Deporting US citizens?

[HisArpy]

Which is not what you wrote earlier. Now is it? You wrote "seized guns and drugs",not "found in the proximity"....Go take a bath in carbon based water with your 6 volt radio....

dudly, you need to get a clue. It was a nightclub, there were patrons, and when the raid happened the "drugs and guns hit the floor." That means that everyone in the room was "in the proximity."

Basically, you suck at life and logic.

 

[HisArpy]

Cite it.

^someone else who can't figure out how to do the googie...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shifting_the_burden_of_proof

 

[HisArpy]

How do you think people perceive you here?

<-- doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

dudly, you need to get a clue. It was a nightclub, there were patrons, and when the raid happened the "drugs and guns hit the floor." That means that everyone in the room was "in the proximity."

I'm not denying that, but that is also not what your wrote originally,now is it?

Basically, you suck at life and logic.

Basically you're a fucking moron who doubles down on stupid, or moves the goal posts to try and change the subject matter....

 

[Rotadom]

<-- doesn't give a fuck.

No one believes that. You try so hard but fail even harder. It's a real hoot

 

[HisArpy]

I'm not denying that, but that is also not what your wrote originally,now is it?

Basically you're a fucking moron who doubles down on stupid, or moves the goal posts to try and change the subject matter....

dudly, if you're going to play the "you never wrote that" card, you need to have more than just a whiny voice and trembling lip.

It's not possible to delineate every possible connotation of events by typing words and posting those words to an internet forum. If you think it is, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

dudly, if you're going to play the "you never wrote that" card, you need to have more than just a whiny voice and trembling lip.

You're a so called writer, on a site dedicated to the written word, and you claim "words don't matter"? That is about the dumbest take I've seen you throw up yet....

 

[dmallord]

1. As a lawyer my job is to gather the facts and develop an assessment of what actually happened. I will view that assessment in light of what's most beneficial to my client, but I cannot and will not omit or change facts from what they are into something they aren't. Because being completely stupid isn't in my playbook.

What was beneficial to any client in the matter? One hired you to post your dribble on 'a porn site?' Laurel might take umbrage with that disparaging remark. You read a news article that stated nothing more than that some persons were arrested, some of whom were illegal aliens. Some drugs and weapons were found. The report didn't acknowledge who possessed the drugs or the guns. Nothing you drew from that made sense to anyone reading what you posited, especially your crazy 'social math' example, as I pointed out. You, by the way, don't have to be completely stupid. Just enough of you shows it nearly every time you go off on a rant, like carbon water and 12v death by batteries, and now a failed social math malpractice example.

2. FACT: The government arrested approximately 50% of the attendees. Fact: They also seized drugs and guns from the attendees. FACT: The government doesn't let people who are at a crime scene and in unlawful possession of guns or drugs go free. I'm sure you can add up those facts and come to the same conclusion I did. If you can't that's 100% on you.

Sure they let people go who are at crime scenes. Those who are smart enough not to get caught with the drugs or weapons or are well connected. Silly lawyer, my post countered your theatrics and pointed that out.

3. As a lawyer, were one of the people arrested my client I'd advise them to proceed based on the FACTS. If that means pleading guilty to a lesser offense is the best course of action, that's what I'd advise them to do. What I wouldn't do is tell them to create a narrative based on social media bullshit which isn't borne out by the FACTS. Why? Because that will only piss off the judge and increase the potential sentence after they're found guilty.

4. When it comes to ICE arresting illegal aliens, and there is evidence of a crime as well as the illegal immigration status offense, it's often a smarter play (something you're probably not capable of understanding because smart isn't in your wheelhouse) to accept the deportation without criminal charges rather than go to trial on the criminal offenses, be found guilty, and go to prison first before being deported upon your release after serving your full FEDERAL prison time without any parole. This means the arrested illegal immigrant gets to choose between going home in a week or staying for 5-10 years in prison before going home afterward.

The real problem here is that you think you're so smart and clued up you miss what's really happening. In fact, you never saw any of that coming, did you? Which is why I'm the lawyer and you're the asshole who thinks he's clever for posting shit you know nothing about on a porn board.

Arpy, you have no clue about being smart on almost any level, social math, or social interaction in this forum. BTW most people consider lawyers to be the ultimate assholes. How do I know this? There are thousands of lawyer jokes, and most are derisive if not worse. So a 'lawyer' calling me incapable of understanding really, really, HuRts. Who am I kidding? It's a badge of honor.

~~~

Arpy, a lawyer of dubious renown, told a jury, "My client may have had drugs and guns, but he only got caught because he didn’t have my intelligence.”

The judge gave the client ten years—five for the charges, five for hiring an asshole.

“With all due respect, Your Honor—” HisArphy sputtered.

The judge cut him off, “Counselor, at this point, the only respect in this courtroom is what's being shown despite your presence.”

A ripple of laughter broke out from the jury box. One juror leaned over and muttered—just loud enough—
“Smartest guy in the room, and still the biggest reason we’re all stuck here.”

~~~
And like that jury, we are still here, listening to a lawyer trying to dig himself out another self-made problem... go figure and do the math...

 

[dmallord]

^someone else who grew up stupid and believes that lying on the internet makes him special.

If you don't have carpet in your bathroom, counselor, lead with that statement before calling others stupid. Otherwise, you create the impression that you have carpet in your bathroom and are trying to obfuscate the matter.

Any lawyer knows that.

 

[HisArpy]

You're a so called writer, on a site dedicated to the written word, and you claim "words don't matter"? That is about the dumbest take I've seen you throw up yet....

I didn't say that. I said that it's impossible to delineate everything by writing words and posting them on a forum website. It you think it is, start typing and I'll just append a tl;dr onto it after you hit post.

In the end, your problem is that you only see what you want to see and whenever someone forces you to open your eyes and actually SEE, you immediately deflect into the absurd.

Which is why you're ALWAYS on the wrong end of history and the facts. Or haven't you noticed that by now?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I didn't say that.

1. As a lawyer my job is to gather the facts and develop an assessment of what actually happened. I will view that assessment in light of what's most beneficial to my client, but I cannot and will not omit or change facts from what they are into something they aren't. Because being completely stupid isn't in my playbook.

2. FACT: The government arrested approximately 50% of the attendees. Fact: They also seized drugs and guns from the attendees. FACT: The government doesn't let people who are at a crime scene and in unlawful possession of guns or drugs go free. I'm sure you can add up those facts and come to the same conclusion I did. If you can't that's 100% on you.

3. As a lawyer, were one of the people arrested my client I'd advise them to proceed based on the FACTS. If that means pleading guilty to a lesser offense is the best course of action, that's what I'd advise them to do. What I wouldn't do is tell them to create a narrative based on social media bullshit which isn't borne out by the FACTS. Why? Because that will only piss off the judge and increase the potential sentence after they're found guilty.

4. When it comes to ICE arresting illegal aliens, and there is evidence of a crime as well as the illegal immigration status offense, it's often a smarter play (something you're probably not capable of understanding because smart isn't in your wheelhouse) to accept the deportation without criminal charges rather than go to trial on the criminal offenses, be found guilty, and go to prison first before being deported upon your release after serving your full FEDERAL prison time without any parole. This means the arrested illegal immigrant gets to choose between going home in a week or staying for 5-10 years in prison before going home afterward.

The real problem here is that you think you're so smart and clued up you miss what's really happening. In fact, you never saw any of that coming, did you? Which is why I'm the lawyer and you're the asshole who thinks he's clever for posting shit you know nothing about on a porn board.

Refreshing your memory on exactly what you wrote.

 

[HisArpy]

Refreshing your memory on exactly what you wrote.

Show me where I said "words don't matter."

Because, once again you're on the wrong side of history.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Show me where I said "words don't matter."

Because, once again you're on the wrong side of history

dudly, if you're going to play the "you never wrote that" card, you need to have more than just a whiny voice and trembling lip.

It's not possible to delineate every possible connotation of events by typing words and posting those words to an internet forum. If you think it is, I have a bridge for sale.

Stephen Hawkings wrote a book explaining the Universe to the lay person...but you can't explain your legal precedent nor see where you wrote "words don't matter".

 

[HisArpy]

Stephen Hawkings wrote a book explaining the Universe to the lay person...but you can't explain your legal precedent nor see where you wrote "words don't matter".

Still can't see where I wrote "words don't matter." Maybe you can help me by quoting those words. Not other words, THOSE words.

As for explaining legal precedent, I did post a linky. It's not my fault you're so fucked in the head you fantasized about me posting words instead of clicking a link and learning something.

As for your attempt to compare me to Hawkings, I'm not an astro-physicist. So, instead of trying to explain stuff like that myself, I hire people like Hawkings to tell dipshits like you exactly where you fucked yourself in public. He's an expert, he probably has a graph he can show you about how often you insist on doing it too.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Still can't see where I wrote "words don't matter." Maybe you can help me by quoting those words. Not other words, THOSE words.

lol, it's not my fault you suck at reading comprehension....

 

[HisArpy]

lol, it's not my fault you suck at reading comprehension....

You'd do better to slink off with your tail between your legs.

 

[dmallord]

<-- doesn't give a fuck.

Yep, you got that part right.

Some relevant precedents:

• United States v. Staten, 581 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1978): Mere presence is not enough, but presence plus other factors can support constructive possession.
• United States v. Rodriguez, 761 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1985): Joint occupancy requires more than proximity; the government must show a nexus.
• Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970): Upholds the use of inferences, but emphasizes the government’s burden.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You'd do better to slink off with your tail between your legs.

lol, Carbon water boy/6 Volt electrocution boy, maybe you should take your own advice?

 

[HisArpy]

Yep, you got that part right.

Some relevant precedents:

• United States v. Staten, 581 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir. 1978): Mere presence is not enough, but presence plus other factors can support constructive possession.
• United States v. Rodriguez, 761 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1985): Joint occupancy requires more than proximity; the government must show a nexus.
• Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970): Upholds the use of inferences, but emphasizes the government’s burden.

And?

Basically, all you've done is prove that anyone arrested for the drugs will have the burden of proving the drugs weren't theirs shifted onto them.

They and the drugs were present. They were in close proximity of the drugs. It was a nightclub where drugs were known to be used. It was a nightclub in which gang members frequented in order to buy/use drugs.

Is that enough? Most DA's would charge on it in the days before Trump. So, is it enough?

Some say yes, some say no. That's what they make juries for.

 

[HisArpy]

lol, Carbon water boy/6 Volt electrocution boy, maybe you should take your own advice?

Oh goodie, it's the "I've lost the debate so I'm going to go all Ad Hom in order to sooth my wounded ego" concession post.

You got nothing. You've NEVER HAD anything more than nothing.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh goodie, it's the "I've lost the debate so I'm going to go all Ad Hom in order to sooth my wounded ego" concession post.

You got nothing. You've NEVER HAD anything more than nothing.

Not really, you're the one running around in circles chasing his tail. Try and keep up with the class eh?

 

[HisArpy]

Not really, you're the one running around in circles chasing his tail. Try and keep up with the class eh?

<-- ding! ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

<-- ding! ding! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!

dudly, if you're going to play the "you never wrote that" card, you need to have more than just a whiny voice and trembling lip.

It's not possible to delineate every possible connotation of events by typing words and posting those words to an internet forum. If you think it is, I have a bridge for sale.

 

[dmallord]

And?

Basically, all you've done is prove that anyone arrested for the drugs will have the burden of proving the drugs weren't theirs shifted onto them.

They and the drugs were present. They were in close proximity of the drugs. It was a nightclub where drugs were known to be used. It was a nightclub in which gang members frequented in order to buy/use drugs.

Is that enough? Most DA's would charge on it in the days before Trump. So, is it enough?

Some say yes, some say no. That's what they make juries for.

Juries? You're saying that some system should be in place that provides for juries to decide if the charges are sufficient to warrant conviction or innocence? Ask Trump about that, as several juries have found him guilty. Still, you maintain the felon didn't get a 'fair day in court.' Your twist on juries is two-faced.

You are adding statements that are not evidenced in the article: a place known to use drugs, and gangs came there to buy them. Okay, let the DA charge them, and better lawyers defend them, and see if a jury finds that sufficient. I'll buy that as justice.

I didn't prove anything. I cited some relevant cases that point out the government still has the onus of proving the drugs belonged to the parties there, not that the arrested have to prove the contrary. The cases also point out that the jury is allowed to make inferences about some of those matters–the DAs still have the burden of proof, not the other way around, as you implied.

 

[Politruk]

^someone else who can't figure out how to do the googie...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shifting_the_burden_of_proof

That is not "LEGAL PRECEDENT which asserts that if 2 or more people are found in the proximity of illicit stuff, all the gov has to do is provide the evidence that the accused were there, the illicit stuff was there, and none of them admitted it was theirs so as to exonerate the others."