Posted on 10/16/2002 4:20:05 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
(((((Jane)))))
Yep, and that's been the way it has been since the day she was first 'named', by the Rat governor of Missouri, shortly after her husband's death.
Just go to a law school web site and look up the law.
The injunctive powers granted to state and federal courts are very great. You should be able to do a search on the web and find lots of information. All states I have looked at give judges very similar powers to enjoin people for a time from doing almost anything a judge wants to prevent them from doing. Nothing is required except for someone to request the injunction and the judge to grant it. The judge in many instances may take testimony. But in most cases a judge does not have to do so.
Injunctions are not permanent things. But indefinite injunctions can limit all sorts of things we think of as rights. For example nearly all domestic court judges can issue an injunction preventing you from talking to your ex or separated wife. That is indeed a limit on freedom of speech. A judge can prevent you from even going on the street where she lives. No trial is required. If the judge says so you are enjoined from going there or talking to her you are so enjoined. He can put you in jail for contempt of court for going to where she lives or trying to talk to her. He will not give you a jury trail. If the judge wants to he can have you picked up and put in jail until he or ah higher court decides to let you out.
In most states judges have the right to take people into protective custody for many reasons. A judge can incarcerate material witnesses that he thinks may flee or hold others in protective custody.
What was the gals name in the Clinton case who refused to testify even when given immunity? She went to jail for well over a year. No trial was conducted. She was held in contempt and put in jail for over a year. The judge issued an order for her to testify. When she refused he found her in contempt. She went straight to jail. There was no trial, no pass go and no 200 bucks. That was an example of a court issuing an order and a person not following the order of the court.
You have certainly heard of gag orders in criminal cases where lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses are forbidden to discuss the case with any one. Nothing in the law says a trial must be set or a defendant must be indicted for a gag order to be issued. A judge can do that to witnesses in any case. The prosecutor or cops have to typically show cause why the injuction should be issued, but in a serial killer case that would be automatic.
Jurors are even forbidden to discuss the case before them during a trial. They must wait until the the trial testimony is over and the judge charges them before they can even talk the case over among themselves.
Judges have great power in criminal cases to prevent witnesses from talking to anyone but officers of the court before giving testimoney before the jury. In murder cases and certainly serial murder cases they are quick to grant injunctive relief if cops or the prosecuter wants it.
When Moose says to the media we have taken steps to protect our witneses so you can't talk to them...that is most certainly what he means.
This looks like a very promising theory to me.
What do you think?
Your phraseology has me giggling ....... :-)
.... but you're absolutely right.
A candidate that is ahead in the internal polls, talks about all the wonderful support she has gotten and how grateful she is to both the local and national party. She talks about what she is going to do in the next 6 years. And what the continued control of the senate really means to Democrats.
When a candidate is in big trouble, she talks about how the other side is nasty and they are going after her for no good reason. They other side is mean spirited and nasty and not fair and she is a target of the big boys. When you are ahead you talk about how the other side shot and missed. When you are badly hit you talk about how you had to face the A team and it is not FAAAAIR.
Carnahan just told us all that she, as the saying goes, is in very very deep do do.
I am sort of shocked at how obvious this looks on this map. Of course, if it's really that obvious, I'm sure the pros have put it all together. Still...it is just one more thing to put in the "Could be a Terrorist" column.
I will do some research. I do have to say, however, I'm having a real hard time swallowing this concept. Such peremptory orders really don't make much sense from many angles - not just the legal ones. But maybe it's the way it is. At the moment, however, the sale isn't being made.
If you look at the map, you will notice a triangle of interstate highways toward the left-hand side. The west edge of the triangle is about 1 mile long, while the other two sides are about 1 1/2 miles. That should help.
As I was putting together the map, I noted the proximities, but even with that I'm not sure whether to draw a conclusion there is something to it, or just coincidence. There is a large Muslim immigrant population in the DC area, and there are also all the folks who work for the various Embassies related to Muslim countries, so it would follow there are going to be a lot of mosques, and so on.
OTOH, there is the presence of Al Qa'eda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and associated cretins. And the fact the Washington Muslim community was always quiet about 9/11, so it is possible there might be something to it.
It's a quandry, and difficult call to make, even with the map data, as a result of the demographics.
I look forward to being in a business where I can touch the raw material, effect a change, either sell or fail to sell it to the customer.
/john
Yes, indeed. Agree with your analysis wholeheartedly - and not just because I REALLY REALLY want to see her go down!
Yes, I've heard of these and other similar sorts of things. They're pretty specific, however.
Is the subject of the restraining order allowed to have counsel present to dispute it? or is it ex parte?
/john
/john
Thanks also for your (and hubby's) shining example of bravery. You guys played a part in my decision to change careers.
Was the transition pretty disjointed and jarring for you guys too?
/john
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.