wow that almost sounds like they are denying him his rights for a defense. Guess Garland has a death wish.
yup, there was a part i was reading the other day
of Title 18 and the us government can actually deny the defendant their rights to have classified information and the judge can allow it even if it would prove the defendants innocence. There is also a part where the defendant must reveal any classified information it will reveal in the course of the trial and of course the government and the courts can squash that also. The part that I find interesting is that the court is going to have to rule on if this information was classified or not in the first place. You are dealing with the one person in the country who had that power at the time and to say the DOJ and courts have a right to silence that is well to be honest total bullshit and yet another reason to say the entire system is fucking worthless and broken.
I also assume there will be Interlocutory appeals by both sides in this. I also do not see how the courts can continue to exist knowing that they are deciding what a president can or can not do and especially after the doj willfully violated the constitution in going after well everyone.
as much as it pains me they are correct. The satanic temple and their lawsuits often point out the hypocrisy of the current system of control, like it or not. If parents can determine for religious reasons against the autonomy of the individual to mutilate it for religious reasons there is no reason being trans could not be considered a religious angle either.
whose law the states the federal government.
How do you know if the law is correct many laws are wrong. Religion since it is enshrined in the constitution gives you the ability to practice your faith as you deem fit. BUT that has also been destroyed with things like those cake cases where the queers have tried to force people to do things against their religion. So what is it can the law be used as a shield or a cudgel ?
depends on the religion tbf.
I do not think Killing should be allowed, this extends to abortion but also the death penalty which I do not think the state should have a roll in. This causes much confusion even with in myself though because I do not know how to handle the absolute evil anons have been fighting which is much darker than just some rando homicide. Having said that though while the 10 comandments say thou shalt not kill. Seems that the entities in the OT had no problem directing the ancient jews to kill everyone that disagreed with them man woman and child. SO religion does often say it is wrong to kill unless its someone either your god commands or you just plain don't like. But again personally it is wrong even though I understand the bloodlust to do so.
and thus you illustrate why the religion angle is an issue when combined with law or to even extend to law. Besides you could just call it something different than killing or murder much like they did with abortion where they call it womens health care.
pretty sure you are a intentionally being a retard.
It is not a bit of useless skin. It has a function and affects feeling and changes the appearance, that is mutilation. But again I know you are slow and confused.
There is no difference you are changing function and appearance, that is an alteration against the autonomy of the individual and yes I mean the baby. Now you could claim that the parents have the right to do that and that again would make you a stupid retard because by that answer you admit that parents have a right to transition their child or at the very least dress it as a girl and or boy and determine how they are perceived. You are a retard it is fine.
Circumcision is mutilation and there are enough studies out there that run counter to the established narrative much like how there are alternative theories to covid treatment. But please try again retard.
last time I tried the same thing happened to me. Now do not quote me on this but I recall hearing here years ago that there was something they set up in twitter pre elon that started to shut down new accounts and put them through hell to prove who they really are. I am not sure if it is still tracking somehow or if its just some stupid thing old twitter did to try to stop new account creation which is a stupid idea but not shocking either.
not exactly masters. Anons on the other hand.
god, not sure about anymore, but what we have is massive amounts of retardation and stubbornness and a bunch of pissed off people over the state of it all hopped up on pixie sticks, funyons and weed, they don't stand a chance.
dont use those terms but what you want.
interesting that anons never got this. Not a digger really can only find something if I get a sniff but seems like this story was being widely spread on leftist media back when wray was nominated and Trump even said Christie is the one who recommended him for the Director gig.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/19/chris-christie-wray-support-240717
secondary sourcing back in 2017, I vaguely remember bridgegate it was more of a localized scandal that did not really play to the rest of the country unless you were watching liberal media back then.
narrative pushing faggot.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-002
currently looking for the gun thing if you really care that much….but did find this about warrentless searches.
sorry I needed to read further down . This is about them carrying firearms.
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-002
correct the loop hole I see is who owns the property. Like who really owns it does the bank own your home if you are still paying off a mortgage then the bank would be the one who would be able to give authority and by pass the individual in the home same situation similar for renters I would assume.
done intentionally no doubt also, because it allows them the subjective leeway to do stuff. Take note in the authority section i copied , that while they prefer you let local LE handle some of the arresting that you still have a power to arrest someone as a private citizen but the kicker is this part they say you can be fined and arrested yourself because of wrongful imprisonment and stuff BUT they also say this, it is generally necessary that a violation constituting a felony be committed in his/her presence or he/she must reasonably believe that the person whom he/she arrests has committed a felony.It is that reasonable part that always allows LE to expand searches because sniff sniff is that weed I smell, you seem to have been drinking guess its car search time.
see other answer also ….BUT in theory you would have to look at your individual states and even then you would have an uphill battle, hypothetically someone does a citizens arrest on Hunter and then thumps him on the head in mine craft to subdue him because he is a criminal after all and then puts him in the trunk of his car…The question is what does each state have as a provision and what is to stop lets say you turn Hunter over to proper authorities as prescribed and you get arrested instead. Not sure how that works, again its all about how they are using language to create open ended rules that serve them and punish the masses.
correct and this is part of the problem with LE as much as they say they are only enforcing the law they are often interpreting it more and more to give them leeway to do things. One of the interesting things I am seeing is that it appears about 40 us states have the power to do a citizens arrest. The question is if the person you are arresting resits what level of force can you apply to them. Look at the current NYC case where the guy got choked out for example. That was a citizen retention of a person who was acting dangerous and now that person is facing years in jail just for stepping up. Not sure why this citizen arrest thing is not used more it is always bandied about in mythical sense but I assume it is because the courts then have a harder time prosecuting because shit if people got together possie style in theory it could be allowed per current state laws. Depending how good of a information back up you have.
even in the case of force you have the subjective terms reasonable force, what is determined to be reasonable again might have to go to court and then be judged by irreasonable people. Too much subjectivity but also I can understand why that is there also because if the law is too rigid in some cases it makes it impossible to do anything then. Look at communist countries for that spectrum of problem.
Thus perfectly illustrating the fucking bind people find themselves when they can no longer trust the LE that has been put into place and you are criminalized by the same LE if you do their job. Damned do damned don't the government has created a system that even while it does hold some back up systems to protect the citizenry from these over reaches it also penalizes you if you do. A sense of learned helplessness is created much like that dog getting electrocuted experiment and people just put their heads down and hope for the best.
no one is ever going to vote for you Mike.