Federal judge blocks TX "show your papers" law

[Vandalshandle]

My constitutional civil rights trump state law. If you don't believe me, go dig up George Wallace, and ask him. I could be arrested illegally for failure to cooperate with a state cop, but if I choose to spend the money, I would win in court, unless he had probable cause. If you don't believe that, ask Sheriff Joe.

Sheriff Joe did nothing wrong except piss off a regressive activist judge. His department was operating under an agreement with ICE during the period he was held in contempt for. They had every right to check immigration status. But hey, let's not let little things like facts get in the way of good commie propaganda, right?


.

Nope. He willfully, and knowingly ignored a federal judges order to stop profiling. For that, he was convicted. In the process, the taxpayers of Maricopa County have to fork over millions of dollars in fines to the feds.

Really, he didn't do anything without consulting with legal counsel, who told him he was operating within the judges order.


.

The guy has been sheriff for what, 60 years, and he does not understand what "cease and desist" means?

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

 

[OKTexas]

Go to hell, these activist judges have got to go. This is a clear interference with States police powers. The State certifies every law enforcement agency and they can set any rule they wish in regards to cooperating with immigration. They don't like it, the State can decertify them and take over the police department and sheriffs offices that don't want to abide by the law. I haven't been able to find the written decision yet, I want to see what this asshole actually said.


.

The state is interfering with local police. They can not force local police forces to enforce immigration law. Also removing democratically elected local governments is a police state mentality. Yet Greg Abbott claims to be a conservative.

Here is the thing, the jails let setbacks loose and they are typically multiple offenders. DUI, rape, child molestation, assault, burgelery and so on. The state makes no effort to remove them. So if state and county won't enforce the law, then take away all federal money to that department. Don't shut them down. When then illegals rape a child or kill people drunk driving then shame the department out of existence. Better yet, if they want all the cool old army stuff, then tell them to enforce the law.

So, the focus here is on Illegal immigrants who rape. Oddly enough, I don't know anybody who has ever been raped by an illegal immigrant. Are you mostly concerned with illegal immigrants who are latino, or are you just as concerned about illegal immigrants who are Canadian? (BTW, there are more Canadians overstaying their visas than there are Latinos).

Homeland Security produces first estimate of foreign visitors to U.S. who overstay deadline to leave

It's an easy fix to get them all out, the government just has to have the will to implement it.


.

Did I miss your explanation as to what that easy fix is?

In the day of computers it would be simple to track visa entry and exits. If they don't leave as agreed pick their asses up. Personally I would like to see a change in the law to criminalize visa overstays, require new applicants to purchase a return bond. If they fail to leave on time, send bounty hunters after them and pay them with the bond monies. It wouldn't take long to get the word out and folks would stop that shit.


.

 

[OKTexas]

They always protect the law breakers but not the American Citizen.

The Bill of Rights protects you equally to every other American citizen. Don't like it? Write a letter to founding father, James Madison. He wrote it.

He also wrote this:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

Nicely written opinion, but not part of the Constitution, and not American law.

Wrong again skippy, he's saying that exactly what the Constitution says. It's call original intent.


.

Original intent is no precedent in law. It is only used in an attempt to persuade a judge. It carries no weight on which an appeal can be based.

Really, SCOTUS uses intent all the time when they find it convenient. Like when they said congress really intended to give insurance supplements for all exchanges even though the law restricted them to State exchanges 9 times in the law. BTW aren't you the one who referred a poster to Madison concerning the bill of rights?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Sheriff Joe did nothing wrong except piss off a regressive activist judge. His department was operating under an agreement with ICE during the period he was held in contempt for. They had every right to check immigration status. But hey, let's not let little things like facts get in the way of good commie propaganda, right?


.

Nope. He willfully, and knowingly ignored a federal judges order to stop profiling. For that, he was convicted. In the process, the taxpayers of Maricopa County have to fork over millions of dollars in fines to the feds.

Really, he didn't do anything without consulting with legal counsel, who told him he was operating within the judges order.


.

The guy has been sheriff for what, 60 years, and he does not understand what "cease and desist" means?

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Federal judge blocks Texas' tough 'sanctuary cities' law

I feel sorry for the Texas legislature, having had a setback in their efforts to dismantle the Bill of Rights of the US constitution....

did he also block or ban the show your papers if you are in possession of a firearm?

Do you care about our right to privacy?

no on both counts I'd bet.

I don't know what your point is, but in Texas you can carry your firearm to the Cub Scout Jamboree, if you want.

you know damn well what my point is.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Bill of Rights protects you equally to every other American citizen. Don't like it? Write a letter to founding father, James Madison. He wrote it.

He also wrote this:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

Nicely written opinion, but not part of the Constitution, and not American law.

Wrong again skippy, he's saying that exactly what the Constitution says. It's call original intent.


.

Original intent is no precedent in law. It is only used in an attempt to persuade a judge. It carries no weight on which an appeal can be based.

Really, SCOTUS uses intent all the time when they find it convenient. Like when they said congress really intended to give insurance supplements for all exchanges even though the law restricted them to State exchanges 9 times in the law. BTW aren't you the one who referred a poster to Madison concerning the bill of rights?


.

Oh, well, then you mean like the original intent of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, making it necessary for any crazy psychopath being able to buy a firearm from any unlicensed person without his having to go through a background check?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nope. He willfully, and knowingly ignored a federal judges order to stop profiling. For that, he was convicted. In the process, the taxpayers of Maricopa County have to fork over millions of dollars in fines to the feds.

Really, he didn't do anything without consulting with legal counsel, who told him he was operating within the judges order.


.

The guy has been sheriff for what, 60 years, and he does not understand what "cease and desist" means?

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

 

[Vandalshandle]

Federal judge blocks Texas' tough 'sanctuary cities' law

I feel sorry for the Texas legislature, having had a setback in their efforts to dismantle the Bill of Rights of the US constitution....

did he also block or ban the show your papers if you are in possession of a firearm?

Do you care about our right to privacy?

no on both counts I'd bet.

I don't know what your point is, but in Texas you can carry your firearm to the Cub Scout Jamboree, if you want.

you know damn well what my point is.

Actually, I don't have the foggiest notion of what you are trying to say.

 

[OKTexas]

He also wrote this:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45


.

Nicely written opinion, but not part of the Constitution, and not American law.

Wrong again skippy, he's saying that exactly what the Constitution says. It's call original intent.


.

Original intent is no precedent in law. It is only used in an attempt to persuade a judge. It carries no weight on which an appeal can be based.

Really, SCOTUS uses intent all the time when they find it convenient. Like when they said congress really intended to give insurance supplements for all exchanges even though the law restricted them to State exchanges 9 times in the law. BTW aren't you the one who referred a poster to Madison concerning the bill of rights?


.

Oh, well, then you mean like the original intent of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, making it necessary for any crazy psychopath being able to buy a firearm from any unlicensed person without his having to go through a background check?

Damn, you need to take a nap, you're getting more stupid with each passing post. The 2nd Amendment contains two separate declarations. The first is a state power to have a militia for self defense. The second is a right for the people to have weapons for their defense and the defense of their State. How about we fix it so you can only buy from or sell your car to a licensed car dealer. The feds have no authority over intrastate commerce no matter what SCOTUS says. Some ignorant regressive States require a background check on all gun purchases, of course it has nothing to do with safety, it's all about control.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, he didn't do anything without consulting with legal counsel, who told him he was operating within the judges order.


.

The guy has been sheriff for what, 60 years, and he does not understand what "cease and desist" means?

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nicely written opinion, but not part of the Constitution, and not American law.

Wrong again skippy, he's saying that exactly what the Constitution says. It's call original intent.


.

Original intent is no precedent in law. It is only used in an attempt to persuade a judge. It carries no weight on which an appeal can be based.

Really, SCOTUS uses intent all the time when they find it convenient. Like when they said congress really intended to give insurance supplements for all exchanges even though the law restricted them to State exchanges 9 times in the law. BTW aren't you the one who referred a poster to Madison concerning the bill of rights?


.

Oh, well, then you mean like the original intent of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, making it necessary for any crazy psychopath being able to buy a firearm from any unlicensed person without his having to go through a background check?

Damn, you need to take a nap, you're getting more stupid with each passing post. The 2nd Amendment contains two separate declarations. The first is a state power to have a militia for self defense. The second is a right for the people to have weapons for their defense and the defense of their State. How about we fix it so you can only buy from or sell your car to a licensed car dealer. The feds have no authority over intrastate commerce no matter what SCOTUS says. Some ignorant regressive States require a background check on all gun purchases, of course it has nothing to do with safety, it's all about control.


.

So, the feds have no authority over intrastate commerce? Well, hallelujah! That means that there is no prohibition on my buying a fully automatic machine gun, and the feds can't stop me! I could have sworn that it was a federal offense to sell that to me no matter where I bought it!

 

[Vandalshandle]

The guy has been sheriff for what, 60 years, and he does not understand what "cease and desist" means?

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong again skippy, he's saying that exactly what the Constitution says. It's call original intent.


.

Original intent is no precedent in law. It is only used in an attempt to persuade a judge. It carries no weight on which an appeal can be based.

Really, SCOTUS uses intent all the time when they find it convenient. Like when they said congress really intended to give insurance supplements for all exchanges even though the law restricted them to State exchanges 9 times in the law. BTW aren't you the one who referred a poster to Madison concerning the bill of rights?


.

Oh, well, then you mean like the original intent of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, making it necessary for any crazy psychopath being able to buy a firearm from any unlicensed person without his having to go through a background check?

Damn, you need to take a nap, you're getting more stupid with each passing post. The 2nd Amendment contains two separate declarations. The first is a state power to have a militia for self defense. The second is a right for the people to have weapons for their defense and the defense of their State. How about we fix it so you can only buy from or sell your car to a licensed car dealer. The feds have no authority over intrastate commerce no matter what SCOTUS says. Some ignorant regressive States require a background check on all gun purchases, of course it has nothing to do with safety, it's all about control.


.

So, the feds have no authority over intrastate commerce? Well, hallelujah! That means that there is no prohibition on my buying a fully automatic machine gun, and the feds can't stop me! I could have sworn that it was a federal offense to sell that to me no matter where I bought it!

There ya go, running to the absurd again. Full auto weapons require a special ATF license, and are heavily controlled. Another SCOTUS mistake. BTW criminals still have them.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Evidently his attorneys didn't, if you hired an attorney would you take his advice? Don't you think it's kind of strange, he asked for a jury trial and was denied. What was the judge hiding?


.

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My guess is that he wanted an opinion based on law, rather than to turn it into another politicised ruling by an all red jury in Phoenix, just like it would have been a politicized ruling by an all blue jury in Tucson. .

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

i will ignore your "coward" comment, and simply reply that I do not think that either one of us is in a position to interpret the finer points of the law. The difference between you and I is that I consider judgments rendered by the judicial system to be valid, and binding, according to the constitution. You, on the other hand, interpret every judgment rendered that does not dovetail into your agenda as being incorrect. That is fine with me. It is equivilent to you standing in the rain, and declaring that the weatherman is wrong, and it is a sunny day.

 

[OKTexas]

Right, except the law says he was entitled to a jury trial. Look at the federal criminal contempt laws.


.

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

i will ignore your "coward" comment, and simply reply that I do not think that either one of us is in a position to interpret the finer points of the law. The difference between you and I is that I consider judgments rendered by the judicial system to be valid, and binding, according to the constitution. You, on the other hand, interpret every judgment rendered that does not dovetail into your agenda as being incorrect. That is fine with me. It is equivilent to you standing in the rain, and declaring that the weatherman is wrong, and it is a sunny day.

I provided the federal procedures, tell me the judge followed them. When judges enter into realms where they constitutionally have no authority I will say so. It happens all the time. This judge committed a reversible error and I firmly believe Joe would at the minimum be granted a new trial, one with a jury. Judges are not infallible, they're reversed all the time.


.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So, now you are saying that the federal government broke it's own laws to convict sheriff Joe, and Joe's attorneys never filed an appeal about so flagrant a legal violation?

Man, Joe's lawyers must be really, REALLY incompetent....

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

i will ignore your "coward" comment, and simply reply that I do not think that either one of us is in a position to interpret the finer points of the law. The difference between you and I is that I consider judgments rendered by the judicial system to be valid, and binding, according to the constitution. You, on the other hand, interpret every judgment rendered that does not dovetail into your agenda as being incorrect. That is fine with me. It is equivilent to you standing in the rain, and declaring that the weatherman is wrong, and it is a sunny day.

I provided the federal procedures, tell me the judge followed them. When judges enter into realms where they constitutionally have no authority I will say so. It happens all the time. This judge committed a reversible error and I firmly believe Joe would at the minimum be granted a new trial, one with a jury. Judges are not infallible, they're reversed all the time.


.

You definitely should have emailed the SC, and told them to dust off that empty chair for you, months ago. It is too late now, since Trump has already filled it. As for me, I am just a humble country boy with 8th grade Civics, and 1 year of law school under my belt, and do not aspire to make decisions on legal issues that require more education than I have. However, I DO understand the Bill of Rights.

 

[Dale Smith]

Can't buy cigs, liquor, cash a check, rent a house or open a checking account without a form of verifiable ID but leftards believe that people should be allowed to vote by merely showing up and saying "Here I am!" and if you are a *******? "Aquí estoy".......leftards would never win an election with voter ID laws in place. Leftards want IDs for a multitude of other things that are none of their ******* business....but voting? Come one, come all and vote early and often....it's the leftard way, right, "comrade"?????

 

[OKTexas]

You can't file an appeal till the verdict is rendered. They were in the process of putting together the appeal when Trump prematurely pardoned Joe. The judge made several reversible errors including a denial of a jury trial. See the Rules of Procedure set by SCOTUS.

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt
(a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice.

(1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must:

(A) state the time and place of the trial;

(B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and

(C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such.

(2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.

(3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.

(b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.

Edit to add link:

Rule 42. Criminal Contempt


.

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

i will ignore your "coward" comment, and simply reply that I do not think that either one of us is in a position to interpret the finer points of the law. The difference between you and I is that I consider judgments rendered by the judicial system to be valid, and binding, according to the constitution. You, on the other hand, interpret every judgment rendered that does not dovetail into your agenda as being incorrect. That is fine with me. It is equivilent to you standing in the rain, and declaring that the weatherman is wrong, and it is a sunny day.

I provided the federal procedures, tell me the judge followed them. When judges enter into realms where they constitutionally have no authority I will say so. It happens all the time. This judge committed a reversible error and I firmly believe Joe would at the minimum be granted a new trial, one with a jury. Judges are not infallible, they're reversed all the time.


.

You definitely should have emailed the SC, and told them to dust off that empty chair for you, months ago. It is too late now, since Trump has already filled it. As for me, I am just a humble country boy with 8th grade Civics, and 1 year of law school under my belt, and do not aspire to make decisions on legal issues that require more education than I have. However, I DO understand the Bill of Rights.

Unlike you, I don't consider myself inferior to anyone, I'v held my own in debates with several lawyers, and more than one have walked away saying, "I never thought about it like that". Remember, having a law degree just means they spent more years in the government halls of indoctrination. One of our fine SCOTUS justices took constitutional studies out of the curriculum for a law degree at Harvard Law and never sat on the bench before her appointment.


.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Could have, should have. So many grievous errors have been committed by federal judges on the Texas law, and in AZ on Joe's conviction, and California and Hawaii on immigration blockage. It would appear that the entire federal judicial system up to, and including the Supreme Court, is thoroughly incompetent, and will be reversed, proving that Trump was right all along. Hell, it makes one wonder why Trump would get involved in Joe's case, anyway, since it was a cinch that the verdict would have been overturned, right?

What do you not understand about premature? Trump should have waited for the appeals to play out. No comment on Joe being illegally denied a jury trial? Coward much?


.

i will ignore your "coward" comment, and simply reply that I do not think that either one of us is in a position to interpret the finer points of the law. The difference between you and I is that I consider judgments rendered by the judicial system to be valid, and binding, according to the constitution. You, on the other hand, interpret every judgment rendered that does not dovetail into your agenda as being incorrect. That is fine with me. It is equivilent to you standing in the rain, and declaring that the weatherman is wrong, and it is a sunny day.

I provided the federal procedures, tell me the judge followed them. When judges enter into realms where they constitutionally have no authority I will say so. It happens all the time. This judge committed a reversible error and I firmly believe Joe would at the minimum be granted a new trial, one with a jury. Judges are not infallible, they're reversed all the time.


.

You definitely should have emailed the SC, and told them to dust off that empty chair for you, months ago. It is too late now, since Trump has already filled it. As for me, I am just a humble country boy with 8th grade Civics, and 1 year of law school under my belt, and do not aspire to make decisions on legal issues that require more education than I have. However, I DO understand the Bill of Rights.

Unlike you, I don't consider myself inferior to anyone, I'v held my own in debates with several lawyers, and more than one have walked away saying, "I never thought about like that". Remember, having a law degree just means they spent more years in the government halls of indoctrination. One of our fine SCOTUS justices took constitutional studies out of the curriculum for a law degree at Harvard Law and never sat on the bench before her appointment.


.

Wow! I wish I could be like you, a legal expert on everything!!!