kind of grist we'd like to see produced.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As I understand it, the US Congress works differently that the lower courts - Congress does not have the authority to issue arrest warrants (except to current members of the executive). This looks to be the process:

1) Bannon refused to answer the subpoena.

2) A committee held a hearing on whether to refer this to the full House as a criminal matter. They voted ‘yes’.

3) The House debated whether to pursue it and voted ‘yes’.

4) It was then referred to the attorney general who has to decide if it is serious enough to convene a Grand Jury. Don’t know if this has been decided.

5) The GJ will hear testimony and review evidence from both sides. If they decide it is merited, the presiding judge will issue an arrest warrant.

Boru

This is correct, although I am not certain a GJ is required.  It is most certainly in DOJ's hands at this point.  The wheels of justice grind slowly.

I got the Grand Jury bit from an AP story. It may or may not be correct.

The House vote sends the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, where it will now be up to prosecutors in that office to decide whether to present the case to a grand jury for possible criminal charges. It’s still uncertain whether they will pursue the case — Attorney General Merrick Garland would only say at a House hearing on Thursday that they plan to “make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Wisconsin Senate Made Up Mostly Of Arseholes

Wisconsin's Senate approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow 14 and 15-year-olds to work until 11 p.m. on some days — much later than current laws allow.

Supporters of the bill say it could help plug the state's labor shortage.

Wisconsin currently sticks to federal child-labor laws, which stipulate that people under the age of 16 can only work between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. from June 1 to Labor Day, and between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. for the rest of the year.

The proposed bill would allow this group to instead work from 6 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on days before a school day, and 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. when the next day isn't a school day.

Ah, the good old days of weak child-labour laws.



Boru

[brewer]

Audit results in, no massive voter fraud in Wisconsin. Biden wins.

 
(^ donny^)