HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rittenhouse Judge screwed...

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 12:48 PM

Rittenhouse Judge screwed up!

Citing the Bible in open court can be a violation of the Jurors Constitutional Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion is a bill of right and when a juror is ordered to listen to a religionish passage, the judge violated his oath of office.

A Juror is a private citizen to be part of the judicial system, but their bill of rights shall be upheld at all times.

81 replies, 13345 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rittenhouse Judge screwed up! (Original post)
Smackdown2019 Nov 13 OP
LetMyPeopleVote Nov 13 #1
Captain Zero Nov 13 #20
MuseRider Nov 13 #52
calimary Nov 13 #38
olegramps Nov 14 #70
LenaBaby61 Nov 13 #2
Cattledog Nov 13 #5
SCantiGOP Nov 13 #9
RayStar Nov 13 #61
NullTuples Nov 13 #14
Bucky Nov 13 #37
LenaBaby61 Nov 13 #30
LogicFirst Nov 14 #79
InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 13 #8
jimfields33 Nov 13 #19
Tribetime Nov 13 #28
Ritabert Nov 13 #41
Tribetime Nov 13 #46
marie999 Nov 13 #33
Heartstrings Nov 14 #71
Oppaloopa Nov 14 #73
Hav Nov 14 #75
barbtries Nov 13 #68
FBaggins Nov 13 #3
stopdiggin Nov 13 #6
SCantiGOP Nov 13 #10
onenote Nov 13 #11
Mr.Bill Nov 13 #31
SCantiGOP Nov 13 #35
ProfessorGAC Nov 13 #53
Oppaloopa Nov 14 #74
Smackdown2019 Nov 13 #16
FBaggins Nov 13 #26
Smackdown2019 Nov 13 #39
FBaggins Nov 13 #43
Smackdown2019 Nov 14 #77
Calista241 Nov 13 #44
tritsofme Nov 13 #49
stopdiggin Nov 13 #64
LenaBaby61 Nov 13 #32
oldsoftie Nov 13 #42
msfiddlestix Nov 13 #58
Smackdown2019 Nov 13 #60
stopdiggin Nov 13 #65
LenaBaby61 Nov 14 #80
Sympthsical Nov 13 #4
abqtommy Nov 13 #7
Autumn Nov 13 #22
KS Toronado Nov 14 #72
sl8 Nov 13 #12
orangecrush Nov 13 #13
spudspud Nov 13 #54
orangecrush Nov 13 #55
UnderThisLaw Nov 13 #15
ShazzieB Nov 13 #21
Hav Nov 13 #27
11 Bravo Nov 13 #29
oldsoftie Nov 13 #45
11 Bravo Nov 13 #50
UnderThisLaw Nov 13 #34
Hav Nov 13 #56
UnderThisLaw Nov 13 #57
Snackshack Nov 13 #17
NullTuples Nov 13 #18
FBaggins Nov 13 #40
wryter2000 Nov 13 #48
FBaggins Nov 13 #51
JustADumbFireman Nov 13 #66
left-of-center2012 Nov 13 #23
left-of-center2012 Nov 13 #24
usaf-vet Nov 13 #25
ForgedCrank Nov 13 #36
billh58 Nov 13 #62
ForgedCrank Nov 13 #67
wryter2000 Nov 13 #47
left-of-center2012 Nov 13 #59
soldierant Nov 13 #63
empedocles Nov 14 #69
Upthevibe Nov 14 #76
dlk Nov 14 #78
manicdem Nov 14 #81

Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 12:55 PM

1. Want to do some about the Judge in the Rittenhouse trial, file a complaint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:58 PM

20. Can we all file for a 10k bounty?

Oh wait. It's not in Texass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Zero (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:57 PM

52. Also not a woman. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:01 PM

38. He's demonstrated pretty clearly that he certainly is a "piece o' work".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LetMyPeopleVote (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 08:40 AM

70. I have watched some of it and the judge seems out of control. Not calm and reasonable.

He was yelling at the prosecutor rather than calmly taking exception to his tactics. The judge could be right, however, he seemed argumentative and authoritarian. I do think there will be some repercussions for his lack of professionalism and seemingly displayed prejudiced against the prosecutors in some of his ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 12:58 PM

2. He's going for a mistrial so that piece of shit can WALK free and live his best, murderous life.

And as we know, that murderer can't be tried twice on the same charge (Double-Jeopardy). Hopefully, his ass can be charged via a civil case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:03 PM

5. Only a mistrial "with prejudice" would allow him to walk.

And that is extremely rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cattledog (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:16 PM

9. Exactly

A mistrial would only mean another trial, if the State decides to do so, which I’m sure they would in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 08:57 PM

61. Fingers crossed

I am hoping for a new trial with a different judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cattledog (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:31 PM

14. And if the judge declares it to be "with prejudice" as threatened...

Are there really likely to be any repercussions for said judge? By that I don't mean what could happen but rather, based on the state and history what will most likely happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NullTuples (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:57 PM

37. Ironic, when it's the judge bringing the prejudice in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cattledog (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:48 PM

30. I haven't even bothered to watch the trial, but from what I've read/heard ...

From reading bible verses aloud, to taking on the prosecution in front of the jury, to allegedly making racist hand gestures, to being a complete asshole, would you put it past this judge to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cattledog (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 12:04 PM

79. But, this would be the judge to do it.

In fact, if Rittenhouse is found guilty, I think this judge will overturn their verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:14 PM

8. Exactly!! Wouldn't mind seeing the judge being put on trial after Rittenhouse is convicted.

Though unlikely to happen, perhaps that POS can be impeached and removed by Congress?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:55 PM

19. What? He's an elected state judge. How can congress do anything?

The voters might next time he’s up for re-election in 2026.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:38 PM

28. For some reason I feel his life is going to be hell after the trial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tribetime (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:08 PM

41. I agree. His behavior has been reinforced

....and he's bound to get in an altercation with somebody who's faster on the draw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ritabert (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:26 PM

46. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:50 PM

33. Why can't the feds try him for crossing state lines to commit a felony?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marie999 (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 09:24 AM

71. Per testimony.....The "cool" firearm Kyle owned never left the state of WI

It was bought for Kyle up in Ladysmith, WI by his “friend” Dominick Black, paid for by Rittenhouse. The firearm was kept in a gun safe at Dominick Blacks father house in Kenosha. Rittenhouse chose the long gun because he knew he couldn’t legally own a handgun and the gun looked “cool”. Whether he could legally own the long gun is still subject to debate. He picked up the firearm at the Black residence that night, after driving himself from Antioch, IL (I have heard he didn’t have a drivers license but cannot verify that).

Dominick Black is facing years in prison for his admitted part in the straw man firearm purchase. Would be a travesty of justice if Rittenhouse gets off, but his “friend” Black has to serve time.

A quick google search of Bruce Schroeder yields this info:

“Schroeder attended Marquette University for college and law school, receiving a bachelor's degree in 1967 and a J.D. in 1970. In 1971, he joined the Kenosha County District Attorney's Office as an assistant district attorney. He became a district attorney in 1972. In 1983, he was appointed to the Kenosha County Circuit Court.”

This judge has been on the bench since 1983 and has shown so many reasons why he needs to retire. His cellphone going off at crucial times is just one example. Quoting Bible passages, past cases he tried but can’t remember details, laughing inappropriately, going off on the prosecutor, asking how the temperature is in the room during crucial testimony…..just a few examples.

He’s an asshole and an embarrassment to my state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marie999 (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 09:45 AM

73. I want his mother on trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oppaloopa (Reply #73)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 09:58 AM

75. For what exactly? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 11:31 PM

68. he can be tried again

if it's a mistrial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 12:59 PM

3. Not sure where you got that idea

There is no such proscription. Judges have been citing the Bible for as long as we’ve had a judiciary.

My understanding is that he was instructing the court on the concept of hearsay… which does indeed connect to rights that go back to biblical times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:13 PM

6. +1. No basis at all.

Neither championing nor defending the judge - but this particular point is a big fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:18 PM

10. OP is a bit exaggerated

Almost all trials include witnesses who swear to tell the truth “….so help me God.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:20 PM

11. OP is a lot exaggerated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:49 PM

31. We stopped the "so help me god"

decades ago in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:56 PM

35. Federal courts said it couldn't be required years ago

but it is still used in most states, unless the witness asks for an affirmation instead of an oath, meaning that you promise to tell the truth, but do not swear to any higher power.
BTW, asking for an affirmation is not an indication that the person is non-religious. Several religions, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, believe it is blasphemous to swear an oath for a secular purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:03 PM

53. Between 1994 & 2013....

...I testified in 6 federal court trials (civil). I agree with you.
I never said "...so help me god."
There was no bible to put my hand on, or held up by the bailiff.
"Do you swear to tell nothing but the truth?". That was it.
So, back at least 27 years federal trials weren't using the phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 09:47 AM

74. Or they can just say "I affrim"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:32 PM

16. They may have in the past.... BUT

Judges may have in the past, but citing it is clearly a Sunday school lesson. If I was a juror, I wouldn't be happy hearing his interpretation of hearsay from the Bible. A judge should use interpretation of law, not from the Bible. By the way, what type of Bible was it? New testament? What if there were JEWS in the jury box?

YOUR response is not a of law, but the old historical judicial system that belief. This is the United States of America and many different cultures thrive here.

If a jew was to hear his interpretation of the Bible, one should be PISSED!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:30 PM

26. In the past AND currently

YOUR response is not a of law

You have it exactly backwards. It is you that has imagined a brand new standard without citing any legal authority. When did it change? What case can you cite?

Note that you imagined some odd interpretation of the “Jurors Bill of Rights” - yet the actual BOR dates to the same time when our judiciary was created. You’ve admitted that that judges used to cite the Bible all the time and claim that something has changed… you you’ve provided zero evidence (legal or rhetorical) to support this.

It’s clear that you would like a different standard - but the rest of us have to live in reality. You might consider joining us. There is no prohibition on publicly mentioning the Bible.

If I was a juror, I wouldn't be happy

Is that a reason for anyone else to care? Have we added a “make Smackdown2019 happy” amendment that I missed?

What if there were JEWS in the jury box?

Jewish law had the same hearsay standard as the one Paul relied on in the verse mentioned. And, of course, Paul was Jewish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:02 PM

39. I cited the law

First amendment!

Freedom of religion!

When a juror is to be ordered to be a juror, if he chooses NOT to be one, he or she would be thrown in jail, fined or both!

The juror is there for the trial, not an interpretation of a judge idea of hearsay by use of a Bible.
"If he used the Quran as his interpretation, would you argued the same?"

The judge should of used a statue that defined hearsay.

This is NOT Trump Court where you push down ones beliefs onto everyone... this is USA where EVERYONE has have rights....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:20 PM

43. You really didn't

The first amendment says nowhere that judges can’t quote the Bible. If anything, it says exactly the opposite.

Again - you’ve admitted that it was originally the way I say… and that’s when the First Amendment was written. What you failed to do is cite anything other than your own opinion that 1A now means what you want it to mean.

This is NOT Trump Court where you push down ones beliefs onto everyone... this is USA where EVERYONE has have rights....

One of us clearly wants to push his own beliefs on everyone else.

Hint… you see that person in the mirror every morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 10:40 AM

77. Let's put into another example!

If you received a letter in the mail that you MUST report at a certain time and place or face jail time or fines; once you get there, it is Trump on the bench. "Never happen"

Now, Trump has a mental breakdown on the bench and started reading from a Nazi Bible Manifesto and YOU must ENDURE this reading BECAUSE you was ordered to.

That is NOT freedom of religion. You would be put into a situation to listen to someone's religious beliefs by threat of jail time.

The Judge swore to uphold the US Constitution. The First amendment to the US Constitution is freedom of religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:20 PM

44. That is a garbage excuse. Freedom of speech and religion doesn't proscribe

Anything the judge said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:38 PM

49. Admitting you are wrong, is also an option...you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 10:58 PM

64. nope. there is no infraction

of either statute, amendment or courtroom standard involved here. The standard you seem to imagine - where the law and the courtroom are completely cleansed of any hint of religious thought or influence - is simply not in evidence in either the findings or practices of our laws.

And, yes - I would be perfectly okay with the judge using either the Quran, the Buddha, Confucius, Zoroasterism, or any other source if in the context (as given here) of trying to illustrate a relevant point of law (hearsay) to the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:50 PM

32. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:18 PM

42. Jews generally dont get pissed at such semantics.

TThats why we dont see them forcing their religion on others or radicalizing others

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:54 PM

58. The Courts *Should be* The Separation point of "Church and State"

It's bizarre in my mind, why on earth students and legal professionals haven't yet made that the demarcation, instead the opposite have been, and remains institutionalized. From our inception to this day a travesty we see play out day after day.

This judge has taken it to a whole new level and I suspect it isn't the first judge nor will it be the last to carry on like this

Hell, we've been seeing it in a polite form on the USSC.

I wish I could live long enough to see the day, when separation of church and state is not only recognized as having real meaning in the first amendment, but the courts proceeded exemplifying the concept in practice not just theory.

For that matter, i would love to see judges affiliated to no religion appointed to all of the circuits.

It would do our country good, and restore balance in thought and law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msfiddlestix (Reply #58)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 06:55 PM

60. Exactly!

There have been several on here saying to show where I get this argument... They don't realized that it is in the Bill of Rights.

We should not be required to argue to protect our rights. Jurors are forced to serve. They don't have a voice. If I was there as a jurist, I would of spoke outloud.. KNOWING I would be in contempt of court and thrown in jail. But I would still voiced it, to let the PEOPLE know, it's not a Sunday school lesson. It would proved a point how far out this judge is. You all may call me a Dumbazz, but I won't give a hoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Reply #60)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 11:11 PM

65. The Bill of Rights has never been

interpreted in the way you think it should be. At - No - Time. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. And all the protestations of shoulda', coulda', woulda' - don't really change the facts on the ground. This judge did nothing (in this particular) that would even remotely prejudice - or likely even call for review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msfiddlestix (Reply #58)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 07:51 PM

80. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:03 PM

4. He wasn't proselytizing

He told a story about Roman law to get across the point that how we treat hearsay during trials has been a component in law for thousands of years.

It was a nothing burger.

The way people are reacting, you'd think he'd jumped into the jury box and asked if they know Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sympthsical (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:13 PM

7. Thanks for your clarifying reply here! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sympthsical (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:11 PM

22. We might need a couple of good lawyers to clarify that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sympthsical (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 09:26 AM

72. Yes, thanks for clarifying that, was wondering what the uproar was about

Been different if he had said an eye for an eye, or something about turning the other cheek,
then he could have gotten in trouble, but this sounds like a nothing burger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:21 PM

12. Article:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/its-actually-in-the-bible-kyle-rittenhouses-judge-explains-hearsay-rule-to-jury-by-talking-about-trials-of-st-paul-the-apostle/

It’s ‘Actually’ in ‘the Bible’: Kyle Rittenhouse’s Judge Explains Hearsay Rule to Jury by Talking About Trials of St. Paul the Apostle

AARON KELLER
Nov 3rd, 2021, 5:21 pm

[...]

Schroeder was taking the long way around to admonishing the jury that it should not rely on the brief statements it heard in the video.

Then came the Biblical monologue:

This is actually referred to in the Bible. Saint Paul, when he was put on trial . . . in . . . I think it’s Caesarea — well, it was over in Palestine — uh, in Israel — he was . . . accused of some activity. And he was a Roman citizen, which is not common, but he happened to have been a Roman citizen. So, he had rights that we share now as Americans. Uh, and — he — when they tried to put him on trial with evidence from — which was being repeated by somebody who wasn’t there and under oath — he said, “where are the witnesses against me? I am a Roman, and I have a right to confront my accusers. They should be here.” And so that led to, actually, his voyage to Rome to have his case heard before the Emperor. Um, so it’s an ancient rule; it’s strictly, strictly enforced in the criminal courts for very obvious reasons.

Um, and, um, s0 — that’s what we’re talking about here. And, um — so — if the person who is making this descriptive material is here and can be put under oath and can be cross examined, uh, then it’s admissible, but otherwise it is not admissible through the officer here.


Schroeder was referring to a detective who was on the stand who introduced the video.

[...]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:24 PM

13. Thank you



This judge is a clown.

Who elects these idiots?

Wait, never mind...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orangecrush (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:16 PM

54. You'd be very surprised at the kind of people who defend him!

I was shocked at some of the gaslighting I've seen defending this judge. It is what it is I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spudspud (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:29 PM

55. Yup.



Judge Bozo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:32 PM

15. Wow

You’ve got all of them replying to your post. I’ll assume that was deliberate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnderThisLaw (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:10 PM

21. What?

"All of them" = all of who?

What was "deliberate"?

Sorry, but your comment is a bit cryptic, and I have no idea what you mean.

For the record, I have not been been following the trial as closely as some here. (I didn't know it was being televised until it was half over, and have only seem brief clips.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:34 PM

27. Looks like you don't get more than those deliberately vague insinuations

But that poster meant that some DU posters are Kyle Rittenhouse defenders and they showed up in this thread. For some, anyone questioning a certain narrative, even clearly false ones, is a Kyle Rittenhouse defender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hav (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:46 PM

29. Exactly. I want the little prick jailed for murder, and I want him to do max time, but ...

the "I'm a more righteous lefty than you" crowd don't give a shit about facts, the law, or anything else.
They want what they want, they want it now, and everything else be damned.

Oops, I guess I just outed myself as a Rittenhouse defender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:21 PM

45. There are fewer and fewer like you as time goes by

I've had posts hidden for posting actual facts. but they were facts that arent popular!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:51 PM

50. Perhaps it's exacerbated as a function of my being an old codger ...

but even when I was young, I never found "pragmatism" to be a dirty word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hav (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:53 PM

34. That's one interpretation

however incomplete and inaccurate

It seems that for some, everyone posting here has a noble purpose. If only the Internet were so simple

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnderThisLaw (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:29 PM

56. If I'm wrong, you could correct the record

and answer the request for clarification of post 21. Instead, you basically said nothing because you prefer to be so vague again.

This seems to be a new thing that I also see on other platforms. For whatever reason, some choose to almost speak in riddles instead of just expressing clearly what they want to say. It's possible to actually have an exchange of opinions and resolve some of the conflicting positions that I think are partially based on misunderstandings. But that requires not hiding 90% of what is on your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hav (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 04:42 PM

57. I sure could correct you

It’s a question of whether I desire to and whether you could comprehend, and right now I have questions about both.

I can’t speak to the rest of your post. Your perceptions on trends in message board communications can’t be contradicted by me or anyone else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:34 PM

17. This judge is a disgrace.

He needs to be removed from this trial and from the bench. Between his phone going off with the ringtone, that was no mistake. His Veterans Day antics and his borderline testimony to jurors he has made clear his bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 01:36 PM

18. What I didn't catch til now...

...was the judge using the title "Saint" for Paul/Saul of Tarsus.
He's a conservative Catholic, and dollars to donuts, the type that wants to replace "Man's Law" with "God's Law" & buys into all the far right wing non-Canon crap the American Bishops push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NullTuples (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:07 PM

40. You're imagining a distinction that isn't there

The vast majority of Christians refer to him as “Saint Paul” - it is in no sense limited to Catholics (let alone “conservative Catholics”)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NullTuples (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:29 PM

48. There are at least two non-Catholic churches in Oakland called St. Paul's

Episcopal and Lutheran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wryter2000 (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:54 PM

51. All of the liturgical churches have saints

Orthodox/Anglican/Lutheran (and of course Catholic)

But many others still refer to Paul with that label. Heck… Google maps shows me a dozen St Paul Baptist churches within an hour or two of here… and baptists tend to object to Catholic usage of saints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 11:20 PM

66. Wow!

Finally, someone remembers that we Orthodox exist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:14 PM

24. While that may be your opinion ...

I don't believe that it is factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:23 PM

25. Letter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 02:57 PM

36. Can you show me a reference link for this?

I'd like to know more.
The Jury was released Thursday and wasn't supposed to be back until Monday, so I don't see how this could have even happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgedCrank (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 09:39 PM

62. Kyle Rittenhouse's Judge Explains Hearsay Rule to Jury by Talking About Trials of St. Paul

It’s ‘Actually’ in ‘the Bible’: Kyle Rittenhouse’s Judge Explains Hearsay Rule to Jury by Talking About Trials of St. Paul the Apostle

The judge overseeing the intentional homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse led the jury on a sojourn into Biblical history while talking about about the roots of hearsay law in the State of Wisconsin.

-Snip-

"This is actually referred to in the Bible. Saint Paul, when he was put on trial . . . in . . . I think it’s Caesarea — well, it was over in Palestine — uh, in Israel — he was . . . accused of some activity. And he was a Roman citizen, which is not common, but he happened to have been a Roman citizen. So, he had rights that we share now as Americans. Uh, and — he — when they tried to put him on trial with evidence from — which was being repeated by somebody who wasn’t there and under oath — he said, “where are the witnesses against me? I am a Roman, and I have a right to confront my accusers. They should be here.” And so that led to, actually, his voyage to Rome to have his case heard before the Emperor. Um, so it’s an ancient rule; it’s strictly, strictly enforced in the criminal courts for very obvious reasons."

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/its-actually-in-the-bible-kyle-rittenhouses-judge-explains-hearsay-rule-to-jury-by-talking-about-trials-of-st-paul-the-apostle/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #62)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 11:30 PM

67. Interesting, I somehow missed that before.

That being said, I don't see what the hubbub is really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 03:28 PM

47. He needs a mental status exam

That is just plain nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sat Nov 13, 2021, 10:20 PM

63. I can see citing a bible passage in court if it is evidence.

Like, evedence as to the state of mind of a fundamentalist nut job.

But in that case, it would not be the judge citing it - or should not be. It would be the defendant or defense attorneys, or possibly the prosecution. And it would be limited to a specific purpose.

I was the leader of of a Girl Scout Troop once - Seniors (high school age) whose members were all better versed on individual rights than one of the local judges was. That would have been in the early seventies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 06:58 AM

69. The Manafort trial judge in federal court in Virginia, seemed to lean

heavily towards the defense of the obviously guilty Manafort. Very Republican. Very political case. - trump's campaign manager, who 'somehow' came into 10's of millions of dollars in his own accounts.

Judge was Very critical, and hard on prosecutors - who had a carefully selected, black and white case.

However, the judge allowed the jury verdict to stand, and did not direct verdict. Manafort, then dropped his sham defenses on the next, similiar case against him, - and did prison time, [before being released to home detention]

There may be some hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 10:30 AM

76. As someone else stated, Piece of work....n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 11:28 AM

78. Filing bar complaints may be the most effective

This judge is definitely a crackpot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Smackdown2019 (Original post)

Sun Nov 14, 2021, 11:58 PM

81. Presidents and other government officials swear an oath on the bible

Biden swore his oath on his family bible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread