tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post6604948769062219662..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Siegelman Convictions Hang on the Definition of One Wordlegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-49484567180373850702011-05-16T11:17:59.351-05:002011-05-16T11:17:59.351-05:00InBruges:
In a normal conversation, you and I mig...InBruges:<br /><br />In a normal conversation, you and I might use the McCormick statement of the law and the jury instruction provided by Judge Fuller and agree they sound similar. But we are talking about a criminal trial here, where the freedom of individuals is at stake. With that in mind, I do not agree that the Fuller instruction was a "reasonable" way of describing an explicit promise. There is nothing I've seen in McCormick that says an explicit promise has to be defined. The words speak for themselves. All Fuller had to do was give an instruction that matches McCormick word for word. All sides agree that McCormick is the controlling law, so there is no excuse for the jury instruction not to match McCormick. But Fuller's instruction leads to confusion--and it led to convictions for a "crime" that does not exist under the law. As I state in the post, Fuller's instruction focused on a "specific action," but the relevant law focuses on an "explicit agreement." Those are not the same thing, and they certainly should not be confused in a criminal trial.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-64165361302244410162011-05-16T10:37:35.295-05:002011-05-16T10:37:35.295-05:00From your description Anonymous 2 must be one of t...From your description Anonymous 2 must be one of the judges.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10469469057329648342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-43262567233380177712011-05-16T10:17:52.177-05:002011-05-16T10:17:52.177-05:00I think you might not have highlighted enough word...I think you might not have highlighted enough words from the 11th circuit's opinion. The words you highlight don't include the requirement that the parties "agree" to take "specific action in return for the thing of value." I think agreeing to take a specific action in return for the thing of value is a reasonable way of defining an "explicit promise." Do you?InBruges77noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-8357087864165265542011-05-15T14:33:00.378-05:002011-05-15T14:33:00.378-05:00It is interesting that Anon No. 2 has not responde...It is interesting that Anon No. 2 has not responded with his analysis. That's probably because he doesn't have the intellectual depth to make an analysis. He's also probably too lazy to put forth the effort. He is adept at cheap, smart-alecky comments--on the third-grade level.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-68572148272875539132011-05-15T09:12:04.723-05:002011-05-15T09:12:04.723-05:00Mr. Schnauzer,
I notice Anon2 has not responded w...Mr. Schnauzer,<br /><br />I notice Anon2 has not responded with his analysis. <br /><br />Think it possible he's just one of these officer's of the court just spouting his transcendental nonsense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-31890969966600533642011-05-14T23:05:37.045-05:002011-05-14T23:05:37.045-05:00Anon No. 2:
Sounds like you've read the opini...Anon No. 2:<br /><br />Sounds like you've read the opinion, the briefs, the actual law, and you think the Eleventh Circuit got it right.<br /><br />Why do you think that? Please share your analysis.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-74037243924427260932011-05-14T23:00:55.613-05:002011-05-14T23:00:55.613-05:00Everytime I think your conspiracy-theory-driven ig...Everytime I think your conspiracy-theory-driven ignorance has reached its peak, I return and read yet another post that proves me wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-66102283641579274842011-05-14T15:00:26.789-05:002011-05-14T15:00:26.789-05:00Reading this post makes me hesitant about leaving ...Reading this post makes me hesitant about leaving the house. Then again "might not be safe there either."<br />-<br />In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions. <br /><br />Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."<br />-<br />Mr. Schnauzer:<br /><br />I would imagine public disorder is ANYTHING the elite want it to mean...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-25629102627639835572011-05-12T13:27:13.824-05:002011-05-12T13:27:13.824-05:00Made me Look it up:
ex·plic·it
/ɪkˈsplɪsɪt/ Sh...Made me Look it up:<br /><br />ex·plic·it<br /> /ɪkˈsplɪsɪt/ Show Spelled[ik-splis-it] Show IPA<br />–adjective<br />1.<br />fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.<br />2.<br />clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.<br />3.<br />definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.philfleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17372560522490427074noreply@blogger.com