St. Louis Circuit Attorney Appears Corrupt

[Jdsizzleslice]

If you didn't know by now, a couple from St. Louis has been charged with felonies for pointing their firearms at protestors/rioters that entered private property. Read the story here.

The couple has the support of the Missouri Governor. They have the support of the Missouri State DA. They have the support of Missouri State Law (See statutes 563.031, 563.033, 563.041).

Today news broke that apparently one of the firearms had been tampered with by the prosecutor.

At the request of prosecutor Chris Hinkley, the report says, the firearm was stripped and found to have been assembled incorrectly. It was then re-assembled properly, test fired and functioned as designed.

A previous attorney for the McCloskey's had indicated the gun had been rendered inoperable long before the incident because it had been used as an exhibit in previous lawsuits.

The McCloskey's occupation is civil-defense lawyers. I hope they go nuclear and get all of these corrupt individuals involved that falsely charged them in a political plot locked behind bars.

[mrswdk]

It's a pointless trial anyway because the state governor already said that he will veto any punishment and pardon the couple if they are found guilty.

It's been discussed at length in numerous previous threads that the US has in recent times wisely copied the Beijing model of justice by bringing the judiciary under direct government control. The populating of the Supreme Court with party loyalists has been a long-standing slow burner but over the past few years Trump has done much good work to further bring the Attorney General and rest of the judiciary to heel.

Effective decision-making and effective action both require an efficient and streamlined command structure. A sports team has on coach and one captain, an army has one commander, and a nation has one government. Requiring multiple branches of state to decide everything via committee is inefficient, slow and prone to filibustering. Just look at the severe gridlock that America's Senate/Congress dual structure has resulted in over recent years.

The judiciary always should have been a simple administrative body applying laws set by the government, not a second head holding public arguments with the government about how the government's laws should be read. Congratulations to the US for defying the rhetoric and embracing a more effective model of government.

[Jdsizzleslice]

It's a pointless trial anyway because the state governor already said that he will veto any punishment and pardon the couple if they are found guilty.

It's been discussed at length in numerous previous threads that the US has in recent times wisely copied the Beijing model of justice by bringing the judiciary under direct government control. The populating of the Supreme Court with party loyalists has been a long-standing slow burner but over the past few years Trump has done much good work to further bring the Attorney General and rest of the judiciary to heel.

Effective decision-making and effective action both require an efficient and streamlined command structure. A sports team has on coach and one captain, an army has one commander, and a nation has one government. Requiring multiple branches of state to decide everything via committee is inefficient, slow and prone to filibustering. Just look at the severe gridlock that America's Senate/Congress dual structure has resulted in over recent years.

The judiciary always should have been a simple administrative body applying laws set by the government, not a second head holding public arguments with the government about how the government's laws should be read. Congratulations to the US for defying the rhetoric and embracing a more effective model of government.

This has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Therefore, precisely none of your points are even valid or relevant. Your propaganda is not welcomed here.

[mrswdk]

Another Night Strike jdizzle retort where he attempts to prove me wrong without responding directly to any of my points or even presenting any information that contradicts any of my points.

After striking out with this lame attempt at a red herring step two will likely be calling me a communist. You heard it here first.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Another Night Strike jdizzle retort where he attempts to prove me wrong without responding directly to any of my points or even presenting any information that contradicts any of my points.

After striking out with this lame attempt at a red herring step two will likely be calling me a communist. You heard it here first.

You are incorrect, you Communist.

[mrswdk]

[Jdsizzleslice]

Click image to enlarge.

Teenagers mrswdk

But since you asked, let's break down your propaganda post anyways...

It's a pointless trial anyway because the state governor already said that he will veto any punishment and pardon the couple if they are found guilty.

It's pointless because the Circuit Attorney has falsely charged the couple and has tampered with evidence.

It's been discussed at length in numerous previous threads that the US has in recent times wisely copied the Beijing model of justice by bringing the judiciary under direct government control. The populating of the Supreme Court with party loyalists has been a long-standing slow burner but over the past few years Trump has done much good work to further bring the Attorney General and rest of the judiciary to heel.

Copied the Beijing model of justice. You mean similar "justice" like the genocide of the Uighur Minorities? Indirect admission (by blatant deflection) that the genocide does exist? Seems to me like Communist China is acting exactly like Nazi Germany...

Also, you do realize that the executive branch of the US government (state and federal) doesn't "control" the judiciary branch. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump on various issues and not sided with Trump on various issues. Yeah, let's just go ahead and call that "complete control." But Trump's just Hitler in disguise, you proclaim.

Effective decision-making and effective action both require an efficient and streamlined command structure. A sports team has on coach and one captain, an army has one commander, and a nation has one government. Requiring multiple branches of state to decide everything via committee is inefficient, slow and prone to filibustering. Just look at the severe gridlock that America's Senate/Congress dual structure has resulted in over recent years.

Yes, because a democratic-republic is harder to run than a full-blown dictatorial rule by the Communist Party of China. But excuse me for wanting the structure of my government to be freedom-based but harder to decide things versus a communist government that can make very quick choices but have no freedoms or individuality! Sorry, I'll take gridlock over genocide any day of the year.

The judiciary always should have been a simple administrative body applying laws set by the government, not a second head holding public arguments with the government about how the government's laws should be read. Congratulations to the US for defying the rhetoric and embracing a more effective model of government.

So sounds like you're advocating for one branch to control the government. Dictatorship. Sounds like another country you know and love...

[Dukasaur]

Effective decision-making and effective action both require an efficient and streamlined command structure. A sports team has on coach and one captain, an army has one commander, and a nation has one government. Requiring multiple branches of state to decide everything via committee is inefficient, slow and prone to filibustering. Just look at the severe gridlock that America's Senate/Congress dual structure has resulted in over recent years.

Yes, because a democratic-republic is harder to run than a full-blown dictatorial rule by the Communist Party of China. But excuse me for wanting the structure of my government to be freedom-based but harder to decide things versus a communist government that can make very quick choices but have no freedoms or individuality! Sorry, I'll take gridlock over genocide any day of the year.

Something we can agree on!

[Jdsizzleslice]

Effective decision-making and effective action both require an efficient and streamlined command structure. A sports team has on coach and one captain, an army has one commander, and a nation has one government. Requiring multiple branches of state to decide everything via committee is inefficient, slow and prone to filibustering. Just look at the severe gridlock that America's Senate/Congress dual structure has resulted in over recent years.

Yes, because a democratic-republic is harder to run than a full-blown dictatorial rule by the Communist Party of China. But excuse me for wanting the structure of my government to be freedom-based but harder to decide things versus a communist government that can make very quick choices but have no freedoms or individuality! Sorry, I'll take gridlock over genocide any day of the year.

Something we can agree on!

I know right! Imagine a society in which if you disagree with the wrong people or the government, you get sent to the gulags! (The joke here being that we CAN imagine that society today...)

Click image to enlarge.

[mrswdk]

Sounds like you guys had some bad experiences when you lived in China, would love to hear more about them if you don't mind sharing.

[Dukasaur]

Sounds like you guys had some bad experiences when you lived in China, would love to hear more about them if you don't mind sharing.

Why don't we ask Mihrigul Tursun?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/asia/uyghur-china-detention-center-intl/index.html

When Mihrigul Tursun touched down in Urumqi, Xinjiang, to see her parents on March 13, 2015, she didn't know it was the beginning of three years of pain and loss.
Tursun had grown up in Xinjiang, but like many young Uyghurs moved overseas for employment opportunities. She was flying with her eight-week old triplets from Egypt where she had been living and working. Upon arrival at Urumqi airport, she claims Chinese officials began to ask her questions.

"They start to ask me, what you take from Egypt? Who (do) you know in Egypt? How many Uyghurs do you know?" Tursun says.
It was at this point, Tursun claims, that she was detained and her three children taken from her by officials.

CNN contacted multiple Chinese ministries and institutions mentioned by Tursun, including the Xinjiang Prisons Administration Bureau and Urumqi Police, for comment on her story before publication, but none responded.

After she was released from detention three months later, doctors told her that her son Mohaned had passed away in the local Urumqi Children's Hospital.

All a doctor told her about Mohaned's death was that he had died at some point after an operation. He was less than a year old.

Tursun says she was never given any reason why her children were admitted to hospital. When she questioned why her children had matching scars at the base of their necks, she was told intravenous drips had been necessary to give them nutrition.

Even then Tursun says the Chinese authorities didn't leave her alone. She says her passport was confiscated, forcing her to remain inside China.

In April 2017, while in her parents' home county of Qarqan, 1,184 kilometers (735 miles) away from Urumqi, she says she was taken away from her two remaining children and placed in detention by Chinese authorities.

After she was taken into the Xinjiang center, Tursun says police placed her in an overcrowded cell with more than 50 other women. Many of them, she recognized from her hometown.

"I see someone is my doctor, someone is my (middle) school teacher. Some are neighbors. Some studied with me (in the) same school," Tursun says, a single tear running down her cheek. Tursun says the inmates ranged in age from 17 to 62.

The room was so crowded that the women had to take turns sleeping in shifts and standing. During her time in the centers, Tursun claims she saw nine of the detainees die due to hostile conditions.

One woman, a 62-year-old named Gulsahan, had spent at least six months in the center, says Tursun. "Her legs and her face were swollen and there were rashes," Tursun recalls. One day Gulsahan didn't wake up.

"Police tell us 'make her wake up.' When we touch her hand she is cold," Tursun says.

According to Tursun, another casualty was a 23-year-old a mother of two, named Padegun, who had spent thirteen months in prison.

For two months, says Tursun, Padegun suffered from non-stop menstrual bleeding. One night, at around 4 a.m., Tursun says Padegun collapsed during a shift when she was among the prisoners standing.

"We all screamed and then police said don't anyone touch her. (Then) they dragged her by her feet," says Tursun.

[mrswdk]

Sounds like you guys had some bad experiences when you lived in China, would love to hear more about them if you don't mind sharing.

*posts CNN article*

As I thought.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Oh, I’m sorry, did we need to personally experience the Holocaust in order to confirm its existence?

[mrswdk]

Federal judges in the US have overruled state-level attempts to prevent the US federal government applying riot control and peace-keeping measures in the state of Oregon:

A federal judge in Portland rejected a motion by Oregon’s attorney general that sought to put restrictions on federal agents who have been facing off against protesters in the city and even snatching some people off the streets while riding unmarked vehicles.

By correctly seizing control of policing and the judiciary, the Trump administration has been able to take effective action to curb dissident activity in its states. This effective action would have been very difficult to take as recently as just a few short years ago (see, for example, the striking down of Trump's travel ban by rebellious judges). Thanks to Trump's efforts to bring the judiciary to heel, the federal government's administration of its nation grows ever more effective by the day. The global consensus is in: government works better when all state organs, including the judiciary, are under its direct authority.

[jimboston]

Just watched the video, didn’t listen or anything.

Haven’t read any links.

Don’t know what the case law would say.

That said...

I’d charge the wife who actually did point her little handgun at people.
The husband was just standing on his private property, with his gun at the ready but in a defensive position.

I didn’t think the protestors were on public property... if they entered a gated community then they were on private property and therefore (unless they all were invited) they should have all been arrested for trespassing. It don’t matter if the Governor lives down the street or not and they were going to do a vigil outside his house. A gated community is private property and so they were trespassing.

(Again unless some other member of said community invited them all in following Community rules. In that case then neither protesters nor the husband were violating any laws.)

[Jdsizzleslice]

Federal judges in the US have overruled state-level attempts to prevent the US federal government applying riot control and peace-keeping measures in the state of Oregon:

A federal judge in Portland rejected a motion by Oregon’s attorney general that sought to put restrictions on federal agents who have been facing off against protesters in the city and even snatching some people off the streets while riding unmarked vehicles.

By correctly seizing control of policing and the judiciary, the Trump administration has been able to take effective action to curb dissident activity in its states. This effective action would have been very difficult to take as recently as just a few short years ago (see, for example, the striking down of Trump's travel ban by rebellious judges). Thanks to Trump's efforts to bring the judiciary to heel, the federal government's administration of its nation grows ever more effective by the day. The global consensus is in: government works better when all state organs, including the judiciary, are under its direct authority.

Yeah... Too bad it was a judge in Portland that rejected it, not Trump. Propaganda debunked. Literally with no effort.

Also, you do understand that the local police (Portland Police Department) and judges in the district (U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mosman in this case) are in fact not under the control of Trump. Or do you just automatically assume that's the case bcuz that's what Communist China is like.

Just watched the video, didn’t listen or anything.

Haven’t read any links.

Don’t know what the case law would say.

That said...

I’d charge the wife who actually did point her little handgun at people.
The husband was just standing on his private property, with his gun at the ready but in a defensive position.

I didn’t think the protestors were on public property... if they entered a gated community then they were on private property and therefore (unless they all were invited) they should have all been arrested for trespassing. It don’t matter if the Governor lives down the street or not and they were going to do a vigil outside his house. A gated community is private property and so they were trespassing.

(Again unless some other member of said community invited them all in following Community rules. In that case then neither protesters nor the husband were violating any laws.)

The problem with charging her is that the firearm was inoperable at the time of the trespassing of the mob. In Missouri, they can only charge you with that felony if the gun was operable and functional (a.k.a, fired).

[mrswdk]

it was a federal judge in Portland that rejected it

FTFY

[Jdsizzleslice]

it was a federal judge in Portland that rejected it

FTFY

Uh-huh. I swear you're more obtuse than Jim.

United States District Court for the District of Oregon appeals to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which appeals to the Supreme Court which is its own branch of government.

[jimboston]

it was a federal judge in Portland that rejected it

FTFY

Uh-huh. I swear you're more obtuse than Jim.

United States District Court for the District of Oregon appeals to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which appeals to the Supreme Court which is its own branch of government.

He’s not obtuse.

He’s just so much smarter than you that you can’t follow him.

It’s very sad that this Chinaman from England knows more about the US legal system than you.

[Jdsizzleslice]

He’s not obtuse.

He’s just so much smarter than you that you can’t follow him.

It’s very sad that this Chinaman from England knows more about the US legal system than you.

So you think Trump controls the Judicial Branch of the government?

Also, would you care to provide your argument as to why you think I don't know how the US legal system works?

[jimboston]

He’s not obtuse.

He’s just so much smarter than you that you can’t follow him.

It’s very sad that this Chinaman from England knows more about the US legal system than you.

So you think Trump controls the Judicial Branch of the government?

Also, would you care to provide your argument as to why you think I don't know how the US legal system works?

I don’t think Trump “controls” it... though he has influence for sure, he does have the authority to appoint Federal judges, and the Justice Dept. does answer to him directly. That’s not the point and not what mrswdk said, but you can’t seem to grasp that.

The difference mrswdk is referring to is the difference between the FEDERAL justice system (i.e. Federal prosecutors and Federal judges)... and an individual State’s court system (with State prosecutors and judges appointed by the Governor of that State).

If you need more explanation than that I charge a fee.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I don’t think Trump “controls” it... though he has influence for sure, he does have the authority to appoint Federal judges, and the Justice Dept. does answer to him directly. That’s not the point and not what mrswdk said, but you can’t seem to grasp that.

He appoints them to the position, but the two branches of the federal government don't control one another. They are separate entities. The judges ultimately have the authority to interpret the law.

The difference mrswdk is referring to is the difference between the FEDERAL justice system (i.e. Federal prosecutors and Federal judges)... and an individual State’s court system (with State prosecutors and judges appointed by the Governor of that State).

If you need more explanation than that I charge a fee.

Yes, the state judges and federal judges are different. None are under the control of Trump.

[mrswdk]

it was a federal judge in Portland that rejected it

FTFY

Uh-huh. I swear you're more obtuse than Jim.

United States District Court for the District of Oregon appeals to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which appeals to the Supreme Court which is its own branch of government.

He’s not obtuse.

He’s just so much smarter than you that you can’t follow him.

It’s very sad that this Chinaman from England knows more about the US legal system than you.