Note to Prosecutors:
Before filing charges, make sure that what the defendant did was actually a crime. Thanks to Ken Lammers for the link.
Note to Prosecutors:
Before filing charges, make sure that what the defendant did was actually a crime. Thanks to Ken Lammers for the link.
|
Ha ha, ROTFL!!!! Too true!!! Perjury and obstruction of justice are just like Buspirone!
Imagine having a lawyer who doesn't research the law to see if whether what you're charged with is actually a crime. Heck, it's good enough that the police said it was illegal. Very distressing...
But the defendant wasn't charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of a prescription drug, only unlawful possession of a controlled substance. It's a basic principle of due process, of course, that a conviction for one offense cannot be sustained on the basis of evidence of guilt of another offense that was never charged (with the possible exception of a lesser included offense).
In this administration, you don't even need to believe they are terrorists. In fact, you don't even need to believe they are guilty of anything. The Government continues to hold men it has already found not guilty by military tribunal, it keeps them incommuniucado from family and friends, who believe they are dead, it conceals their status from their lawyers and the courts, and it expects us to be satisfied with the prospect that something unspecified will be done to change things at some unspecified time. This isn't something required by the exigencies of the time; this is pure evil. No wonder the Government wants to severely limit habeas corpus.
Anyone interested in what this Government is trying to get away with should read this. It is long, but well worth reading.
I don;'t think "baffled" is the right word. "Grossly incompetent maybe. Especially considering this:
"Isaac pleaded guilty last year to possession of Buspirone, which she had obtained through a prescription."
Your client is charrged with possession of a drug, which is not illegal to possess and which she obtained under a prescription, and you allow her to plead guilty?!?
Good Lord. Please revoke this bozo's law license forthwith.
That's why it's called a war.
I pointed out that the definitions section of the Gun Control Act defines "published ordinances." It's not any ordinance in print, but rather those the agency has recognized as particularly applicable to the firearms trade, and published in the Federal Register and in a booklet given to dealers. The ordinance in question isn't in there.
After months of dallying, and a lawsuit, he got his guns back. But if he'd been routed to a PD who didn't constantly deal in the Gun Control Act? Neither the agents nor the US Attorney nor the magistrate (assuming he actually read the affidavit before signing the search warrant) was familiar with that point.
That's why it's called a war
Err, they were found by a military tribunal to be noncombatants.
"Bristol-Myers Squibb gained FDA approval for Buspirone in 1986. The drug went generic in 2001."
This search took less than 2 minutes (it took longer to write this post).
Funny thing was that no one at trial had caught it, and the defense didn't raise it on appeal -- I found it pretty much by accident. And state law had so thoroughly gutted fundamental error doctrine that we had to practically stand on our heads to reverse the conviction. Thank goodness my judge was an upright sort, but it sure took some talking to get the other two judges to join. It's kind of a career-limiting move for elected judges to reverse criminal convictions, especially by reaching out to grounds no one had appealed on! Never mind that it was obviously the right thing to do. . . .
Noncombatant does not equal releasable.
That's why it's called a war.
I'll take the PD. I mean, sure they're overworked, sleep through capital trials, frequently bill impossible hours... but they're committed to justice! unlike those lazy fatcats that expect their clients to pay. capitalist pigs! I say always go for the committed types at PD or legal clinic offices. Some say that they are incapable of getting a job as even a real estate or family lawyers, I say they are just committed to fighting the man. At least, they're committed to posturing like they're fighting the man, and that's really all that counts, your posture and intent, not your actual results.
PDs, like leftists and liberals everywhere, focusing on intent and posture rather than results.
Noncombatant does not equal releasable.
That's why it's called a war.
Noncombatants who were innocent of any misconduct. We will see how the federal court rules. From the transcript, it does not look good for your position.
I agree. As hard as it may be to understand, especially for readers of a blog such as this one, my position is that not all of human activity is governed, or governable, by laws and lawyers. There comes a point when survival must take over, when civilized platitudes get inverted, and it is better that ten harmless men be imprisoned or killed than that one dangerous one go free. The only valid point of discussion is to determine when that point is reached, at least among the list of cultures and societies which survive to have discussions such as we are having. For example the nation, society and culture that used to be called France may soon have to be removed from the list. My position is that we not delete ourselves from the list. A war run by lawyers is not a war. That's why its called a war.