PayPal

Monday, November 27, 2017

All Quiet in D.C. Superior Court

 

“Police in riot gear contain a group of protesters at the corner of 12th and L Streets NW on the day of the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the United States in Friday, Jan. 20, 2017.”
 

[See also: “To Defend America—Will Inauguration Day AntiFa Rioters Get ‘Exemplary Sentencing’?”; and

“J20 Trials Finally Underway—AntiFa Defendants Already Condemned Out of Own Mouths.”]
 

By Nicholas Stix

Those of you who read my two reports on the first set of felony trials for defendants charged with riot and related felonies for their actions during President Trump’s Inauguration on January 20 may have been worndring what happened to the follow-ups.

When jury selection began on November 15, Judge Lynn Leibovitz announced that the trial would last about a month.

When I attended Knoxville Horror killer George Thomas’ retrial in Knoxville in 2013, although it was a complicated trial with many charges, and Thomas had two of the top trial lawyers in the state, Steven Johnson and ….. Knox County judge Walter Kurtz wrapped things up (not including jury selection) in five days, including the verdict and sentencing hearing.

I figured that Judge Leibovitz would wrap up jury selection in one day, leaving Thursday and Friday for beginning the trial. No such luck. She extended jury selection to Thursday, and went fishin’ on Friday. The good judge only began the trial proper on Monday with opening arguments, and devoted Tuesday to videotapes from CCTV systems and the testimony of witnesses who had been trapped, terrified, in businesses whose plate glass windows the rioters had smashed.

Then, on Wednesday… Judge Leibovitz hung up her “Gone fishin’” sign again.

What was it President Kennedy said of our nation’s capitol? “Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.”

Meanwhile, Washington Post operative Paul Duggan had copy to fill over the weekend, so he did his part for the defense.

For six demonstrators who joined hundreds of others in Washington for an Inauguration Day protest that turned chaotic and destructive, their trial in D.C. Superior Court, set to resume Monday, seems to hinge on an issue of perception:

Did the blocks-long march and related mayhem in downtown Washington amount to a riot? Or was it a lawful, free-speech assembly in which a relatively small number of participants committed vandalism, including smashing windows and spray-painting a government vehicle?
[Were Inauguration Day protesters rioting or lawfully demonstrating? That’s the question for jurors. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post, November 25, 2017.]

Duggan neglected to mention the arson, assaults on policemen, the relevant local statute, and his newspaper’s having quoted the plans for violence from the riot conspiracy site, a site whose plans all of the defendants followed. That’s why they all dressed identically, Black Bloc-style, and why the prosecution said it has video of the defendants removing their masks, and changing their clothes.

Various supporters of the rioters were on hand in the comments section, to lie about both the facts and the law, fabricating all sorts of non-existent conditions that just happen to get their allies off.


1 day ago
Mandog

“David M--If I just happen to be handing [sic] with a group of guys and one shoots and robs a store clerk, and we all jump in the car and drive away, I am an accomplice, or at the very least and [sic] accessory after the fact.

“The folks that joined in, whether or not they smashed the windows or just cheered on the vandals, are equally accessories to the crime.”


originalfoo
1 day ago
Strawman.

“These folks were engaging in a lawful assembly in the first place. That others decided to commit crimes while these people were lawfully protesting is NOT their fault, nor responsibility.

“It's as if you walked into that convenience store to buy a Slurpee, and then someone robbed it, and the police charged you with ‘accessory to robbery’ merely because you were present. You were under no obligation to leave, and neither were the protesters.”
I responded,

Complain to the strawman in the mirror.

“These folks were engaging in a lawful assembly in the first place.”

Nope. They had conspired to riot, whether by breaking windows, committing arson, assaulting policemen, or acting as human shields or walking strawmen with their violent accomplices, so that police wouldn’t know who it was that had committed the violence.

Because the defendants didn’t just happen to be in the vicinity, but accompanied the attackers after the attacks, Mandog’s example is germane, while yours is phony.

Guilty as hell.

originalfoo
1 day ago

“Just to be extra clear here:

“I'm absolutely, 100% allowed to scream ‘Smash the State! Down with XXX! Bankrupt all YYY Supporters!’

“I'm even allowed to scream ‘Burn it all! Rape the Women and Children!’

“I'm NOT allowed to say ‘Hurt THAT YYY Supporter! Smash the Store Over There! Rape THOSE people!’

“Incitement in the Constitutional exception to Free Speech consists only of direct, distinct, targeted and IMMEDIATE threats.

“And *you* have to be the one saying it. Merely being part of a mob which is chanting something illegal isn't criminal - YOU have to have been chanting too.

“The current DC Incitement statue is patently unconstitutional.”
I responded,

"I'm even allowed to scream 'Burn it all! Rape the Women and Children!'"

No, you're not. That's classic incitement to riot, arson, etc.

And "Merely being part of a mob..." is a common jailbird's fantasy. If you're part of a mob that commits a crime, you're guilty. Every schoolboy learns that in school.

Are you liar, er, lawyer? You lie about the law like one.

And Communists, who believe in collective responsibility towards their enemies, sudenly become radical individualists:

justbenice
1 day ago
“Thats not how laws are enforced. There is no group punishment, only individuals. Go back to russia if you want that.”
Of course there is group punishment, if one acted as part of a criminal conspiracy. Otherwise, we couldn’t have laws against conspiracies.

Note that justbenice is in fact a Communist/Anarchist, so she/he/it (s/h/it, for short) is just an exercise in confusion.

really_you_have_got_to_be_kidding
1 day ago
“Political violence is exactly what the Klan engaged in. Political violence against black people. Antifa riots are nothing more than political violence against the country.

Justbenice
1 day ago
“So you support the Klan.”

really_you_have_got_to_be_kidding
1 day ago
“In the new era of Trump hate, throwing feces and urine on racists was called peaceful protest by the news media in their rewrite about Charlottesville. So, I can see why they think lighting vehicles on fire was peaceful.”

justbenice
1 day ago
“In the new era of 'trump hate', racist bigots look to the president for support and receive it. You are one of them.”

Samsara15
1 week ago
“They have to have actual evidence connection you to the violence. Simply that you were in the vicinity is not good enough.”

N.S.
6 days ago
Emails, conspiring with others in advance are more than enough evidence. You don't have to have engaged in violence on "J20."

John Gotti didn't lay a finger on any of the 18 people, for whose murders he was convicted.

really_you_have_got_to_be_kidding
1 day ago
“They also showed up to beat on the racists in Charlottesville and the media called these antifa thugs peaceful protesters. Last time I checked, throwing feces and urine, even on the most despicable, is not peaceful. Americans were served up a serious helping of journalistic malfeasance that day. Luckily for the media's narrative, one of the little Nazis rammed his car down a crowded street a while after the riot was broken up. Including Field's heinous murderous terrorist act as part of some riot is fallacious at best, and politically motivated at worst. As we have seen with the media coverage afterwards, it was politically motivated.”
The defendants were in the general vicinity as human shields, as part of the conspiracy, dressed identically to the rioters, down to the masks, to make it impossible to distinguish between "protesters" and rioters. And that makes the "protesters" just as guilty as the rioters.

If the prosecution told the truth about the incriminating video, then all of the defendants conspired to riot, and they either acted as human shields and walking diversion tactics, in order to protect the active rioters and/or confuse police, or they were simply active rioters.

But as far as they’re concerned, the laws don’t apply to them.

And Paul Duggan and his editors clearly agree. Hence Duggan’s oversights, and the choice by his editors to run a photograph of scary looking cops, rather than of frightening rioters.

Fortunately, WaPo commenter bklyn38st directed readers to “DC Code 22-1322, Rioting or inciting to riot.”

§ 22–1322. Rioting or inciting to riot.

(a) A riot in the District of Columbia is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.

(b) Whoever willfully engages in a riot in the District of Columbia shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(c) Whoever willfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

Hopefully, by the time you read these words, Judge Leibovitz will have deigned to turn around the sign, slam down her gavel, and announce, “Court is in session.”

Considering that of the current crop of six reprobates, er, defendants enjoying the presumption of innocence, each has a lawyer—don’t six lawyers in one courtroom for the defense alone violate the fire code?—and Judge Leibovitz has the next Inauguration riot trial scheduled for December 11, I may be writing updates on this case past the 2021 inauguration.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Nope. They had conspired to riot, whether by breaking windows, committing arson, assaulting policemen, or acting as human shields or walking strawmen with their violent accomplices"

And had crossed interstate lines to do so. It was very much premeditated. Wearing a mask by default signifies you are up to no good.

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
Some of these sexual harassment allegations are getting to be surreal. Now billionaire Richard Branson has been accused of a harassment incident in 2010 by a LaQueefa named Anonia Jenae. Branson invited Ms. Jenae and her band to a party at his private Caribean Island, the ironically named "Necker Island". Allegedly, he put his head against her breasts and "motorboated" her. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/27/richard-branson-accused-sexual-harassment-by-singer-says-has-no-recollection.html
She also claims that Branson tried to get her to show her breasts and walk around topless. I suspect something did happen, though I'm doubtful Branson actually wanted to have sex with her, just check out this photo: https://labotana.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Richard-Branson-Antonia-Jenae.jpg
OK, Branson is no prize himself but he is a billionaire with a hot wife and the scratch to get whatever kind of action on the side he wants
IMHO, from personal experience, the fatter and more hideous women are the more they exaggerate inconsequential incidents like this. It was 7 yrs. ago and I considered the possibility she looked a little better back then but a scan of google images of her through the years and I saw nothing that made her look even remotely doable in this or any other era, unless you're a desperate beta male with no other options, something Branson most certainly does have.
Likely Branson, who was reportedly drunk and trying to be funny (and failing miserably), said and did something insensitive and inappropriate, but harmless and now it's being used by a mediocre, over the hill singer to boost her Youtube hits.

If he did really harass her with the intention of getting in her pants then he needs to invest some of those billions on a new eye doctor. Either that or a financial/life coach advisor to educate him on what kind of quality in life a billion dollars will buy you. If you happen to be reading this Mr. Branson, I'm available for the position.

Anonymous said...

My laugh of the day:
Al Frankenstein,at a press conference today--after refusing to resign--was asked by a reporter,"What do you believe would be the minimal extent of sexual harassment that would require you to resign?"
Franken:"I'd rather not get into that."
(Translation:If it's me--rape and murder is not enough--anyone else(like Trump)--a very low bar,maybe an unwanted smile.
Franken:"I will never do this again in the future."
(Translation:"I'm getting very fat and women are going to be wise to me now,so I will never get an opportunity again(not counting hookers of course)."
Franken: "So I'm going back to work."
(Translation:No literal translation for that in politics--a non sequitur.
--GR Anonymous

Anonymous said...

jerry pdx
Black MSNBC host Joy Reid publicly posts this comment on Twitter: "This is the core threat to our democracy. The rural minority -- the people @JYSexton just wrote a long thread about -- have and will continue to have disproportionate power over the urban majority".

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/27/msnbc-host-joy-reid-s-comments-about-rural-america-are-stunning-in-their-arrogance-ignorance.html

Foxnews has broken the story and is, at this moment, the only major outlet to cover it, I expect others to follow suit because it now can't be ignored, as much as they'd like to. However, the article on Fox does not state directly what Mrs. Reid is implying. What she really means is to put "white majority" before rural minority and "black, or non white" before urban majority. Of course, the urban population is not majority non white but that doesn't change the racist intent of what she is trying express. The Foxnews headline is pretty direct, though ignores the racist subtext, by calling her comment stunningly ignorant and arrogant. Kudos to Fox for giving the story front page mention and not censoring comments, at this point over 1,000 and counting.