Justice For Thee But Not For Me...

[Cow Poke]

Rollins stated these defendants weren't supposed to be arraigned - but had been. Charges came from her office.

Perhaps she failed to inform her minions that she had made herself judge over which crimes would be prosecuted?

[Cow Poke]

Reportedly, the judge refused the DA's request that they not be arraigned.

Reportedly, as in, from whom?

And, you know they don't just walk into court on their own, right?

[Adrift]

It's not very different, in my mind, from people who just post a quick reply without quoting who they're replying to.

People usually do that RIGHT after the post they're replying to. In that case it's easy to tell who is being replied to. You seem to throw these bottom quote tags in seemingly at random. I went through the 1619 Project thread, and there are times you add a bottom quote several posts after the one you're replying to.

In a meaningful sense, it's the better method because it eliminates confusion.

To you perhaps. I find it actually invites confusion.

[Cow Poke]

To you perhaps. I find it actually invites confusion.

It's like being in a conversation, and hearing somebody respond, then looking around to see who he was talking to.

[Adrift]

Er, this was a suggestion from years ago - I can't remember who suggested it but the idea was to reduce the anonymity and the aggression. I know RTT was a signatory and I think Mossy was. Pretty sure Ox started doing that then. Sam picked it up later - if I recall correctly it predated him.

Huh. I don't remember this. Maybe before my time. I remember when we had banners with our names made that we could put in our signature line, but I don't remember the sign-offs.

[Teallaura]

How did they get arraigned, Sam?

Sorry, I forgot Monday was Labor Day.

The petition came AT the arraignment on Tuesday. Charges were already filed but arraignment wasn't yet done.

[Teallaura]

Huh. I don't remember this. Maybe before my time. I remember when we had banners with our names made that we could put in our signature line, but I don't remember the sign-offs.

This was a thread well before that - a year or more, maybe? I think they were related but the thread came first.

[Teallaura]

Perhaps she failed to inform her minions that she had made herself judge over which crimes would be prosecuted?

Or the minions were so busy on a holiday weekend that they stopped caring... 36 defendants? SOMEONE got called in early!

[Cow Poke]

Sorry, I forgot Monday was Labor Day.

The petition came AT the arraignment on Tuesday. Charges were already filed but arraignment wasn't yet done.

OK, so, who "filed the charges"? The arraignment, of course, is simply an opportunity for the accused to officially answer to the charges to see if a trial needs to be held. It's still a screw-up by the DA's office, no?

[Cow Poke]

Or the minions were so busy on a holiday weekend that they stopped caring... 36 defendants? SOMEONE got called in early!

So, "low man on the totem pole" (are we still allowed to say that?) who may not have been aware that the DA had appointed herself judge over which parts of the law she would prosecute?

[Teallaura]

OK, so, who "filed the charges"? The arraignment, of course, is simply an opportunity for the accused to officially answer to the charges to see if a trial needs to be held. It's still a screw-up by the DA's office, no?

Yuppers - charges came from the DA's office.

[Teallaura]

So, "low man on the totem pole" (are we still allowed to say that?) who may not have been aware that the DA had appointed herself judge over which parts of the law she would prosecute?

Yep - or forgot by the time his hung over self got to Case Three...

[Sam]

People usually do that RIGHT after the post they're replying to. In that case it's easy to tell who is being replied to. You seem to throw these bottom quote tags in seemingly at random. I went through the 1619 Project thread, and there are times you add a bottom quote several posts after the one you're replying to.



To you perhaps. I find it actually invites confusion.

It definitely breaks up the order of normal read/response sometimes. Though not the motive, I would consider that to be a benefit!

--Sam

[Sam]

OK, so, who "filed the charges"? The arraignment, of course, is simply an opportunity for the accused to officially answer to the charges to see if a trial needs to be held. It's still a screw-up by the DA's office, no?

I've heard courtrooms called "revolving door" before but never heard of a one-way courtroom door: if the DA's office screwed up somewhere, that's notable. But the people hadn't been arraigned and were arraigned above the DA's objection.

If folks are saying that the judge was within his rights, they've got to argue that a judge can force the arraignment and prosecution of someone who has been charged -- meaning that the prosecutor's office is effectively without discretion.

Seems significantly worse than silly.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

I've heard courtrooms called "revolving door" before but never heard of a one-way courtroom door: if the DA's office screwed up somewhere, that's notable. But the people hadn't been arraigned and were arraigned above the DA's objection.

If folks are saying that the judge was within his rights, they've got to argue that a judge can force the arraignment and prosecution of someone who has been charged -- meaning that the prosecutor's office is effectively without discretion.

Seems significantly worse than silly.

--Sam

Rollins PETITIONED the court. That's an EXPLICIT acknowledgement that the court has the right to decide. There's no reason for the petition otherwise.