• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

FBI to George Zimmerman: "We don't have to give you our files"

JackFrost said:
Copy/paste from the Orlando Sentinel. Ask them:lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm gonna write to the Orlando Sent (some third world fish rag) 'cause I could give a crap.

I know wtf it is. I'm not stupid. I was just pointing it out.
 
JackFrost said:
General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party.(a) In any federal or state case or matter in which the United States is not a party, no employee or former employee of the Department of Justice shall, in response to a demand, produce any material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information relating to or based upon material contained in the files of the Department, or disclose any information or produce any material acquired as part of the performance of that person's official duties or because of that person's official status without prior approval of the proper Department official in accordance with §§ 16.24 and 16.25 of this part.
(b) Whenever a demand is made upon an employee or former employee as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the employee shall immediately notify the U.S. Attorney for the district where the issuing authority is located. The responsible United States Attorney shall follow procedures set forth in § 16.24 of this part.
(c) If oral testimony is sought by a demand in any case or matter in which the United States is not a party, an affidavit, or, if that is not feasible, a statement by the party seeking the testimony or by his attorney, setting forth a summary of the testimony sought and its relevance to the proceeding, must be furnished to the responsible U.S. Attorney. Any authorization for testimony by a present or former employee of the Department shall be limited to the scope of the demand as summarized in such statement.
(d) When information other than oral testimony is sought by a demand, the responsible U.S. Attorney shall request a summary of the information sought and its relevance to the proceeding.

General prohibition of production or disclosure in Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party.

Also, non-party subpoena and orders are subject to sovereign immunity UNLESS waived by congress as seen in Louisiana vs Sparks; and Sharon Lease Oil Co. vs FERC. States lack power to compel Federal agencies or employees to produce government records or other evidence.
Click to expand...

I believe they made themselves a party when they investigated George Zimmerman.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I believe they made themselves a party when they investigated George Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
It's a free country. You're welcome to believe w/e you like.
Doesn't mean that the US legal system has to start using your colloquial definitions rather than the accepted legal ones though.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's a free country. You're welcome to believe w/e you like.
Doesn't mean that the US legal system has to start using your colloquial definitions rather than the accepted legal ones though.
Click to expand...

Whats colloquial about what I said? Did they or did they not involve themselves in a state matter?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whats colloquial about what I said? Did they or did they not involve themselves in a state matter?
Click to expand...
That's not actually the question at issue, is it?
There're legal definitions of the terms involved. How you or I would describe the situation is irrelevant to the law.

Iirc the two parties in the case are the state of Florida and GZ.
 
Last edited:
from the pdf upthread
...the FBI is prohibited by federal regulation from producing these documents until counsel for the defense has complied with the controlling federal regulations and authorization is provided by the Department of Justice. To expedite this process, the FBI has been in contact with the counsel for the defense to assist them in making a proper request for documents in conformance with federal regulations. Counsel for the defense has yet to meet their obligations in this regard. Consequently, the FBI currently lacks the authority to produce, and this court lacks the jurisdiction to compel the production of, the documents subject to this Court's Order on Amended Demand for Specific Discovery, dated February 5, 2012. At such time as a proper demand is made on the FBI, the FBI and the Department of Justice will promptly authorize the production of appropriate documents, subject to the regulatory limitations imposed by 26 C.FR.§16.26.​


Party (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law. Parties include: plaintiff (person filing suit), defendant (person sued or charged with a crime), petitioner (files a petition asking for a court ruling), respondent (usually in opposition to a petition or an appeal), cross-complainant (a defendant who sues someone else in the same lawsuit), or cross-defendant (a person sued by a cross-complainant).[1] Person who only appear in the case as a witness - is not considered a party.​
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's not actually the question at issue, is it?
There're legal definitions of the terms involved. How you or I would describe the situation is irrelevant to the law.

Iirc the two parties in the case are the state of Florida and GZ.
Click to expand...

JackFrost said:
Your belief is incorrect per our legal system:lol:
Click to expand...

So instead of doing what would be the right and ethical thing to do they hide behind technicalities. What ever happend to doing the right thing? From a moral standpoint do either of you think that it is the right thing to do in refusing a defendant, any defendant, the right to have all the evidence that the government, be it state or federal, has on the defendent after an investigation is complete?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not sure if they are legally able to do that since they are legally obligated to press charges the moment that have proof of a criminal act. I could be mistaken though.....But if they can and this is the case...that seems wrong to me. Seems like it would be a violation of the intent of the double jeapordy clause...even if it may not technically be a violation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they are, especially while the matter is currently in another court. This is how they get away with violating the intent of double jeopardy in the first place. Can't get them in criminal court, go after them in civil court.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So instead of doing what would be the right and ethical thing to do they hide behind technicalities. What ever happend to doing the right thing? From a moral standpoint do either of you think that it is the right thing to do in refusing a defendant, any defendant, the right to have all the evidence that the government, be it state or federal, has on the defendent after an investigation is complete?
Click to expand...

Morality has no place in law.
 
Than the State judge has no requirement to hear the case. She should dismiss it immediately.
 
ChezC3 said:
Law is codified morality.
Click to expand...

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties.
 
JackFrost said:
Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties.
Click to expand...

Right, that's where the 'codification" comes into play. At base it is a matter of morality.
 
ChezC3 said:
Right, that's where the 'codification" comes into play. At base it is a matter of morality.
Click to expand...

Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. No one is claiming morality does not serve as the basis for any legal system. No one is denying a law is nothing if not a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral prescription.

Has there ever existed a legal system, which hadn't professed to further justice, based upon morality? If so, from whence would the legitimacy of the government derive? Why would the vast majority of the society feel any sense of moral obligation to conform to the laws? What is a legal norm if not a moral command, constraining the behavior of the citizens, of whichever society upon whom the law is imposed. Who has claimed otherwise?

Now, let us go back to what started it all. Context is everything.

Kal'Stang wrote:
So instead of doing what would be the right and ethical thing to do they hide behind technicalities. What ever happend to doing the right thing? From a moral standpoint do either of you think that it is the right thing to do in refusing a defendant, any defendant, the right to have all the evidence that the government, be it state or federal, has on the defendent after an investigation is complete?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what he is implying? In a nutshell, "Screw procedure, give it to him. It's the right thing to do."

Do you see how "doing the right thing" in law is actually a bad thing? Need I expand upon it further?

I replied:
Morality has no place in law.
Click to expand...

Now here is the crux of the problem. What did I mean here? Did I claim morality has no bearing on the very foundation of laws or a legal system? Of course not. I was clearly referring to using morality for the purpose of bypassing a legal process.
 
JackFrost said:
Morality has no place in law.
Click to expand...

So a person stealing food to feed their family deserves to go to prison huh? Sounds like something a despotic king use to do whenever the starving peasents took an apple from his orchard. Without morality then there is no use for laws. Without morality then you are not human. (and no, that "you" is not directed at you JackFrost)
 
Kal'Stang said:
So a person stealing food to feed their family deserves to go to prison huh? Sounds like something a despotic king use to do whenever the starving peasents took an apple from his orchard. Without morality then there is no use for laws. Without morality then you are not human. (and no, that "you" is not directed at you JackFrost)
Click to expand...

Of course he/she does.

Let me switch it up on you:

If your boss committed accounting fraud for the purpose of keeping the company afloat and/or preventing numerous layoffs, remember this would include yourself, does he deserve to go to prison when caught?
 
JackFrost said:
Do you understand what he is implying? In a nutshell, "Screw procedure, give it to him. It's the right thing to do."

Do you see how "doing the right thing" in law is actually a bad thing? Need I expand upon it further?
Click to expand...

How is it bad to do the right thing? I've heard of two wrongs not makeing a right but a right making a wrong? When you follow nothing but the letter of the law then due to human fallibility and greed there will be those that take advantage of it. Look at the sex offender list. It was originally meant to include ONLY those that committed rape and child molestation. Now it includes pretty much anything that could even be construed as sexual...including pissing behind a tree. And of couse since it was originally touted as just a list for actual sex offenders then everyone treats that person that pissed behind a tree as if they molested a child or raped a woman. THAT is what happens when you do not allow morality in law. That is what happens when you follow the letter of the law and not the intent, which is based off of morality.
 
JackFrost said:
Of course he/she does.

Let me switch it up on you:

If your boss committed accounting fraud for the purpose of keeping the company afloat and/or preventing numerous layoffs, remember this would include yourself, does he deserve to go to prison when caught?
Click to expand...

If his purpose was to ONLY help and not hurt those under his care, YES. There should ALWAYS be exceptions to any law and crime.

Now let me ask you another question or two. If someone attempts to murder you and someone came along and shot the person trying to kill you dead then should that person that just saved you go to prison for manslaughter? Technically he DID just kill someone. Going by your arguement extenuating circumstances does not matter because those exenuating circumstances are based on morality. So naturally the laws that protect such a person would not apply.

What about a person who's breaks are not working on their car because someone else just cut them and that person runs into a kid with the car through no fault of his/her own. Should they be charged with involuntary manslaughter? They DID just technically kill a child with their car.
 
JackFrost said:
Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. No one is claiming morality does not serve as the basis for any legal system. No one is denying a law is nothing if not a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral prescription.

Has there ever existed a legal system, which hadn't professed to further justice, based upon morality? If so, from whence would the legitimacy of the government derive? Why would the vast majority of the society feel any sense of moral obligation to conform to the laws? What is a legal norm if not a moral command, constraining the behavior of the citizens, of whichever society upon whom the law is imposed. Who has claimed otherwise?

Now, let us go back to what started it all. Context is everything.

Kal'Stang wrote:


Do you understand what he is implying? In a nutshell, "Screw procedure, give it to him. It's the right thing to do."

Do you see how "doing the right thing" in law is actually a bad thing? Need I expand upon it further?

I replied:


Now here is the crux of the problem. What did I mean here? Did I claim morality has no bearing on the very foundation of laws or a legal system? Of course not. I was clearly referring to using morality for the purpose of bypassing a legal process.
Click to expand...

If a legal process is at odds with morality is it not at odds with itself?

If the legal process doesn't align with the morality which the law codified represents than it is an unjust law or process and should be bypassed.

It should be bypassed because the law or process then only encompasses authority and not morality. This is tyranny.

do you support tyranny?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If his purpose was to ONLY help and not hurt those under his care, YES. There should ALWAYS be exceptions to any law and crime.

Now let me ask you another question or two. If someone attempts to murder you and someone came along and shot the person trying to kill you dead then should that person that just saved you go to prison for manslaughter? Technically he DID just kill someone. Going by your arguement extenuating circumstances does not matter because those exenuating circumstances are based on morality. So naturally the laws that protect such a person would not apply.

What about a person who's breaks are not working on their car because someone else just cut them and that person runs into a kid with the car through no fault of his/her own. Should they be charged with involuntary manslaughter? They DID just technically kill a child with their car.
Click to expand...

Hold on there buddy, back up:lol:

You fail to acknowledge the people who were hurt negatively by their crimes. What about them? In either case, another party(ies) lost something. Do they not have a right to justice?
 
ChezC3 said:
If a legal process is at odds with morality is it not at odds with itself?

If the legal process doesn't align with the morality which the law codified represents than it is an unjust law or process and should be bypassed.

It should be bypassed because the law or process then only encompasses authority and not morality. This is tyranny.

do you support tyranny?
Click to expand...

If a legal process is at odds with morality is it not at odds with itself?
Click to expand...

1. What process is at odds with itself? Example? With specifics, we can better determine if a legal process can be at odds with itself.

This is tyranny.
Click to expand...

Following a legal process is tyranny? How?

do you support tyranny?
Click to expand...

Yes, I support tyranny, as evidenced by a few posts taken out of context on the internet:lamo
 
JackFrost said:
Hold on there buddy, back up:lol:

You fail to acknowledge the people who were hurt negatively by their crimes. What about them? In either case, another party(ies) lost something. Do they not have a right to justice?
Click to expand...

And who exactly was hurt? Those who's money was used? Whats money compared to people? The question you should ask yourself is what was greater? The hurt? Or the benefits? Is the despotic king actually hurt by an apple being taking from his orchard? A deer killed in the kings forest to feed a family?

Noticed you didn't answer my questions even though I answered yours. Why?
 
JackFrost said:
1. What process is at odds with itself? Example? With specifics, we can better determine if a legal process can be at odds with itself.
Click to expand...

What is ironic here is that this case is exactly about morality. Was Zimmerman morally in the right for shooting Trayvon? We all know that he did in fact kill Trayvon. That is not in dispute. But did he do it in self defense or not? Self defense is based entirely on morality.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So instead of doing what would be the right and ethical thing to do they hide behind technicalities. What ever happend to doing the right thing? From a moral standpoint do either of you think that it is the right thing to do in refusing a defendant, any defendant, the right to have all the evidence that the government, be it state or federal, has on the defendent after an investigation is complete?
Click to expand...
So the FBI should just ignore federal regulations whenever it suits you?

How much responsibility does O'Mara bear for not crossing his eyes and dotting his teas when making his request to the FBI?

Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that O'Mara and his team are charging money for? To be a professional and expert at getting these sorts of things done?
Or is it all on the FBI that O'Mara didn't file the paperwork correctly?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom