The pettifoggery of 13 Rooskies

Politics
81

I’m sorry but the law I cited clearly says “defendant” and not “representation”. That’s the plain language.

Now, maybe the plain language isn’t the end all be all. Clearly you don’t think so because you’ve interpreted the word “defendant” to also incorporate “representation”.

Now, after looking into this more closely, it seems the only reason they’re able to get away with this, is that when a corporation is indicted, then representation is sufficient, given that a corporation is not a person and always going to have a representative no matter who shows up to court.

Either Mueller drops the case against the corporations or he presents his findings. I don’t care either way. Either way the 13 named Russians are still indicted, which is sufficient for me.

Just out of curiosity, what does the Constitution define as speedy? That’s right. It doesn’t. I guess we’ll have to interpret that for ourselves, won’t we.

82

here it is. Is not individuals that have requested the speedy trial, but a company (or an organization).

(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.

Also the constitution says “speedy trial” no definition. However YOU posted the federal law that defines “speedy trial” as 70 days from presentation of the indictment, or appearing to ask for one.

Combined, if it’s a federal case, speedy trial = no later than 70 days.

If congress wanted to, they could change the law to being no later than a year.

83

here is is

Then one of the defendants, Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, hired lawyers, Politico reported on April 11, and a month later pleaded “not guilty.”

It’s a Russian company that has representation, and as posted organizational representation the accused doesn’t not have to be present.

84

Congress through law has interpreted “speedy Trial”. You yourseslf posted the language of the law.

85

Does the language of the law say 70 days after the the defendant presents or 70 days after the representation presents?

86

Law says after the defendent, but rules of the court (also authorized by congress) say if it’s an organization, the representation essentially is the defent

This is why it takes years to get a law degree, you have to be able to find the appropriate laws (speedy trial) and then other laws that have different definitions depending upon who is charged then link them with the rules and procedures of the court.

87

I assume Cuba was our biggest enemy considering trump reversed all diplomatic relations with Cuba that Obama worked towards!

88

The “rules of the court” don’t supercede the law. Unless you’re saying they can legislate from the bench.

89

Rules of the court are per laws writen by congress. You know like rules from the EPA are based on the clean air act.

90

Which law overrides the speedy trial act?

91

I’m not going to spend the time trying to find the law that gives the court authorization to make rules and regulations to comply with the law.

If you want to. Be my guest.

92

You won’t.

Because it doesn’t exist.

93

:rofl: the rules of the court are law.

94

Whatever the Final Arbiters say.

95

Incorrect. I don’t recognize the power of the court over my sovereign personhood

96

:rofl:

You trying to climb back on my side of the fence?

97

So the rules (at least through 43) of the court were just made up out of thin air? And how long ago?

If you question it (and you are) show me wrong. Go on, I dare you. :smiley:

Hint start about 1967

98

Your side of the fence? You’re one of the sheeple quietly living life in the paddock, munching the grass. I won’t be spending any time on your side of the fence.

99

or maybe 1945 :smiley:

100

:rofl:

Beautiful. Please keep posting.