HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jberryhill » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

jberryhill

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444

Journal Archives

An article from last year about Ellis and sentencing

For those wondering how Ellis handles sentencing for non-white defendants...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/07/06/t-s-ellis-mandatory-minimum-sentences-697826

Manafort judge emerges as skeptic of long mandatory minimum sentences


In April, confronted by a 28-year-old armed robbery convict facing a mandatory minimum 82-year sentence, Ellis' frustration grew so intense that he balked at imposing what he called a "very severe" sentence. Instead, the judge recruited a high-powered law firm to scour the law in search of some way to avoid imposing what is effectively a life sentence on Lamont Gaines, who was convicted of a string of robberies of 7-11 stores and a check-cashing business.

The judge appointed Daniel Suleiman, a former aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, to come up with any argument that might help Gaines win a more lenient sentence.
Suleiman, a partner at Covington & Burling, set on one possibility: a Supreme Court ruling in April that invalidated a law very similar to the one requiring the lengthy sentence for Gaines.


It's interesting how folks are happy to express outrage, but unwilling to look deeper into the facts.

Faced with having to sentence a 28 year old African American man to the rest of his life, Judge Ellis used the court's resources to engage a top notch aide to Eric Holder to find a way to avoid doing that.


Ellis certainly has issues. But they are not what most folks think.

Judges who oppose harsh mandatory minimums tend to ignore sentencing guidelines when they have the opportunity to do so, as more of a protest against those very sentencing rules which decent people oppose. It's not about what you think it is.

Stormy Daniels' Case Thrown Out

Here's the judgment:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250/gov.uscourts.cacd.704250.109.0_1.pdf

"Defendants have given Plaintiff exactly what she asked for in the FAC. Defendants agreenot to enforce or attempt to enforce the Agreement against Plaintiff. Instead of accepting victory, Plaintiff makes several arguments against this Court's holding that there is no caseor controversy before it. For almost all of these arguments, Plaintiff focuses on the remedy of "rescission," as Defendant EC does. (Opp'n. 13-16.) A rescission remedy, however,is irrelevant to the Court's holding here because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment actions based on the Covenants Not To Sue. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the Court cannot provide Plaintiff a specific remedy, whether it is rescission oft he Agreement or anything else."

So, the contract case (the initial case filed to annul the contract) has gotten her bupkus in terms of monetary damages or sanctions. It did get her out from the contract, which is what she was formally seeking. However, even when the defendants conceded the contract issue and moved to dismiss for mootness, Avenatti tried to keep the thing alive to get some kind of monetary damages that he kept promising he would get after losing the defamation case against Trump.

So the final score in the federal action is: Daniels owes Trump approximately $300,000 from the defamation case, and Trump/Cohen owe her nothing.

The remaining claim, over whether or not Daniels needs to pay back the $130k to Trump/Cohen to rescind the contract is remanded to state court.

However, as noted at the tail end of the decisions, the "remand" is likewise formal. While there is no cause of action under California law for the same reasons, this case came in as a result of being removed from state court in the first place. Since the federal court has determined it does not have jurisdiction over a moot claim, then the federal court's decision denying jurisdiction sends it back to California state court to die.

You May Need A Lawyer Sooner Than You Think

I don't know how he intends to serve process, but we're all in this thing together....



Full complaint here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.178704/gov.uscourts.mnd.178704.1.0.pdf

At least we get to keep the sand.

Something to keep in mind when you read "according to papers filed in federal court..."

There are currently 591 candidates for president


Not happy with the selection so far?

Have a look at the full menu:

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/?election_year=2020&office=P

I'm torn between Refino Pig and Sexy Vegan, so I guess I'm going to have to wait until the debates.

Question about making almond butter


I have some almond milk that I have been churning all damned day long, and so far I have not gotten any almond butter out of it.

Is there a special kind of almond milk I need to buy, or is there some churning technique that I need to use?

Well, Roger Stone is pretty much guaranteed to have a best seller

And he thanks everyone for playing.

The final copy of his book was shipped before he had a gag order.

If the judge wants to lock him up for not retroactively stopping publication of his book, that’s fine, but that is not going to stop the book from being sold.

Just what is supposed to happen?

Is the judge supposed to order all booksellers (in the US) to stop selling it, or order the publisher to take it back?

Those things are not going to happen.

But the prospect of being able to sell a book “which a US judge is trying to ban”, is going to guarantee huge sales. There is nothing people like more than buying a “banned” book. God knows how many copies of Salman Rushdie’s novel, which really only resonated with a certain expat community, were bought up to gather dust when a fatwa was issued against him.

Even if she locks him up, Stone is going to love every second of this until he gets his pardon.

What kind of ratings did the Cohen hearing get?


You know that’s probably the one thing Trump knows about that hearing.

It’s hard for daytime dramas to get those kinds of numbers anymore.

Here's what will happen on DU when the Mueller report is released


Whenever it is available, whatever it says, and whatever might be redacted, its failure to include your pet theory will only mean one thing - that it was rigged, a “whitewash”, etc.. The “really good stuff” is in the redacted part. They never interviewed some person who has inside knowledge of the whole thing. They didn’t inspect the voting machines in Kalamazoo...

Because a failure to include your pet theory could not be that it was out of scope, or just plain didn’t happen that way.

One of the most irritating things in my work is when the facts refuse to cooperate with my argument. I start out with a killer argument, and by the time I’m drilling down into the details, the damned facts turn on me and engage in mutiny!

But with the Mueller report - which will in fact lay out a cavalcade of corruption and disregard of the law - you don’t have to blame the facts for betraying you. Instead, you can blame the people. Someone on Mueller’s staff perhaps, or a successful confederacy of perjurers, will be responsible for the fix. Also, a “whistleblower” will be dug up - some person who saw it all and will speak to your group about it for a reasonable fee.

It will all be clear to you “what really happened.” Not only that, but you’ll find out that DU is populated by paid shills who are all here to aid in the cover up by expressing skepticism about the unprovable facts you know to be true.

It will be important to make sure to get every Democratic candidate on the record about your pet theory. If they are also shills for TPTB, you’ll then come to realize the whole system is rigged, and that you should instead not support any Democratic candidate. Instead, you should stay on DU in order to fight the trolls and “official conspiracy theorists” get others to realize how they’ve been deceived again by “The Official Story”.

All of which will be a wonderful distraction from the actual cavalcade of corruption and criminality which the report will actually disclose.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2