"When you deprive someone of Life, Liberty and the POH, there had better be OVERWHELMING unreputable evidence. No unreasonable doubt. I would rather see 1000 guilty people go free then 1 innocent be deprived of the what the constitution states are inalienable rights."
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", as well as "inalienable rights" aren't mentioned in The Constitution at all.
They're from the preamble of the F-YOU! letter to King George, commonly known as the Declaration of Independence, and have no more standing in law or government than that poem on the Statue of Liberty that goes on about "huddled masses".
"challenging his conviction based on the prosecution's reliance on FBI experts' overstatements. Thanks to the DOJ's admission this expert testimony was likely flawed, Ausby can actually pursue this so long after the fact."
The hair used as evidence against him is likely long gone.
It very well COULD have been a DNA match to him.
His appeal was based on the DOJ admitting that past OTHER cases using the FBI "hair match" were likely flawed.
Since the DOJ did admit so, EVERY case that relied on a "hair match" is going to be appealed.
And if, as likely in this case, the evidence was destroyed, the courts will have little choice but to release those convicted solely on such evidence.
This seems like a recurring theme with the FBI and DNA. They get caught every other decade or so outright faking DNA evidence, and rarely is anything done other than that some PR Officer "apologizes".
Doesn't matter if it's a one-page Affidavit or a 30,000 page trial transcription.
Looking at that $145m number, and the $7m (IIRC) actual yearly budget/cost of the system, they could charge a dollar per document and still turn more of a profit than they're supposed to be getting.
Perhaps the Sheriff's office got involved with it on something other than if it was "obscene".
The "artist" is an incompetent agitator. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the sheriff was contacted on a criminal matter regarding something he said or claimed.
In this particular case, I can see them going to a prosecutor to determine their standing - he pulled roughly the same stunt in 2015.
Also, this happened over a year ago in 2017. I suspect there's been quite a bit of accusation, whining, and the like in the meanwhile.
No idea why they'd go through a Sheriff's office though. Not relying on their own legal staff, yes - they're apparently looking for an outside opinion.
As to the guy being a hack trying to get a hook into a college so he can sue them, I'd love to see this particular work turn around and bite him in the ass - it's a collage of other people's work, seeing him hit with a few hundred copyright violation claims would be entertaining.
So if the story was about a white US citizen creating an "artwork" of hundreds of blacks wearing turbans assaulting pre-pubescent white girls with a background of obama, hillary, et al back to JFK laughing and having sex in the background, that's raise EXACTLY the same responses?
The First argument is something he always mis-defines in his claims before showing his self-described "Political Art" (it's the only "art" he "performs"), then tries to get people to complain about it.
He's fishing for lawsuit settlements. Hasn't been working out for him, as I mentioned he's done this before.
And as I mentioned, his "art" is crudely cobbling together items he thinks will cause dissension.
The "case law" resides in the background of this "artist".
Claims he's "in exile!" from his native Turkey.
It's self imposed. He was sentenced to a year in prison with a five year stay/probationary period or to serve a term in the Turkish Armed Forces in 2001 or 2002. For similar stunts.
Fleeing to the US, he continued on claiming to be a Professor in Exile. Well, almost. He's a part-time adjunct associate professor. Which is pretty much a fancy way of saying he's an official TA.
He tried this same stunt in 2015, with a seven foot tall papier-mache "sculpture" of a Klansman made from old newsprint articles about racism.
If you look at his artwork, it ascends to the lofty heights of a Brownie troop gluing macaroni to paper to make pictures. It's either sloppy papier-mache that needs explanation to explain what it "is", or, like the one the article is about, a collage of other people's work cut out and glued to a posterboard.
He "explained" the First Amendment before he put his Klansman "sculpture" on display.
The only rational conclusion about this guy is he's deliberately trying to get "banned" so he can collect on lawsuits while being contentious enough that he can keep a day job.
... if it's like most "exhibitions", all works are vetted. No first amendment applies to such - if the board accepting contributions turns one down, they don't usually see any need to explain why.
That they went to the police and DA makes me think there was a private "shoving match" that isn't in the articles about it, and they were simply looking for legal support if it came to that.
And, please, turn these things around before condemning or exalting them - if was obama rather than trump depicted, would you feel the same?
First off, where's the non-cop witness that saw her hands cuffed behind her back?
I'm old and can still "sit through" a set of cuffs to get them in front of me. If both officers were tied up tasing the driver on the other side of the car, she could have done so.
Cops cuff dead bodies. Yup. Kind of silly with a head wound through the mouth, it's pretty obvious they're not going to sit back up and start shooting, but cuffing them anyway isn't uncommon.
I usually dismiss the ones that are really out there, but, as you noted, even some of those have proven out.
But the run of the mill "who knew what when" and especially serious money movement claims tend to prove out over time as well.
As to the "for whose safety?", I've yet to see a government claim or project that benefited the populace more than it did the government itself - including product recalls.
On the post: Sites Warn EU Users Of Just How Bad Article 13 Will Be
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only when it's honest
" Who other than corporate spokedrones could really be so in favor of upload filters?"
Oh. LOADS of people. The overly religious, the overly prudish, the "I'm right and you're an idiot" groups, etc.
That such would "filter" things other than what they're up in arms about doesn't matter to them.
"Terrorists!" "The CHILDREN!" "Criminals!"
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns 47-Year-Old Murder Conviction Predicated On Faulty FBI Hair Analysis Evidence
Re:
"When you deprive someone of Life, Liberty and the POH, there had better be OVERWHELMING unreputable evidence. No unreasonable doubt. I would rather see 1000 guilty people go free then 1 innocent be deprived of the what the constitution states are inalienable rights."
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", as well as "inalienable rights" aren't mentioned in The Constitution at all.
They're from the preamble of the F-YOU! letter to King George, commonly known as the Declaration of Independence, and have no more standing in law or government than that poem on the Statue of Liberty that goes on about "huddled masses".
On the post: MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Separate is not equal. Especially for a Public Forum.
Yes, you do stand out. It's easy to find your "contributions", they're all under the username:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
On the post: Facebook Screws Up Again
Alternatively Titled...
...Another Day Ending in "Y"...
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns 47-Year-Old Murder Conviction Predicated On Faulty FBI Hair Analysis Evidence
Re: Re:
"challenging his conviction based on the prosecution's reliance on FBI experts' overstatements. Thanks to the DOJ's admission this expert testimony was likely flawed, Ausby can actually pursue this so long after the fact."
The hair used as evidence against him is likely long gone.
It very well COULD have been a DNA match to him.
His appeal was based on the DOJ admitting that past OTHER cases using the FBI "hair match" were likely flawed.
Since the DOJ did admit so, EVERY case that relied on a "hair match" is going to be appealed.
And if, as likely in this case, the evidence was destroyed, the courts will have little choice but to release those convicted solely on such evidence.
This seems like a recurring theme with the FBI and DNA. They get caught every other decade or so outright faking DNA evidence, and rarely is anything done other than that some PR Officer "apologizes".
On the post: PACER, Or Your First Amendment Right To Go Fuck Yourself For $0.10/Page
Wouldn't a ...
...per document fee make more sense?
Doesn't matter if it's a one-page Affidavit or a 30,000 page trial transcription.
Looking at that $145m number, and the $7m (IIRC) actual yearly budget/cost of the system, they could charge a dollar per document and still turn more of a profit than they're supposed to be getting.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
My bad then. I was thinking of photographs of the Eiffel Tower, and Getty Images going full frontal on unattributed use.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Doesn't Fair Use require attribution? He doesn't give any, and uses photographs copyrighted by others by the score.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
This is over a year old.
Perhaps the Sheriff's office got involved with it on something other than if it was "obscene".
The "artist" is an incompetent agitator. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the sheriff was contacted on a criminal matter regarding something he said or claimed.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
In this particular case, I can see them going to a prosecutor to determine their standing - he pulled roughly the same stunt in 2015.
Also, this happened over a year ago in 2017. I suspect there's been quite a bit of accusation, whining, and the like in the meanwhile.
No idea why they'd go through a Sheriff's office though. Not relying on their own legal staff, yes - they're apparently looking for an outside opinion.
As to the guy being a hack trying to get a hook into a college so he can sue them, I'd love to see this particular work turn around and bite him in the ass - it's a collage of other people's work, seeing him hit with a few hundred copyright violation claims would be entertaining.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Hmm...
So if the story was about a white US citizen creating an "artwork" of hundreds of blacks wearing turbans assaulting pre-pubescent white girls with a background of obama, hillary, et al back to JFK laughing and having sex in the background, that's raise EXACTLY the same responses?
C'mon.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re: Re: Re:
The First argument is something he always mis-defines in his claims before showing his self-described "Political Art" (it's the only "art" he "performs"), then tries to get people to complain about it.
He's fishing for lawsuit settlements. Hasn't been working out for him, as I mentioned he's done this before.
And as I mentioned, his "art" is crudely cobbling together items he thinks will cause dissension.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Re:
The "case law" resides in the background of this "artist".
Claims he's "in exile!" from his native Turkey.
It's self imposed. He was sentenced to a year in prison with a five year stay/probationary period or to serve a term in the Turkish Armed Forces in 2001 or 2002. For similar stunts.
Fleeing to the US, he continued on claiming to be a Professor in Exile. Well, almost. He's a part-time adjunct associate professor. Which is pretty much a fancy way of saying he's an official TA.
He tried this same stunt in 2015, with a seven foot tall papier-mache "sculpture" of a Klansman made from old newsprint articles about racism.
If you look at his artwork, it ascends to the lofty heights of a Brownie troop gluing macaroni to paper to make pictures. It's either sloppy papier-mache that needs explanation to explain what it "is", or, like the one the article is about, a collage of other people's work cut out and glued to a posterboard.
He "explained" the First Amendment before he put his Klansman "sculpture" on display.
The only rational conclusion about this guy is he's deliberately trying to get "banned" so he can collect on lawsuits while being contentious enough that he can keep a day job.
On the post: Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene
Hmm...
... if it's like most "exhibitions", all works are vetted. No first amendment applies to such - if the board accepting contributions turns one down, they don't usually see any need to explain why.
That they went to the police and DA makes me think there was a private "shoving match" that isn't in the articles about it, and they were simply looking for legal support if it came to that.
And, please, turn these things around before condemning or exalting them - if was obama rather than trump depicted, would you feel the same?
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re:
Didn't the NAAWP do that a few times a decade or so back?
On the post: Officer's Body Cam Fails To Capture Footage Of Woman Shooting Herself In The Head While Her Hands Were Cuffed Behind Her
Re: Not so unbelievable.
First off, where's the non-cop witness that saw her hands cuffed behind her back?
I'm old and can still "sit through" a set of cuffs to get them in front of me. If both officers were tied up tasing the driver on the other side of the car, she could have done so.
Cops cuff dead bodies. Yup. Kind of silly with a head wound through the mouth, it's pretty obvious they're not going to sit back up and start shooting, but cuffing them anyway isn't uncommon.
On the post: US Huawei Blackballing Efforts Stall Due To Lack Of 'Actual Facts'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just on general principles...
Are you posting from the future?
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Neither...
...digital nor analog cows have first amendment rights.
As to his hypocrisy, you'll find that it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
/s for the humor impaired
On the post: US Huawei Blackballing Efforts Stall Due To Lack Of 'Actual Facts'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just on general principles...
I usually dismiss the ones that are really out there, but, as you noted, even some of those have proven out.
But the run of the mill "who knew what when" and especially serious money movement claims tend to prove out over time as well.
As to the "for whose safety?", I've yet to see a government claim or project that benefited the populace more than it did the government itself - including product recalls.
On the post: US Huawei Blackballing Efforts Stall Due To Lack Of 'Actual Facts'
Re: Re: Just on general principles...
Robert Asprin beat you to that conclusion by a couple of decades. His Cold Cash War is dated now, but still worth a read if you can find a copy.
Next >>