RFK Jr and his petition to Open the Files

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Isn't that judge's declaration of the defendant being guilty... the finding of that court?

 

I confess to not being an authority on Colorado law. 

I would prefer before anyone is convicted of being an insurrectionist, that they be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of peers, in an open court, when provided with adequate counsel. 

If they have a different standard in Colorado, so be it. 

[Bob Ness]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks for answering my question! (Which I now know you did before I even asked it.)

 

Gonna have to have somebody proof him hahaha!

[Bob Ness]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I confess to not being an authority on Colorado law. 

I would prefer before anyone is convicted of being an insurrectionist, that they be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of peers, in an open court, when provided with adequate counsel. 

If they have a different standard in Colorado, so be it. 

Ben. It's the standing everywhere. Juries aren't asked to make findings of fact. They're plumbers and schoolteachers and so forth. Please don't do this. Would you really have that in a case brought against you? Have me and Sandy and a bunch of other numskulls determine the facts of say the chemical compounds found in a drink you served to a person who later died? 

The role of the jury is mostly limited to reaching a verdict based on the facts presented, while the judge retains the responsibility for making legal decisions and providing findings of fact and conclusions of law. They do this in conjunction with the parties who have supplied the arguments both pro and con in hearings and submissions. Juries don't do that because that's not what they're tasked to do nor are they qualified to do that. Sometimes they determine a limited set of facts in civil cases. For instance, regarding damages. The role of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts presented to them, not determine the facts themselves.

In short:  juries do not make specific findings of facts in a case because their role is to determine the facts and reach a verdict, while judges make findings of facts to establish the truth and make legal decisions based on those facts. Juries do not directly hear arguments between the parties; instead, they listen to the presentations made by the lawyers and evaluate the evidence and facts presented to them.

A finding of fact is a determination of truth or existence made during legal proceedings, while a conviction is a formal declaration of guilt resulting from a trial or guilty plea. In the sense that Trump has been convicted? No that isn't at issue nor was it the purpose of the case. What is closer is that he isn't GUILTY in the legal sense but the judge found his alleged conduct to be true. It's distinguishable in that way. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Bob Ness
clarification

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Ben. It's the standing everywhere. Juries aren't asked to make findings of fact. They're plumbers and schoolteachers and so forth. Please don't do this. Would you really have that in a case brought against you? Have me and Sandy and a bunch of other numskulls determine the facts of say the chemical compounds found in a drink you served to a person who later died? 

The role of the jury is mostly limited to reaching a verdict based on the facts presented, while the judge retains the responsibility for making legal decisions and providing findings of fact and conclusions of law. They do this in conjunction with the parties who have supplied the arguments both pro and con in hearings and submissions. Juries don't do that because that's not what they're tasked to do nor are they qualified to do that. Sometimes they determine a limited set of facts in civil cases. For instance, regarding damages. The role of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts presented to them, not determine the facts themselves.

In short:  juries do not make specific findings of facts in a case because their role is to determine the facts and reach a verdict, while judges make findings of facts to establish the truth and make legal decisions based on those facts. Juries do not directly hear arguments between the parties; instead, they listen to the presentations made by the lawyers and evaluate the evidence and facts presented to them.

A finding of fact is a determination of truth or existence made during legal proceedings, while a conviction is a formal declaration of guilt resulting from a trial or guilty plea. In the sense that Trump has been convicted? No that isn't at issue nor was it the purpose of the case. What is closer is that he isn't GUILTY in the legal sense but the judge found his alleged conduct to be true. It's distinguishable in that way. 

BN-

 

Thanks for your reply. 

After briefly reviewing the tangled snarl that is US jurisprudence, I can't say I am comforted. 

OK, we have a state judge in Colorado, not a federal judge, hearing a case against Trump. 

"In Colorado, a judge heard arguments this month in a trial stemming from a lawsuit brought by voters in the state who argue that Mr. Trump is ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution because of his actions before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol."

Th state judge unilaterally issued a "finding of fact" that Trump had engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6. 

"Judge Sarah B. Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact "engage in insurrection" on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys' arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech"

So, despite the fact the "insurrection" is a federal charge, that has not been even brought against Trump in court, let alone Trump having being convicted of such a charge, a state judge in Colorado has issued a "finding of fact" that Trump engaged in  an insurrection. 

I can't say that is a pretty picture. A judge in Colorado issuing a finding of fact---based on what? Newspaper headlines? Blogs? Hearsay evidence? Did the judge hear exculpatory evidence presented by competent defense attorneys?

If you separate partisan sentiments from the scene...what are you left with? A judge issuing a "finding of fact," based on thin air, regarding insurrection. 

Well, I have said many times, if Trump is re-elected, I shrug my shoulders. If he goes to prison, I shrug my shoulders, if he skates, so be it. It won't be TEOTWAWKI.

Personally, I hope RFK2 is elected. If he lives. 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Benjamin Cole read Tom Nichols, once a staunch Republican who studied fascism for a living and cautioned early on those who applied the very specific definition to Trump were diluting the meaning. 

 

He recently came out with an op-ed to sound the alarm following Trump's vermin and poisoning the blood rants over the past month. Nichols now admonishes Americans to be worried, very worried, and especially warns "do NOT shrug this off" as just another election cycle. Democracy is under greatest threat since the Civil War. Perhaps you're not paying attention or following an alt-right news feed?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you separate partisan sentiments from the scene...what are you left with? A judge issuing a "finding of fact," based on thin air, regarding insurrection. 

 

I believe the judge issues a finding of fact based upon the evidence and arguments brought forth by the attorneys on both sides.

Juries aren't experts in law like judges are. They are not qualified to engage in "findings of fact."

 

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe the judge issues a finding of fact based upon the evidence and arguments brought forth by the attorneys on both sides.

Juries aren't experts in law like judges are. They are not qualified to engage in "findings of fact."

 

SL-

Thanks for your comment. 

I think my review of what a state judge did stands. 

I am uncomfortable with a legal system, even if only a local-court judge in the state of Colorado, that issues a "finding of fact" that any individual, including Trump, engaged in an insurrection, unless that individual has been found guilty in a court of law before peers, while having adequate defense counsel. 

Remember, there was a large investigation into LHO, called the WC.

But that lengthy proceeding of the WC's, packed full of legal and criminal experts,  lacked the adversarial process, that is the investigators aggressively hunting for exculpatory or contrary evidence, or presenting more-compelling but alternative narratives. 

As it stands, the polls seem to show Trump will be the GOP nominee.  I guess Biden also. This is what your two major parties think you deserve. 

I hope people are pondering alternatives for casting their vote for president. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I think my review of what a state judge did stands. 

It stands as you don't know what you're talking about. That's about it. I explained it in simple terms. You don't understand and that's ok.

[Bob Ness]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, we have a state judge in Colorado, not a federal judge, hearing a case against Trump. 

A federal court is not the appropriate venue obviously. The action is in Colorado and involves Colorado law. A state judge presiding is how that "tricky" and suspicious legal framework is supposed to go. Why would it be in federal court? Shoot Ben, I'll bet that judge even went to law school and has presided over other trials!

This is why it's so easy to con Trumpers. You really ought not believe everything you hear on Faux News. Maybe you just made it up. I don't know.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/2/2023 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

I am uncomfortable with a legal system, even if only a local-court judge in the state of Colorado, that issues a "finding of fact" that any individual, including Trump, engaged in an insurrection, unless that individual has been found guilty in a court of law before peers, while having adequate defense counsel. 

 

You do know, don't you Ben, that judges can and do rule on cases without jury involvement all the time. I think they are called bench trials.

There's nothing wrong with a bench trial as long as the defendant in a serious case agrees to it. The constitution gives a person the right to a jury trial, but the defendant can waive it.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the finding of fact in the Colorado case doesn't require a jury because Trump isn't being tried for anything.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You do know, don't you Ben, that judges can and do rule on cases without jury involvement all the time. I think they are called bench trials.

There's nothing wrong with a bench trial as long as the defendant in a serious case agrees to it. The constitution gives a person the right to a jury trial, but the defendant can waive it.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the finding of fact in the Colorado case doesn't require a jury because Trump isn't being tried for anything.

 

I have heard of non-jury trials, I guess where a defendant for some reason waves his or her right to have the case heard before a jury. 

I assume this usually happens when defendants have "copped a plea" or looked at the legal bills, and decided to go with the quickest route possible through a ponderous court system. In Illinois, maybe the defendants have an "arrangement" with the judge. 

I gather the judge in Colorado is what we in Californria call a "state district court judge." 

That is a local judge, one level below the state appeals court, which is, of course, a level below the state Supreme Court. 

And all state courts can be appealed into the federal system, meaning even a state Supreme Court can be overruled by the federal courts, or the US Supreme Court. 

BTW, a quick read is that the local judge in Colorado ruled Trump cannot be held off the ballot in Colorado for the national presidential election.

"The suit was filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of six Colorado voters in Denver District Court. They asked the court to order Secretary of State Jena Griswold to bar Trump from the Colorado presidential ballot."

I understand the local Colorado judge, named Sarah Wallace, was appointed to her position by the Democratic Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis. We live in hyper-partisan times. 

Seems like the six Colorado voters were on a Quixotic mission. 

I wonder if other pols in other states will try to prevent national political candidates from appearing on ballots, after a local judge issues a "finding of fact." 

That could get frantic and ugly. Let us hope these kinds of efforts are stillborn, on both sides of the aisle. 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I assume this usually happens when defendants have "copped a plea" or looked at the legal bills, and decided to go with the quickest route possible through a ponderous court system. In Illinois, maybe the defendants have an "arrangement" with the judge. 

Or when an Orange dumbass and their attorneys decide they prefer a bench trial such as the civil case being tried in New York.

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the finding of fact in the Colorado case doesn't require a jury because Trump isn't being tried for anything.

It wasn't a trial. The trial was for removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado State. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no one should hold office in the U.S. if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [U.S.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The finding of fact relates to whether Trump did just that and whether he should be disqualified or not. The Judge found that the Presidential office is not an office of the United States (I can't fathom that but whatever) but also found he did engage or helped those who were. It creates a problem because there is a finding that he did in fact engage in insurrection. Appellate courts aren't likely to overturn that.

[Benjamin Cole]

29 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Or when an Orange dumbass and their attorneys decide they prefer a bench trial such as the civil case being tried in New York.

I also wonder where Trump finds his lawyers. 

But, as it stands, the Trump lawyers did secure Trump's right to be on the ballot in Colorado. 

If you are a Colorado resident, you will have the exquisite pleasure of voting against Trump in November. 

Or, so has ruled 2nd district court judge Sarah Walters of Colorado. Woo-woo! Democracy on the march. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

This is 2nd district court judge Sarah Wallace of Colorado.  Thanks to her, Trump will be on the ballot in Colorado.