Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity)Conspiracy Laws Precedent Being Ignored?(Vanity)
my head ^ | 19 Feb 2011 | self

Posted on 02/18/2011 8:05:40 PM PST by Tainan

In the U.S.A back in the late '60s, there was a riotous situation called, appropriately enough, "The Chicago Riots."
These were also billed, on hand-outs, flyers, etc. "The Days of Rage"...general hippy leftist rioting over the VN War and all the things that made the '60s the '60s.
The follow-up to this was a long drawn out trial for "The Chicago 7." I think there were 8 but one was removed from the group for a separate trial.

My point is, the charges which were brought, and made to stick, was for 'Conspiracy to Cross a state line with the intent to cause riot and violate laws.' Or something to that effect. This was done because the perps were found to be engaged in a conspiracy to organize illegal activities and cross state lines to carry out these actions.
O.K., given this legal precedent, why can't charges such as this be used today for actions such as being engaged in in Wisconsin.
We have outside (the state) provocateurs organizing these breeches of the peace, busing in people from out-of-state to engage in these activities and numerous documented arrests for violation of state and local laws.

So whats the hold-up on this legal action?


TOPICS: Conspiracy; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Thoughts, comments and/or postings of memories from the Chicago trial or riots.
1 posted on 02/18/2011 8:05:42 PM PST by Tainan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tainan

No memories. But, I will bump it.


2 posted on 02/18/2011 8:07:21 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
So whats the hold-up on this legal action?

Have you had a look at who controls the federal government lately?

3 posted on 02/18/2011 8:10:45 PM PST by Islander7 (There is no septic system so vile, so filthy, the left won't drink from to further their agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Section 102

§ 2101. Riots

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source


4 posted on 02/18/2011 8:19:49 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

Before my time, but a most excellent idea. Kudos


5 posted on 02/18/2011 8:20:36 PM PST by TwoSwords (The Lord is a man of war, Exodus 15:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
The state controlled academia and media (SCAM) are hoping for some kind of demonstrator-initiated confrontation with the police so they can scream about another "police riot."

That is what Chicago came to be described. A "police riot." Never mind what the Marxist-Alinsky revolutionary rabble did -- by 1968 the New Left owned the media. After Nixon was elected that year the media became part of the New Left, helped take over the Democratic Party to become the Rat Party, and they are all now arguably the Establishment.

As I recall the commercially published report about the riots (Walker Report?) had a photo on the cover of South African police attacking blacks -- none of the photos of the event supported the tenor of the biased, vicious report attacking the police. As I recall.

6 posted on 02/18/2011 8:46:48 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
the charges which were brought, and made to stick

Only after the Dem administration was replaced by a Republican one:

According to Wikipedia: "However, President Lyndon Johnson's Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, discouraged an indictment, believing that the violence during the convention was primarily caused by actions of the Chicago police. The grand jury returned indictments only after President Richard Nixon took office and John Mitchell assumed the office of Attorney General."

BTW, Obama's pal, Bill Ayers, was a leader in the "Days of Rage" riots.

7 posted on 02/18/2011 8:55:03 PM PST by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
That group was known as "The Chicago Seven", represented by ACLU Lawyer William Kunzler, I think. It included Abbie Hoffman, and Tom Hayden (who married Jane Fonda, aka, "Hanoi Jane"). Hayden went on to become elected to Congress, from (where else), Kalifornia.

A bunch of Hippie pukes who were the darlings of Ayers and the Weathermen crowds......

8 posted on 02/18/2011 9:19:44 PM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson