Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Keeping a biased juror?

 

Placing a time limit on defense cross of government witnesses. Wtf?

 

I'm no attorney, but something definitely stinks here.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Whenever I glace at this thread title, my mind reads "Fappening" and I get excited. Then I realize it's Whitner and I'm less excited but still curious. ;)

Posted
On 8/24/2022 at 11:07 AM, DRsGhost said:

Keeping a biased juror?

 

Placing a time limit on defense cross of government witnesses. Wtf?

 

I'm no attorney, but something definitely stinks here.

 

 


it is also possible that 2 trumpers actually committed a crime for once. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:


it is also possible that 2 trumpers actually committed a crime for once. 

Is wanting jurors to be open minded during a trial asking too much? 

Posted
15 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Is wanting jurors to be open minded during a trial asking too much? 

 

In a trial about a "militia" formed to kidnap a governor that had as many FBI agents/informants among its members as it did kidnap plotters.

 

Stop asking questions though. The FBI is clean and these guys are guilty as sin.

 

 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

In a trial about a "militia" formed to kidnap a governor that had as many FBI agents/informants among its members as it did kidnap plotters.

 

Stop asking questions though. The FBI is clean and these guys are guilty as sin.

 

 


All these questions were asked and discussed. The jury unanimously found them guilty. But yeah keep pushing your narrative.  Everyone is corrupt except for one man!  The savior! 

Edited by nedboy7
Posted
3 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

I wonder what Julie Kelly thinks about this...

 

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Don’t interrupt DRs Ghost, please. He’s in the middle of a conversation with himself. 

 

Because you guys learn about these developments from CNN and MSNBC, right? :lol:

 

 

Hey @Tiberius @BillStime and @716er

 

***** off!

 

That's for @The Frankish Reich. Who is weirdly triggered when I tell people to ***** off whose "contributions" here I ignore.

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 

Because you guys learn about these developments from CNN and MSNBC, right? :lol:

 

 

Hey @Tiberius @BillStime and @716er

 

***** off!

 

That's for @The Frankish Reich. Who is weirdly triggered when I tell people to ***** off whose "contributions" here I ignore.

 

 


Please stop tagging me in your asinine ramblings. You have me on “ignore” for a reason. It’s pretty creepy.

  • Agree 1
Posted

And like clockwork these morons respond. 

 

:lol:

 

It's like telling someone to ***** off as you drive by and these tools are yelling at the car after it's a half mile away.

 

But sure, I'm the one talking to myself.

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

And like clockwork these morons respond. 

 

:lol:

 

It's like telling someone to ***** off as you drive by and these tools are yelling at the car after it's a half mile away.

 

But sure, I'm the one talking to myself.

 

 


Rock bottom

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

And like clockwork these morons respond. 

 

:lol:

 

It's like telling someone to ***** off as you drive by and these tools are yelling at the car after it's a half mile away.

 

But sure, I'm the one talking to myself.

 

 

Well, since you summoned me ...

On 8/24/2022 at 11:07 AM, DRsGhost said:

I'm no attorney

Correct. You are no attorney.

So I read this stay-at-home mom's legal analysis, and I can assure you that she (B.A., Eastern Illinois University) is no attorney either.

 

The claim: a co-worker of a selected juror heard this juror (let's call her Juror 1) say that she had been called for federal court jury duty, and that she hoped that she'd get selected because (something about the Whitmer case). The co-worker supposedly contacted the attorney for one of the defendants, and the attorney filed a motion to dismiss Juror 1 based on that. It seems that the jury (including Juror 1) had already been impaneled by this time.

The investigation: the Clerk of Court was deputized to follow up on the allegation. The clerk found that the allegation was actually this: a friend or associate of the co-worker heard THE CO-WORKER (not Juror 1) say that Juror 1 wanted to be on the jury. And then apparently the co-worker didn't confirm the story.

 

So that's it. That's the whole whoop-de-do that gets stay at home QAnon moms hot and bothered.

I think the technical lawyer term is "a Hail Mary Pass."

 

 

 

Edited by The Frankish Reich
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • 4 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...