Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PCIntern

(26,534 posts)
Mon Mar 6, 2023, 10:10 AM Mar 2023

Just thinking that saying that election season should put a hold

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2023, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

on investigating the attempted overthrow of the United States government is like saying that you couldn’t abandon the Titanic because it was nearly time for First Seating for dinner. What would corporate think if all that food and prep time went to waste?

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just thinking that saying that election season should put a hold (Original Post) PCIntern Mar 2023 OP
The "mythology"(? - the BBC?) is that they believed they were legally Backseat Driver Mar 2023 #1
The DOJ election moratorium won't start until September 2024 Fiendish Thingy Mar 2023 #2
...K&R... spanone Mar 2023 #3
Suppose the law is closing in on a suspected burglar in my hometown. Mister Ed Mar 2023 #4
Depends inthewind21 Mar 2023 #5
If an indictment is warranted, it's crazy to say Bobstandard Mar 2023 #6
Yes...it is. PCIntern Mar 2023 #7

Backseat Driver

(4,582 posts)
1. The "mythology"(? - the BBC?) is that they believed they were legally
Mon Mar 6, 2023, 11:05 AM
Mar 2023

protected from liability by a ticket disclaimer.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-17612629
Ryan versus The White Star Line

Apparently:

(snip)
"Ryan sued the White Star Line for damages over the death of his son, alleging that the company was negligent.

For seven days, in June 1913, Thomas Ryan went to the Royal Courts of Justice in London in an attempt to bring the White Star Line to account for the tragedy.

The White Star Line was well defended and had been cleared by two inquiries already. In addition, each ticket bore an extraordinary disclaimer that stated:

"Neither the ship owner, agent, or passage-broker shall be liable to any passenger carried under this contract for loss, damage, or delay to the passenger or his baggage arising from the act of God, public enemies, arrests or restraints of princes, rulers, or people, fire, collision, stranding, perils of the sea, rivers, or navigation of any kind, even though the loss, damage, or delay may have been caused or contributed to by the neglect or default of the ship owner's servants or other persons for whose acts he would otherwise be responsible."

This effectively stated that the White Star Line could not be held liable even if the sinking was the White Star Line's fault.

On this point, Ryan's case was upheld, because his son Patrick and two friends had been issued just one ticket between them.

It was successfully argued that Patrick had not seen the ticket, so couldn't have read the disclaimer. Crucially, Justice Bailhache also found that the wording on the ticket was in contravention of British Board of Trade regulations, which meant that the White Star Line's blanket disclaimer for negligence was now worthless.

The case was a civil action and was heard before a special jury, and they found that the White Star Line was negligent in respect of the speed of the Titanic, which did not slow down despite at least three warnings of ice.

£100 for a life

At the end of case, Thomas Ryan was awarded £100 for his son's death - the equivilent to one year's wages.

In addition to bringing the White Star Line to account in the death of his son, Thomas Ryan achieved another far-reaching victory, setting a precedent in consumer contract law that protected rights for passengers." (snip)

Fiendish Thingy

(17,619 posts)
2. The DOJ election moratorium won't start until September 2024
Mon Mar 6, 2023, 12:37 PM
Mar 2023

The moratorium only affects investigations, not trials.

any indictments handed down before then won’t delay the prosecution of any defendants running for office- it will be in the hands of the courts by then.

Mister Ed

(6,273 posts)
4. Suppose the law is closing in on a suspected burglar in my hometown.
Mon Mar 6, 2023, 01:28 PM
Mar 2023

Can he evade and avoid the investigation by announcing that he's running for Mayor?

It would be one thing if the local prosecutor were pursuing trumped-up charges against a perceived political opponent, but it's quite another to declare that candidacy bestows a blanket immunity from prosecution onto any common criminal.

Bobstandard

(1,589 posts)
6. If an indictment is warranted, it's crazy to say
Mon Mar 6, 2023, 02:01 PM
Mar 2023

‘Yes, by bringing this indictment we believe we can prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant committed the crime of. (Insert crime) that would result in jail time and disqualification from holding public office. However, because he’s running for public office, we’re not going to indict until after his run for public office is done and maybe not then because we could all get fired or even arrested by defendant in the event that he wins the office he’s running for. In the mean time, our prospective indictee can continue to commit many of the same acts that we would otherwise indict and expect to convict him for.”

It’s crazy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Just thinking that saying...