Jump to content



Photo

Could Danny Rodden be "off the hook" like a red snapper?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 08:34 PM

Yes.  I would say the same.  Even if it was NSHBM charged with destroying say....a set of bib overalls....to thwart the Federal investigation,  

it wouldn't be a 1519 case.   


Edited by Not Super But Honest Mike, 04 March 2015 - 08:38 PM.


#22 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 08:25 AM

An Instance of a 'Chevron Deference' Shot  Down
....."red snappers" are NOT  to be objectified....



Pesty, when SCOTUS ruled against Uncle Sammy's  "violations against his sensitivities"
did the federal government employees exceed/violate the concept of the "Chevron deference"?
SCOTUS freed the "red snaper" dude.
Is the sheriff also a victim of that interpretation and entrapment?

 Chevron deference ":a doctrine of law that describes how much leeway the executive branch should have in interpreting laws".

 A challenge to an agency's construction of a statute.

"The agency's interpretation so long as it is based on a permissible construction of the statute." Nope!
SCOTUS shot down the government agency's attempted interpretation and " Objectivation "of  a  "red snapper" !
 It is not a permissible construction!


The defendants have the better of the statutory construction arguments.


Edited by Savile Row, 05 March 2015 - 08:46 AM.


#23 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 08:54 AM

King v. Burwell: Chevron Deference ?

OK, OK, OK....Learned Pesty,  please tell us that 'at the end of the day'
the Supremes are also NOT going to allow the guv-mint to use the 'Chevron thingy'
on the pending ACA/ObamaCare decision...The snapper ruling was excellent.
 

NO ideology by the SCOTUS, just the strict and correct interpretation

of the law as it was written.

Please.
 
 
 
Real interpretation of the law without ideology.


Edited by Savile Row, 05 March 2015 - 09:13 AM.


#24 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:22 AM

Real interpretation of the law without ideology.

 

There is no such thing... 


  • kelley likes this

#25 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 03:55 PM

It will be interesting to see if this changes anything.  Or if they just go on with the plea deal. 



#26 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 09:37 AM

I believe that Danny would have to move to withdraw his "guilty plea".  This would be a very risky.  His lawyers would have to think out the ramifications of a withdrawal. This  is up to Danny and his lawyers.  It is wrong to even discuss it in this forum.


Edited by Stephen Voelker, 15 March 2015 - 09:38 AM.


#27 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 15 March 2015 - 10:13 AM

I believe that Danny would have to move to withdraw his "guilty plea". This would be a very risky. His lawyers would have to think out the ramifications of a withdrawal. This is up to Danny and his lawyers. It is wrong to even discuss it in this forum.


Wrong? How so?

#28 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:49 AM

Personal decision between Danny and hs lawyers. Not a public decision.  If court finds new case does not apply than he could get screwed. 



#29 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:59 AM

Personal decision between Danny and hs lawyers. Not a public decision.  If court finds new case does not apply than he could get screwed. 

 

I get that... but here's the thing. The day that Rodden started trading his work for tax payer dollars... he made his actions the taxpayers business. People should discuss it as much as they want...

 

Who knows... It may just help keep some other power broker that's sucking at the public teat on the straight and narrow...  :thumbsup:


  • Mary likes this

#30 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:52 AM

I disagree with Steve. I am certain the lawyers will handle it correctly.  I think it's an interesting

twist in the case that 1519 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to disallow the theory on

Rodden's case. 


  • Not Super But Honest Mike likes this

#31 Ray

Ray

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:46 PM

A lot of you jailhouse lawyers seem to know a lot about federal court as well as federal law.   How many of you have actually practiced law in federal court!  Federal court is entirely different from the county court  good ole boy system. 


  • LetsBeHonest likes this

#32 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:12 PM

A lot of you jailhouse lawyers seem to know a lot about federal court as well as federal law.   How many of you have actually practiced law in federal court!  Federal court is entirely different from the county court  good ole boy system.


Can't get emoticons on phone. Someone hook me up with the popcorn.
  • Quasar likes this

#33 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 09:49 PM

:popcorn:  :popcorn:  Me & Kelley - hey, pass the salt!


  • kelley and Quasar like this

#34 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 10:04 AM

Notes:

Pesty V2 , Curmudgeon, and Steve V do know quite a few things about the Federal courts.

 

Question:

Was this an allowable "Chevron Deference" practice by the federal agency in the case?

 

Pesty says:

"1519 has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to disallow the theory on
Rodden's case."

 

Question for
Pesty, Curmudgeon, Steve V and others:
 

Is this considered now to be a "tertium quid" at this point?
"Tertium Quid'
noun
1. something related in some way to two things, but distinct from both; something intermediate between two things.
2. a third person or thing of indeterminate character.


Edited by Savile Row, 22 March 2015 - 10:06 AM.


#35 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 10:23 AM

Some just plain old discussion
common sense general thoughts:
:

ENTRAPMENT/Reasonable Double

"A person is 'entrapped' when he or she is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers
or their agents to 'commit' a crime that he/she had no previous intent
to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids
conviction in such a case."
"If the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt
whether the person had any intent to commit the crime
except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent,
then the person is not guilty. Even though someone may have been maneuvered
by the government into committing the act(s),
'if it was the result of entrapment
then he is not guilty'."
 
Rule
Government agents entrap  if three things occurred:

- "First, the idea for committing the 'crime' came from the government agents
   and not from the person accused of the crime."

- "Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime."
   
- "And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him."

"On the issue of entrapment the GOVERNMENT must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents."
 
 
Remember that an "agent" can be an "undercover operative"
which can often be a citizen, not necessarily a government employed

law enforcement officer. An agent can be a citizen/person induced
by a government control for various reasons

to act in a targeting plan.


Edited by Savile Row, 22 March 2015 - 10:52 AM.


#36 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 22 March 2015 - 10:38 AM

"Operation Smoothing"
Interesting  CCC Discussion
Even though someone may have been "SMOOTHED" by a person into "giving away a shirt,
getting  a 'senior citizen discount' on a room, crossing a state line to bop an alluring/feisty/hot chick"

who just happened to appear,
as alleged, "if it was the result of entrapment
then that person  is not guilty."

 
Gosh, a  "Reasonable Person" looking at the "situation" might ask:
 

How did the targeted person meet the "alluring/feisty/magically appeared hot chick"
in the first place?
Who introduced them to START THE SMOOTH ING OPERATION ?
What was the intention of the person/person whom implemented the actions?
 
Remember that ol Savile Row is not referring to anyone living or dead,
nor to actual events that may or may not have occurred.
Ol Savile Row is just a meek journalist who wishes
not to rile anyone up.
 
click:https://encrypted-tb...O2IsrGNsLTm1-Yg

Edited by Savile Row, 22 March 2015 - 11:15 AM.


#37 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:29 PM

Pesty rocks!

 A tip of the hat to the really cool, intelligent effort by the Pesty V2!

 

The "Red Snapper" case that went to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

and was decided on the basis of the "1519" charge has been taken into consideration

in reference to the pending charges according to sources!

Rodden and his legal team have to be very happy tonight!

Pesty may tell us more if he so chooses!


Edited by Savile Row, 24 March 2015 - 06:57 PM.


#38 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 06:38 PM

Pesty V2, bro, whenever you can please give us a synopsis and an update.

This is exciting news!



#39 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 24 March 2015 - 11:20 PM

SCOTUS got one right !

Pesty V2 kept up!



#40 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 09 April 2015 - 11:00 AM

I guess this " jailhouse" lawyer lucked up and got it right. :)
  • Jules likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users