Started By
Message

re: Former US DOJ Double arse’t AG Jeff Clark explains how the 84 million is illegal.

Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:37 pm to
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
24860 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

I was thinking about this when I read the reports of the verdict. Punitive damages cannot exceed a certain ratio to underlying damages, so the verdict likely won’t hold up on appeal. The res judicata issue is interesting. The judge should not have bifurcated the trials like he did.


There is nothing about this case that would hold up in a rational court from start to finish. This is a case of a leftist financed kook put into a extremist partisan kangaroo court to get Trump. They should all be jailed for denying Trump his constitutional rights under the color of law.

quote:

18 U.S.C. § 241

Conspiracy Against Rights

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.

Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.

The offense is always a felony, even if the underlying conduct would not, on its own, establish a felony violation of another criminal civil rights statute. It is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.

Section 241 is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions. It was historically used, before conspiracy-specific trafficking statutes were adopted, in Human Trafficking prosecutions.



MISCONDUCT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT & OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTORS


18 U.S.C. § 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus.

Defendants act under color of law when they wield power vested by a government entity. Those prosecuted under the statute typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards. However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, other public officials, and public school employees can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.

Section 242 does not criminalize any particular type of abusive conduct. Instead, it incorporates by reference rights defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, and interpretive case law. Cases charged by federal prosecutors most often involve physical or sexual assaults. The Department has also prosecuted public officials for thefts, false arrests, evidence-planting, and failing to protect someone in custody from constitutional violations committed by others.

A violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors prove one of the statutory aggravating factors such as a bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, death resulting, or attempt to kill, in which case there are graduated penalties up to and including life in prison or death. If charged in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 250, as noted below, all sexual assaults under color of law are felonies.


Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
463891 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:38 pm to
quote:

They should all be jailed for denying Trump his constitutional rights under the color of law.


Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
35369 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:41 pm to
Why would the trial court agree to this case when the first case is on appeal?

It is on appeal?
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
41672 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

Registered on: 12/2/2023


Go back to DU and exercise your hamstrings with your friends in the Democratic Party:





Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
463891 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:44 pm to
I think there are 2 separate cases with 2 separate torts.

*ETA: I think she's filed at least 1 more that's not in trial posture yet
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 1:45 pm
Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
24860 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:54 pm to
Stop wasting bandwidth and post less.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
463891 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:58 pm to
Says the crazy person LARPing
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
35369 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:01 pm to
I see the 2 torts angle, but isn't the 5 million one on appeal? Why would Kaplan agree to hear the second case on a matter stemming from that case? Why would that be allowed?

Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
24243 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:02 pm to
quote:

Why would Kaplan agree to hear the second case on a matter stemming from that case? Why would that be allowed?


Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
61617 posts
Posted on 1/27/24 at 3:27 pm to
It makes no sense to rely on the law to solve problems that are a result of a a corrupt judicial system.

There’s no validity to the system when truth and fairness are no longer a requirement.

Solutions must be found elsewhere.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram