Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031
Results 301 to 309 of 309

Thread: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

  1. #301
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,022

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    London is the capitol of a Christian country. What's your point?

    Yes, Israel's fingerprints are all over the events of 9/11, but in order to know that one must inform oneself.

    I'm glad you are now somewhat informed about BDS. There was a 4 part series on You Tube called "The Lobby" about the undue influence of Israel in British politics. You should consider informing yourself on that subject too. Clearly, there are quite a few things about which you are uninformed.

    That a court in a Muslim country would have an anti-West bias.
    A court in London, though ostensibly a Christian country, would be more impartial as religion (Christianity) is not as ingrained or fanatical there.


    Explain how Israel's fingerprints are in any way over the 9/11 terrorist attack


    Israeli influence in British politics is undeniable - the infamous "Balfour Declaration" shows that. The common view is that British Foreign Secretary (Secretary of State) was compelled to issue his declaration prior to receiving war loans, by US Jewish bankers, during WWI.

  2. #302
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    25,798

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    That a court in a Muslim country would have an anti-West bias.
    A court in London, though ostensibly a Christian country, would be more impartial as religion (Christianity) is not as ingrained or fanatical there.


    Explain how Israel's fingerprints are in any way over the 9/11 terrorist attack


    Israeli influence in British politics is undeniable - the infamous "Balfour Declaration" shows that. The common view is that British Foreign Secretary (Secretary of State) was compelled to issue his declaration prior to receiving war loans, by US Jewish bankers, during WWI.
    Your presumption that a tribunal in a muslim country cannot or would not return a fair verdict reflects your bias. Bush & Co refused to attend the tribunal and offer any sort of defense. The few muslims I know here in the US are just regular people. I think you presumption is incorrect and a desperate attempt to rationalize the finding of the tribunal. Keep in mind that the prosecutor was not a muslim. He was/is a law professor. Francis Boyle – University of Illinois College of Law

    To keep such biases in perspective, at least one court in Britain has ordered an innocent Australian citizen held in violation of UN findings, indefinitely, for the horrible crime of revealing the crimes of western governments.

  3. #303
    Guru Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,701

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    Your presumption that a tribunal in a muslim country cannot or would not return a fair verdict reflects your bias. Bush & Co refused to attend the tribunal and offer any sort of defense. The few muslims I know here in the US are just regular people. I think you presumption is incorrect and a desperate attempt to rationalize the finding of the tribunal. Keep in mind that the prosecutor was not a muslim. He was/is a law professor. Francis Boyle – University of Illinois College of Law

    To keep such biases in perspective, at least one court in Britain has ordered an innocent Australian citizen held in violation of UN findings, indefinitely, for the horrible crime of revealing the crimes of western governments.
    It was an inane show trial for mentally-deranged leftists. It has no basis in law and wasn't even held in the international court. The mock trial is just another example of leftist insanity. Or perhaps you have forgotten the insane left's violent and destructive reaction to the 2000 election, just like their insane, violent, and destructive reaction to the 2016 election. Leftists are mentally unstable nut jobs who are a danger to society.

  4. #304
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,022

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    Your presumption that a tribunal in a muslim country cannot or would not return a fair verdict reflects your bias....
    Yes it does...and not undeservedly so

    Muslim courts and Muslim law have a reputation for being dogmatic and unenlightened

    Would you like to defend yourself against a charge a blasphemy in a Muslim court...do you think your chances would be better in a Western court that viewed the law as paramount ?



    ...Bush & Co refused to attend the tribunal and offer any sort of defense. The few muslims I know here in the US are just regular people. I think you presumption is incorrect and a desperate attempt to rationalize the finding of the tribunal. Keep in mind that the prosecutor was not a muslim. He was/is a law professor.
    It was a Kangaroo court with no authority except that which it bestowed on itself. Why Malaysia and not The USA or The Netherlands ?

    Muslim people are generally just people, trying to make a living for themselves...Muslim countries are quite different and that is where you are wrong.

    ...to keep such biases in perspective, at least one court in Britain has ordered an innocent Australian citizen held in violation of UN findings, indefinitely, for the horrible crime of revealing the crimes of western governments.
    Really and US courts are snow white ?

    Do you think US courts would convict whistle blower Ed Snowden ?

    How about indefinite detention with trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp ?

  5. #305
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    25,798

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    Yes it does...and not undeservedly so

    Muslim courts and Muslim law have a reputation for being dogmatic and unenlightened

    Would you like to defend yourself against a charge a blasphemy in a Muslim court...do you think your chances would be better in a Western court that viewed the law as paramount ?





    It was a Kangaroo court with no authority except that which it bestowed on itself. Why Malaysia and not The USA or The Netherlands ?

    Muslim people are generally just people, trying to make a living for themselves...Muslim countries are quite different and that is where you are wrong.



    Really and US courts are snow white ?

    Do you think US courts would convict whistle blower Ed Snowden ?

    How about indefinite detention with trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp ?
    The tribunal was conducted in accordance with international protocol. Francis Boyle is a worthy and honorable US citizen doing his civic duty in attempting to hold the criminal government of his country to account for its many crimes.

    In fact, the verdict was registered and sent to the Hague.

    That you admit your intolerance towards muslims is in your favor. You may be in denial about some things, but you are not in denial about your bias against muslims.

    It wasn't a Kangaroo Court. Bush & Co were convicted in absentia because they did not want to show up for an event they knew they would be found guilty in. They knew they had taken the country to war under fraud, and they knew they had tortured and killed. They all promoted torture in various interviews and public comments.

  6. #306
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,022

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    The tribunal was conducted in accordance with international protocol...
    All the same, why Malaysia, that had no connection at all to events or any authority to hold such a trial ?

    I would be equally unimpressed by the conviction of the 9/11 hijackers in a trial held in Italy for example.



    ...the verdict was registered and sent to the Hague...
    So what ?

    I mean it was illegal but the Malaysians have no authority to hold a trial.


    ...that you admit your intolerance towards muslims is in your favor. You may be in denial about some things, but you are not in denial about your bias against muslims...
    I think Islam is an immature religion/society and is where Christianity used to be at the times of the Inquisition and "Bloody Mary" burning to death protestants for "blasphemy" (and it has to be said the protestants who preferred burning to death rather than to publicly convert back to Catholicism)

    ...it wasn't a Kangaroo Court. Bush & Co were convicted in absentia because they did not want to show up for an event they knew they would be found guilty in. They knew they had taken the country to war under fraud, and they knew they had tortured and killed. They all promoted torture in various interviews and public comments.

    Yes it was an illegal war but also it was a show trial that had no authority.

    It was by definition, a kangaroo court.

    Do you remember the trial of OJ, how a black jury acquitted him and how a white jury convicted him under civil law ?

  7. #307
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,261

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Cordelier View Post
    Yeah, not so much.... the appellate case Scalia quoted from - US v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589 (1st Cir., 1985) - wasn't the one he vacated in Murray - US v. Carter, 803 F.2d 20 (1st Cir., 1986). Same Circuit, same Judge wrote the opinion, even the same incident, with some of the same defendants ... two different rulings, however. Nice try, though.
    I didn’t say anything about “vacated” in that post. Whether a case was vacated is irrelevant to the point Scalia didn’t endorse, approve or adopt as the test the language you are obsessing over of: “W]e can be absolutely certain that the warrantless entry in no way contributed in the slightest either to the issuance of a warrant.... "This is as clear a case as can be imagined where the discovery of the contraband in plain view was totally irrelevant to the later securing of a warrant.”

    Scalia never adopted or endorsed that language as the test! There’s no off ramp for your error here. None!

    Scalia, however, said in regards to those remarks: “Although these statements can be read to provide emphatic support for the Government's position, it is the function of the District Court rather than the Court of Appeals to determine the facts, and we do not think the Court of Appeals' conclusions are supported by adequate findings.”

    Hardly language approvingly adopting that language as the test!

    The very language you are citing draws a rebuke by Scalia because it constituted as “fact finding” by the appellate court. He doesn’t adopt or endorse the very language you are obsessing over but instead characterizes that language as “fact finding” and rebukes the appellate court for it.

    Again, you’ve erroneously misidentified what is the test. As a result, your error still doesn’t constitute as a rebuttal to my post I made two posts of mine ago.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  8. #308
    Guru
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by NotreDame View Post
    I didn’t say anything about “vacated” in that post. Whether a case was vacated is irrelevant to the point Scalia didn’t endorse, approve or adopt as the test the language you are obsessing over of: “W]e can be absolutely certain that the warrantless entry in no way contributed in the slightest either to the issuance of a warrant.... "This is as clear a case as can be imagined where the discovery of the contraband in plain view was totally irrelevant to the later securing of a warrant.”

    Scalia never adopted or endorsed that language as the test! There’s no off ramp for your error here. None!

    Scalia, however, said in regards to those remarks: “Although these statements can be read to provide emphatic support for the Government's position, it is the function of the District Court rather than the Court of Appeals to determine the facts, and we do not think the Court of Appeals' conclusions are supported by adequate findings.”

    Hardly language approvingly adopting that language as the test!

    The very language you are citing draws a rebuke by Scalia because it constituted as “fact finding” by the appellate court. He doesn’t adopt or endorse the very language you are obsessing over but instead characterizes that language as “fact finding” and rebukes the appellate court for it.

    Again, you’ve erroneously misidentified what is the test. As a result, your error still doesn’t constitute as a rebuttal to my post I made two posts of mine ago.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    What are you even arguing here, ND?

    Inevitable Discovery or Independent Source?

    If you're making an Inevitable Discovery argument, then you might have a point on your interpretation of Murray...but I've only been citing Murray as part of an Independent Source argument, and if you view it in that context, the 1st Circuit's decision in Moscatiello is completely in line with Scalia's opinion in Murray. Let's try to stay focused here. They key issue here isn't whether the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what was discovered during the illegal entry - that's Inevitable Discovery. Instead, the issue is "if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant" - that's the Independent Source question on which the case in Murray turned. That bolded and underlined quotation is the key to everything. Everything else is superfluous as it pertains to this debate.

    My argument is that as far as the Independent Source question goes, Moscatiello and Murray are completely in line. Scalia himself says this (Murray, 543):

    "The District Court found that the agents did not reveal their warrantless entry to the Magistrate, App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a, and that they did not include in their application for a warrant any recitation of their observations in the warehouse, id. at 44a-45a."

    That's the key to the whole Murray decision. The agents didn't include any information about the warrantless entry in their warrant application. Because the Magistrate had no knowledge of the illegal entry, and therefore no knowledge of what they observed during the illegal entry, then the illegal entry couldn't have affected his decision to issue the warrant. That's exactly why the 1st Circuit was "absolutely certain that the warrantless entry in no way contributed in the slightest...to the issuance of a warrant". There's not a hair's breadth of difference between Moscatiello and Murray on that fact and that's the only fact that is relevant to the present case.

    Because the agents included the information about the illegal search in their warrant application in Huskission, and the fact that during the illegal search they found suspected drugs and field tested them positive, then the Magistrate's hands were tied. He really had no decision but to issue the warrant. Why? Because even if he didn't, the agents would still have had to re-enter the premises and seize the drugs. The second they discovered the illegal drugs, then they automatically became forfeit and the property of the United States. The Magistrate knew this. And so did the agents. That's why they tied his hands by doing the field test and putting all of this information into the warrant application.

    And you're saying that didn't affect his decision to issue the warrant? Give me a break.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  9. #309
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,022

    Re: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by RandyJa View Post
    On June 5th, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision regarding US v. Huskisson, weakening the Fourth Amendment and due process. The original case seems relatively cut and dry with regards to Huskisson’s guilt; he agreed to sell methamphetamine to a confidential informant while DEA agents recorded the call. Huskisson arrived at his home the next day with the informant, carrying a cooler. The informant then gave a signal and multiple DEA agents entered the house, arresting Huskisson, who did not consent to a search of his property.


    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Just Weakened the Fourth Amendment - Porter Medium
    I think the Supreme Court overturned this.

    They ruled that a man stopped for a traffic violation (IO think in Chicago) was issued a fine and then told he was free to go...then as an after thought the cop asked to see inside the trunk and found some drugs.

    The man's conviction, for possession of drugs, was quashed on appeal as the search was illegal.

Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •