Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Clearly the conservative DA in Texas thinks there is enough evidence here to press charges.

The media hype is the DA requested a Grand Jury investigation of Planned Parenthood's activities and the Grand Jury ended up true billing the journalists for using false California DL's to get the information they were seeking. Unfortunately the role of the prosecutor or prosecutors in directing the Grand Jury is usually protected from disclosure.....but the lawyers (prosecutors) provide the Grand Jury with legal advice in the form of providing them with the statutory language in answer to the Grand Jurors' questions "about the law."

WTF · 02-10-2016, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The media hype is the DA requested a Grand Jury investigation of Planned Parenthood's activities and the Grand Jury ended up true billing the journalists for using false California DL's to get the information they were seeking. Unfortunately the role of the prosecutor or prosecutors in directing the Grand Jury is usually protected from disclosure.....but the lawyers (prosecutors) provide the Grand Jury with legal advice in the form of providing them with the statutory language in answer to the Grand Jurors' questions "about the law."

Clearly the Grand Jury thought there was evidence to charge these two...

The two have already been offered a plea deal. One of the defendants seems to be leaning in the direction of taking it and the other not so much so.

IMHO the defendant thinks he can win in the court of public opinion. It is my hope that he does not win in court and the full force of the law comes down on his lying ass.

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

Clearly the Grand Jury thought there was evidence to charge these two...

Clearly not "clearly"!

Your lack of knowledge of the grand jury process is only surpassed by your lack of knowledge of the petite jury process.....and you've shown your ignorance on the latter. Your "assumptions" have been repeatedly challenged in the past history of jurisprudence in this state and others where you have boldly gone where no mindful and thoughtful person would venture.

DSK · 02-10-2016, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

Clearly the Grand Jury thought there was evidence to charge these two...

The two have already been offered a plea deal. One of the defendants seems to be leaning in the direction of taking it and the other not so much so.

IMHO the defendant thinks he can win in the court of public opinion. It is my hope that he does not win in court and the full force of the law comes down on his lying ass.

As long as they get the same punishment that other people using false ID's, and everyone who lies about sex trafficking goes to jail, then I'm with you.

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSK

As long as they get the same punishment that other people using false ID's, and everyone who lies about sex trafficking goes to jail, then I'm with you.

And you and I both know that WTF et al are not "equal protection" friendly!

Disparate prosecution of individuals is spawned from politics and "social engineering"!

Guest042616-1 · 02-10-2016, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The media hype is the DA requested a Grand Jury investigation of Planned Parenthood's activities and the Grand Jury ended up true billing the journalists for using false California DL's to get the information they were seeking. Unfortunately the role of the prosecutor or prosecutors in directing the Grand Jury is usually protected from disclosure.....but the lawyers (prosecutors) provide the Grand Jury with legal advice in the form of providing them with the statutory language in answer to the Grand Jurors' questions "about the law."

So, basically, what happened is that the prosecutor thought there was a case, so he brought it to a grand jury (which is how it works, correct?), they agreed on two counts (tampering with government documents and intentionally offering to buy organs) and sent the indictment to the court.

What was wrong about my statement? It seems to me that both a prosecutor and a grand jury agreed that this was worth an indictment.

WTF · 02-10-2016, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you and I both know that WTF et al are not "equal protection" friendly!

Disparate prosecution of individuals is spawned from politics and "social engineering"!

Wait..yes....that is true. That is why it is so funny when you do not think a President lying about yellow cake was political motivated!

Please tell me what planet you are from where one side is not playing politics with the other? Jesus man...you are one big hypocrite or the most naive man on eccie.

But you are lying if you think Devon Anderson wanted this outcome. It hurts her politically.

WTF · 02-10-2016, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSK

As long as they get the same punishment that other people using false ID's, and everyone who lies about sex trafficking goes to jail, then I'm with you.

You need to read up on the difference between using a fake id to buy beer and trying to obtain fetal tissue. Big difference and has been handled so in the past. Use a fake id to say fraudulently obtain SS benifits and see if they treat it like buying beer.

LL is doing the political thing he just decried by trying to connect the two.

These two idiots who imho should spend some time in jail have been offered a great deal in fact for political consideration. They would be throwing the book at them in Austin. Throwing a parade for them in Dallas.

Guest042616-1 · 02-10-2016, 10:22 AM

I'll cite (glup) breitbart here.

To pull the relevant part out (emphasis mine): "[Tampering with a government] is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, then it is a state jail felony. Both Merritt and Daleiden were charged with felonies."

You are absolutely right, WTF, it seems they tampered with the documents in order to harm another, which ups the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

So, basically, what happened is that the prosecutor thought there was a case, so he brought it to a grand jury (which is how it works, correct?), they agreed on two counts (tampering with government documents and intentionally offering to buy organs) and sent the indictment to the court.

What was wrong about my statement? It seems to me that both a prosecutor and a grand jury agreed that this was worth an indictment.

Because that's not what happened!

For starters ... the "prosecutor" (the District Attorney) is a female.... your downhill from there.

Guest042616-1 · 02-10-2016, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Because that's not what happened!

For starters ... the "prosecutor" (the District Attorney) is a female.... your downhill from there.

Really? The only point your bring up is the sex of the prosecutor? I apologize for my mistake, but focusing solely on that shows me you don't have an actual argument.

But, to explicitly ask for it, tell me what really happened.

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

You need to read up on the difference between using a fake id to buy beer and trying to obtain fetal tissue. Big difference and has been handled so in the past. Use a fake id to say fraudulently obtain SS benifits and see if they treat it like buying beer.

That's a discretionary prosecutorial decision, ....

................... primarily based on political considerations.

The statute is the same. The punishment ranges are distinctive. The muddy water will be proving the intent to "defraud" or "harm" .... also ....

"(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record."

.. arguing on the internet is not the same as in the courtroom.

LexusLover · 02-10-2016, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Really? The only point your bring up is the sex of the prosecutor? I apologize for my mistake,....

You mean all of them, or just the one upon which you wish to focus your bullshit....like WTF.

Are you all twins?

Guest042616-1 · 02-10-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You mean all of them, or just the one upon which you wish to focus your bullshit....like WTF.

Are you all twins?

Why are you avoiding addressing the actual point? If I'm wrong, I would like to know why, so I can better myself. You indicated I am wrong, but then have gone out of your way twice to avoid actually doing so. What do you think that accomplishes?

DSK · 02-10-2016, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'll cite (glup) breitbart here.

To pull the relevant part out (emphasis mine): "[Tampering with a government] is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, then it is a state jail felony. Both Merritt and Daleiden were charged with felonies."

You are absolutely right, WTF, it seems they tampered with the documents in order to harm another, which ups the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.

As Per LL's timely entry:

"(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record."

So, it is far different to attempt to use a false ID to dupe the government versus duping a private business, albeit one that only survives on government money.

Additionally, I see no intent to defraud, but rather to set up Planned Parenthood to have the chance to break the law, which it could be argued they would do given the right opportunity - but they merely sniffed this one out because the context was probably strange to them.

Also, you might want to look at the meaning and context of harm in the criminal sense. All black letter law that you read is refined by years of court interpretations - known as "common law". In Texas, it goes all the way back to English common law decisions when Texas was a free and independent State.

Additionally, and unfortunately, I cannot find any citation for going to jail if you lie about sex trafficking.