BLM founder sentenced to 6 years for illegally voting.

[Rigby5]

Nobody was harmed but that's irrelevant. You don't have to harm anybody to commit a crime, you only have to break the law.

So I guess what you're saying here is that this woman had no idea she couldn't vote, in spite of having a lawyer in her defense that I'm sure explained that to her, in spite of her ability to call her lawyer to find out, in spite of access to the internet to look up the law about voting on probation, in spite of being smart enough to form the BLM chapter in her state, in spite of being told she couldn't run for Mayor because SHE WAS on probation, she didn't know.

Not to drift off subject, but if you're ever in this area, I have a bridge for sale. You could setup toll booths and make a fortune.

No, the only possible justification for any law or sentence, is to protect someone else.
If a law protects no one, then it is an illegal intrusion on your freedom.
You should be able to do what ever you want, as long as you do not harm anyone else.

And no, she had no lawyer, nor could she afford on, and none was appointed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry, but these rules have always been what a democratic republic implies.
The goal being where everyone gets to do whatever they want, as much as possible.
The only constraints being when those desires come into conflict with other desires or rights.
Then and ONLY then does government become empowered, and only in what little is necessary in order to support the rights of the people.
The desires of the legislators, does not matter one bit.

And you also have the constitution totally backwards as well.
There never have to be anything in the constitution prohibiting legislation, but instead all legislation is automatically prohibited by default unless there is something explicitly in the Constitution authorizing it.

Does not matter if I am in the minority or majority, no legislator can arbitrarily decree anything, at any time.
Prohibition and the War on Drugs are both inherently and totally illegal.
While these drug laws have no effect on me at all, they totally discredit the government, entirely.
It makes working against government, the only remaining ethical choice.

The US Constitution was not written to tell us what government can do, it was written to tell us what they can't. The laws are created by our legislatures in a represented Republic. The only laws they can't institute are those that violate our rights within the Constitution.

Example: PA legislatures instituted a lock down for the state. It went to a federal judge that ruled they cannot lock people down; it violates our constitution. Dementia mandated that any employer with 100 employees or more must mandate the vaccination. The Supreme Court ruled that he has no constitutional authority to do that. It must be done through Congress.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the only possible justification for any law or sentence, is to protect someone else.
If a law protects no one, then it is an illegal intrusion on your freedom.
You should be able to do what ever you want, as long as you do not harm anyone else.

And no, she had no lawyer, nor could she afford on, and none was appointed.

Fine, show me where that is written.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Moses’ lawyer, Bede Anyanwu stated, “It was the probation department that gave the letter that she had expired her sentence, so she’ll be prosecuted for a mistake that was made by the state.”

Moses wrote a Memphis TV news station from jail and stated that she “relied on the election commission because those are the people who were supposed to know what you’re supposed to do… and I found out that they didn’t know.”

Blaire Bowie, a lawyer who assisted on Moses’ case, said that Tennessee has complex voting laws that have a “disparate impact on Black people.”

In October a white Republican voter was charged with two counts of voter fraud. He forged his dead wife’s signature on her absentee ballot.

But, unlike Moses, he was only sentenced to one year of probation, according to The Reno Gazette-Journal.
...}

Black Lives Matter Founder Sentenced to Six Years for Voting Error after State Mistakes – White Voter Crimes Result in No or Minimal Punishment

By Emma Kantor & Sofia Leguria MEMPHIS, TN – In early February of this year, Pamela Moses, the founder of the Memphis chapter of Black Lives Matter, was sentenced to six years and one day in priso

www.davisvanguard.org

 

[Rigby5]

The US Constitution was not written to tell us what government can do, it was written to tell us what they can't. The laws are created by our legislatures in a represented Republic. The only laws they can't institute are those that violate our rights within the Constitution.

Example: PA legislatures instituted a lock down for the state. It went to a federal judge that ruled they cannot lock people down; it violates our constitution. Dementia mandated that any employer with 100 employees or more must mandate the vaccination. The Supreme Court ruled that he has no constitutional authority to do that. It must be done through Congress.

Totally and completely wrong.
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, that government can ONLY do what explicitly authorized to do, and nothing else.

{...

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}

This absolute and specific.
The feds ONLY can do exactly what was authorized for them to have jurisdiction over in the Constitution, and nothing else.

Sorry, but your examples prove my point.
With the first, since the state constitution did not explicitly authorize the PA legislature to be able to institute lock downs, then it can't do it.
The legislature is limited to only what it is specifically given jurisdiction over.
With the 2nd example, executives can not make law unless they first declare martial law under emergency rules.
That is a separations of powers issue, not a constitutional one.

 

[Rigby5]

Fine, show me where that is written.

That is easy.
{...

Ninth Amendment​

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
Learn more...

Primary tabs​

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
...}

Ninth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Clearly the rights and privileges of all citizens are to be unlimited except by the conflict resolution with the rights of others.
There is no other source of any legal authority except for individual inherent rights, and they are supreme.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is easy.
{...

Ninth Amendment​

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
Learn more...

Primary tabs​

Amendment IX​

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
...}

Ninth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Clearly the rights and privileges of all citizens are to be unlimited except by the conflict resolution with the rights of others.
There is no other source of any legal authority except for individual inherent rights, and they are supreme.

Nice try, but one more time: Show me where it's written that the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those that harm other people. Go!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Totally and completely wrong.
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, that government can ONLY do what explicitly authorized to do, and nothing else.

{...

Amendment X​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}

This absolute and specific.
The feds ONLY can do exactly what was authorized for them to have jurisdiction over in the Constitution, and nothing else.

Sorry, but your examples prove my point.
With the first, since the state constitution did not explicitly authorize the PA legislature to be able to institute lock downs, then it can't do it.
The legislature is limited to only what it is specifically given jurisdiction over.
With the 2nd example, executives can not make law unless they first declare martial law under emergency rules.
That is a separations of powers issue, not a constitutional one.

You really like to switch subjects, don't you. We were not talking about the separation of powers, we were talking about constitutional violations made with law. Locking down a state was a violation of PA's liberty according to the judge. Biden still could have instituted vaccine mandates IF he had the law passed through Congress according to the Supreme Court. To get around that, he handed it over to a bureaucracy to enforce which is unconstitutional.

 

[Rigby5]

Nice try, but one more time: Show me where it's written that the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those that harm other people. Go!

Wrong.
The point is that in a democratic republic, everyone has the inherent right to do whatever they want, until it starts to harm others.
I did not say "the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those that harm other people".
I said that the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those necessary in order to prevent harm to others.
When the rights of people come into conflict, then our representatives are supposed to devise means of minimizing conflict.
Laws are supposed to be only about conflict resolution and avoidance, between individuals.
Legislators are not authorized to do anything else except what is explicitly authorized to them in the constitution.

 

[Colin norris]

Nonsense.
First of all, I am vastly more left, progressive, liberal than anyone here.

Second is that of course we were talking about the first impeachment of Trump, and it was illegal because there was no evidence of any Russian involvement in the campaign or election process.

I stated he was impeached because he wanted bidrn investigated before he handed over the aid money. Russia was not involved.
You cant be so ignorant to not know what it was all about. It was not illegal because he WAS impeached. Get that through your thick skull.

But Hillary did get the Steele Dossier from the British, which was illegal foreign involvement.

Not so. It she had done something illegal, you would have told the world and she would be impeached. She didn't. You are delusional with hate and a liar.

But she was not impeached because she was not holding office.

Any person can be impeached. You don't even know the law of the land.

And no, there was no attempt by anyone to "nail her".
I think even Bill gave up on that a long time ago.

You think? I haven't seen a lot of that from you yet.

I am not desperate or even trying to implicate Hillary, because it really does not matter.

Of course it doesn't because there is nothing. You are a Republican so stop denying it.

I only brought it up to show the hypocrisy of the democrats who did try to impeach Trump, when in reality it was the impeachment attempts themselves that were illegal.

They were not illegal because it resulted in two impeachment. How can they be illegal? No one else in America knew they were illegal, only you. How convenient you idiot.

The real problem with Hillary is she was the most right wing, war mongering, and evil candidate we ever had.

If course, all democrats are right wing when you hate them and can't get them locked. Calling her evil is coming from your filthy religious beliefs.

There was never a single potential for war she did not want to take advantage of.

You need to explain that in detail because I think it is complete bullshit supported by more bullshit.

 

[Rigby5]

I stated he was impeached because he wanted bidrn investigated before he handed over the aid money. Russia was not involved.
You cant be so ignorant to not know what it was all about. It was not illegal because he WAS impeached. Get that through your thick skull.

Not so. It she had done something illegal, you would have told the world and she would be impeached. She didn't. You are delusional with hate and a liar.

Any person can be impeached. You don't even know the law of the land.

You think? I haven't seen a lot of that from you yet.

Of course it doesn't because there is nothing. You are a Republican so stop denying it.

They were not illegal because it resulted in two impeachment. How can they be illegal? No one else in America knew they were illegal, only you. How convenient you idiot.

If course, all democrats are right wing when you hate them and can't get them locked. Calling her evil is coming from your filthy religious beliefs.

You need to explain that in detail because I think it is complete bullshit supported by more bullshit.

That is getting irrational.

We were discussing the FIRST impeachment, which was over claimed Russian election collusion, and NOT over the Ukraine.
The 2nd impeachment was over the claimed Ukraine extortion.
Neither impeachment succeeded to get a conviction, so than they both were obviously illegal.
There was zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his team.


Of course what Hillary did was illegal, in getting the British m5 help with the Steele Dossier, in order to destroy our election.
But no one prosecuted Hillary because she was no longer in power by the time anything could be done.
And even when she was in power, it was as Secretary of State, which is not an office that can be impeached.
Impeachment is only for elected officials.
Officials who are not elected, like the Secretary of State, is just fired.
Never has anyone out of office ever been impeached.
There would be no reason to, since you can just change them with a criminal offense once no longer in office.
But she was already gone because Obama was gone, so Hillary was irrelevant.

And again, I have never voted for a republican in my life, and I am NOT religious.
Hillary was just terrible, guilty of mass murder, and lying politician.

 

[Rigby5]

You really like to switch subjects, don't you. We were not talking about the separation of powers, we were talking about constitutional violations made with law. Locking down a state was a violation of PA's liberty according to the judge. Biden still could have instituted vaccine mandates IF he had the law passed through Congress according to the Supreme Court. To get around that, he handed it over to a bureaucracy to enforce which is unconstitutional.

A violation of PA's liberty means that the PA legislature could not pass the legislation legally because it was not authorized to.
Which means it was then an infringement on individual rights.
The 2nd example, with Biden and the vax mandate, it would have still been illegal if Congress tried to pass it also, because the constitution does not authorize any federal medical jurisdiction. Biden would have to declare emergency martial law.

 

[Dadoalex]

racist.

Ya, that is all you got. Whine about race because your head is empty.

You are who you are.
Since you bring nothing else to the table it's all we have to play with.
I could just attack your hypocrisy but, let's face it, your hypocrisy is centered around your "some of my best friends are" racism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We were discussing the FIRST impeachment, which was over claimed Russian election collusion, and NOT over the Ukraine.
The 2nd impeachment was over the claimed Ukraine extortion.
Neither impeachment succeeded to get a conviction, so than they both were obviously illegal.
There was zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his team.

Wrong. The first phony impeachment was because of Ukraine and his call with Zelensky. The second phony impeachment was because of the attack on the Capital. As far as Hillary is concerned, Hillary bought information from Steele that he got from Putin on Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.
The point is that in a democratic republic, everyone has the inherent right to do whatever they want, until it starts to harm others.
I did not say "the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those that harm other people".
I said that the only laws that can be made by our representatives are those necessary in order to prevent harm to others.
When the rights of people come into conflict, then our representatives are supposed to devise means of minimizing conflict.
Laws are supposed to be only about conflict resolution and avoidance, between individuals.
Legislators are not authorized to do anything else except what is explicitly authorized to them in the constitution.

Fine, but again, show me where that is written.

Legislatures can create any law they desire as long as there are no constitutional violations. It has nothing to do if it harms others or not. Therefore they have laws against driving drunk. A drunk driver is not harming anybody until they get in an accident. They create speed limits even though driving faster than the limit isn't harming anybody either. Local politicians write housing codes like a limitation on the kinds of colors you can paint your house, how high hedges can be, how tall your grass can be and so on. So how can they write these laws when how high your grass or hedges are brings no harm to anybody? It's because they don't violate anybody's constitutional rights.

 

[otto105]

I heard somewhere there is no such thing as illegal votes.

Tennessee BLM founder sentenced to 6 years in prison for illegally voting

A Black Lives Matter chapter founder in Tennessee, Pamela Moses, sentenced to six years in prison for illegally registering to vote.

www.foxnews.com

Did she vote?

Also, this is going to cost the state money on appeal.

 

[beagle9]

Have you EVER heard of any one being able to or even trying to scam a probation board?
Impossible.
No one knows if they are still on probation or not because it is never an absolute length of time.
Nor does anyone know you can't vote while on probation, because that seems totally illegal to me.
There are no terms of probation, nor could there ever be any terms of probation, that prevent you from simply asking the probation board what your voting status was.
You keep claiming some sort of "scam", that there is no possible "scam" anyone could have done.
The board has all the records and just has to look it up.
If there are complex formulas, then they should know how to use them.
Trying to vote is NEVER criminal, since it harms no one else, (unless you are trying to vote multiple times).

Voting for snoop dog if he were running, just so you could sit around not having to work, and smoking crack or pot all day is a conflict that plays out against the electorate that wants better than that type of thing for society. So no criminal's and such shouldn't be allowed to vote until cleared, and are proving to turn their lives around.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did she vote?

Also, this is going to cost the state money on appeal.

It doesn't matter if she voted or not, she violated her terms of probation either way. This is what you people supporting her don't understand. She didn't get six years for trying to vote, she got six years because that was the sentence she would have gotten without probation. Because she violated that, she now has to serve that original term.

 

[Colin norris]

That is getting irrational.

It certainly is. You need to get your ducks lined up first.

We were discussing the FIRST impeachment, which was over claimed Russian election collusion, and NOT over the Ukraine.
The 2nd impeachment was over the claimed Ukraine extortion.
Neither impeachment succeeded to get a conviction, so than they both were obviously illegal.

Listen up idiot. Impeachment means he had to answer to an inquiry from the house. It doesn't matter if he was found not guilty. He is impeached forever. Goo
Google impeachment and read the fucking thing you numbskull.
He was found not guilty because the Senate had the numbers but I wouldn't expect you to count past throughout your shoes off.

There was zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his team.

That is a blatant lie and you know it. You are irrational and delusional again.

Of course what Hillary did was illegal, in getting the British m5 help with the Steele Dossier, in order to destroy our election.

Again, why wasn't sheprosrcured in a civil.court? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDRNCE TO CHARGE HER YOU FOOL
You can't be that stupid to overlook that fact.

But no one prosecuted Hillary because she was no longer in power by the time anything could be done.
And even when she was in power, it was as Secretary of State, which is not an office that can be impeached.

Really?
You're wrong again

Impeachment is only for elected officials.
Officials who are not elected, like the Secretary of State, is just fired.

Whilst serving the nation as an employee of the government she is bound by law or she faces the courts.
You've got a paranoia son. Get yourself some medication.

Never has anyone out of office ever been impeached.
There would be no reason to, since you can just change them with a criminal offense once no longer in office.

Exactly. There is still facilities available, if you have evidence and they had none.

But she was already gone because Obama was gone, so Hillary was irrelevant.

Not according to you. The republicans have been bellowing about getting revenge for 5 years but still produce no evidence. You have nothing but hate.

And again, I have never voted for a republican in my life, and I am NOT religious.
Hillary was just terrible, guilty of mass murder, and lying politician.

What mass murder? You are a raving mad hate filled Republican.

Where did this mass murder take place and show your evidence. If you can't, shut your ignorant big mouth.

 

[Faun]

That is getting irrational.

We were discussing the FIRST impeachment, which was over claimed Russian election collusion, and NOT over the Ukraine.
The 2nd impeachment was over the claimed Ukraine extortion.
Neither impeachment succeeded to get a conviction, so than they both were obviously illegal.
There was zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his team.


Of course what Hillary did was illegal, in getting the British m5 help with the Steele Dossier, in order to destroy our election.
But no one prosecuted Hillary because she was no longer in power by the time anything could be done.
And even when she was in power, it was as Secretary of State, which is not an office that can be impeached.
Impeachment is only for elected officials.
Officials who are not elected, like the Secretary of State, is just fired.
Never has anyone out of office ever been impeached.
There would be no reason to, since you can just change them with a criminal offense once no longer in office.
But she was already gone because Obama was gone, so Hillary was irrelevant.

And again, I have never voted for a republican in my life, and I am NOT religious.
Hillary was just terrible, guilty of mass murder, and lying politician.

You're insane.

Trump was never impeached over Russian collusion. His first impeachment was over soliciting a foreign national to investigate a political rival. His second impeachment was for inciting idiots to storm the Capitol to prevent Biden from being declared the winner of the 2020 election.