Posted on 09/24/2007 6:15:44 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect have asked a federal appeals court to overturn their convictions, saying they were charged with a nonexistent crime and convicted after the jury was given improper instructions by the trial judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks. In all seriousness, I did not respond to anything I had already responded to, although I did respond to points I missed in previous posts.
I still assert you attacked me for posting to the thread, but I don’t assert you attacked me in the ways you claim you didn’t here, so we are in agreement at least on your claims.
I was unaware of what you wanted me to respond to, which is why I asked if you would re-post the questions you wanted answered, but when you said I should just go back and look, I took that apparently too literally.
At least I think I’ve learned a little bit in this thread, even if it wasn’t about the appeal.
Thanks.
9/25/07 Case tentatively calendared for oral argument Week of:
12/03/07. [06-51489, 06-51490] (gam) [06-51489 06-51490]
I’m a little late to the party...but great job.
You didn’t miss much—mostly rehashing the same ol’ stuff.
If you like to get into the legal issues, I posted a link to the amicus brief submitted by the Washington Legal Foundation (along with Congressman Poe, Jones, Goode, and the Gun Owners Foundation). Great arguments! All of the other briefs filed with the court are under seal.
http://www.gunowners.com/amicus10.pdf
I did notice. Very strange.
I was just happy that they are allowing oral arguments and didn't kick an opinion out without giving it a full airing.
I wonder -- will they seal the opinion, too? Can they do that?
The fact is Ramos and Compean were sent to prison for a crime that never occurred. Johnny Sutton and Debra Kanof went after men who had limited resources - unlike the wealthy parents of the lacrosse players who at great expense were able to win against Nifong.
“people need not know” should be “people need to know”
True. In Sutton's testimony to the Senate, he said:
...we were definitely very interested in plea bargaining.They are probably very used to having people just roll over because they can't afford the alternative.
We are - in 95 percent, maybe more, of our cases work out in plea bargaining.
That is standard operating procedure.
That would really stink!
I saw no notice of who would be on the 3 judge panel.
I've looked for any indication and can't find it. I'll keep my eyes open.
You’re trying to be sensible with a cult.
Namecalling without putting me on the ping, I see.
Your tactics are insulting, as is your ignorance of the facts.
But thanks for playin’!
If you feel you should have been pinged than you must believe the shoe fits.
No, I just looked at what you were responding to—a long rant to me.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize your behind-the-back slams. They are entirely too common.
At least I slam in public. You portray yourself as good natured while your flying monkeys take all kinds of pot shots at anyone who disagrees with you, while you stay silent. This has gone for months. Not once have you had the courage to admonish your partners in slime the way you demand your debate opponents treat you.
So don’t preach to me about decorum, I got your number.
I have none of the above.
Did ya ever think they're just sick of the lies and BS posted by a few in the lynch mob?
Oh, nooooooooooo.... It's a conspiracy!!!! Cue the spooky music!
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.