Typical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What don't you understand about Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ummm, dumbshit, you realize that the original
> press
> > release came directly from ICE right? I know
> that
> > probably was confusing for you since I posted
> the
> > link to the source as it appears on its> site:
> >
>
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110317lakeco
> unty.htm
>
> Not confusing at all. The DOJ press release is an
> everyday, plain-speak, one-from-many report.
>
> > So let me see if I have your reasoning on this
> > right... If ICE makes an arrest and issues a
> press
> > release and then Drudge or any of the other
> > "right-wing echo chamber" outlets happen to
> pick
> > up on the story and republish it, then that
> > somehow magically turns the original story into
> > "right-wing propaganda?" Is that right? lmao
>
>
> Yes, that's correct. Sensationalized plastering
> of the walls with many-from-one copies is a
> thoroughly dishonest technique for making a
> trivial matter seem like something
> earth-shattering -- i.e., something much more than
> what it actually is. People of any intelligence
> at all are apt to see right through these
> simplistic sorts of goober fuzz-bombs, but
> obviously there are those who are simply too dumb
> to manage that much. As routinely as you seem to
> have been snookered by it, you might seriously
> want to read up on just how propaganda is carried
> out, the better perhaps to be able to to protect
> yourself from it in the future.
Is there some magic number for how many times or sites something must be copied to when that changes? If both "right-wing" and "left-wing" sites pick something up do they cancel one another on a one-for-one basis or is there a more complex weighting involved? If Fox carries a speech by Obama or Drudge links to a NYT story does that then make it "right-wing propaganda?" When hundreds of left-wing "echo chamber" sites pick up something from Huffington or Media Matters, does that similarly make it "left-wing propaganda" or is it simply the "truth." lol
Yours is a unique high-octane ideology-fueled form of stupidity...
The report came from ICE. Because other sites picked it up, including the Chicago and other newspapers not just "right-wing propaganda sites," doesn't change the facts of the case. She was arrested. She admitted to voting. There is independent evidence of her voting. Copying those facts does not change them.
>
> > Uh, no. ACORN itself and its employees in
> their
> > roles as managers at the organization were
> charged
> > and found guilty of illegally paying for voter
> > registrations. It was not a case of employees
> > "stealing from them." Your analogy is off
> point.
>
> First of all, this was not a case of either voter
> fraud or voter registration fraud, so it was out
> of the original loop from the get go. But it was
> the only thing that google could provide you with,
> and beggars can't be choosy, can they. Second of
> all and as has already been pointed out, agreeing
> to reduced charges and entering an Alford plea are
> not examples of being "convicted" or of having
> been "found guilty" of anything. Your ignorance
> of both the process and terminology of the law is
> very close to complete.
NRS 293.805 was passed specifically as an anti-voter registration fraud measure. Partially as a direct result of prior activities of ACORN. There are no specific "voter registration fraud" statues (at least in most states). There are a variety of defined unlawful acts associated with voter registration practices and fraud, compensation among them, which are prohibited on that basis and, therefore, applicable.
An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea. She was convicted and sentenced. Her conviction was upheld. As were Edwards and ACORN based on their guilty pleas. Because someone pleads guilty or bargains down charges, they don't somehow escape conviction by any legal definition or practical result.
>
> > None of your tangential and oh so tedious
> attempt
> > at amateur legal analysis changes the fact that
> > all were charged, found guilty, and sentenced
> for
> > their crimes (aka convicted). The NV State
> > Prosecutor's, judge's, and the State Supreme
> > Court's understanding of the law, the actions
> of
> > ACORN and the associated charges, and findings
> >>
> > your bullshit.
>
> So basically, the problem here is that everything
> I said simply went right over your head. LOL!
>
> > The State Supreme Court's decision was specific
> to
> > Busefink's appeal. Without a conviction, there
> > could be no appeal of a
conviction and
> > there could be no decision by the court
> affirming
> > the
conviction, specifically writing, if
> it
> > hasn't cut through your fog to this point,
> > "Accordingly, we affirm judgement of
> >
conviction."
>
> The key word there is "judgement". But that too
> flies right past you. An Alford plea often
> results in a judge entering "conviction" as the
> disposition of a case. But that is the unilateral
> administrative act of a judge, not the rendering
> of a verdict by a jury after hearing evidence and
> engaging in due deliberation. I'm sure you are
> dumb enough to see no difference, however.
So now you're questioning whether a judge has the legal authority to decide a case independent of a jury verdict? You really need to go back to Google law school.
No, the judge does not enter anything as a "conviction." An Alford plea is a form of a guilty plea. She was adjudged
guilty and sentenced (aka convicted). Once again, had she not been found guilty, there would be no need for an appeal of her
conviction and no decision upholding her
conviction.
>
> > Contrary to your claim otherwise, the decision
> > absolutely does address the specific actions of
> > Busefink/ACORN's relevant to the law and goes
> into
> > great detail in demonstrating the legal basis
> and
> > quality of the State's legitimate interest in
> > restricting payment associated with canvassing.
>
> > Try reading it, e.g., the discussion on and
> around
> > page 12 relevant to the second question before
> the
> > court and matters of vagueness, etc., as you
> > attempted above. They make their findings very
> > clear shooting down Busefink (and you) on all
> such
> > contentions.
>
> Let me offer a much-needed upgrade to your
> intelligence here. Appellate courts do not try
> matters of fact. Neither do they rule on matters
> not brought before them. The ONLY two matters
> considered by the Nevada Supreme Court in this
> case were 1) whether the statute was violative of
> First Amendment free speech protections (as
> various similar statutes had been found by other
> courts to be), and 2) whether the statute as
> written was sufficiently vague as to render it
> unenforceable.
>
> Free speech of course is a fundamental right.
> Ordinarily, restrictions of it are evaluated under
> strict scrutiny, meaning that the state would need
> to show a compelling interest in the regulation
> and that its regulation had been narrowly tailored
> to the protection of that interest. The Court in
> this case surprisingly declined to go that route,
> according the case a rational basis review
> instead. Unless a law has absolutely no sense to
> it at all, it is likely to survive rational basis
> review.
>
> The court then failed to note the lack of
> statutory clarification of the intended meanings
> of the terms included in this section of the
> statute. It assumed instead that a person of
> ordinary intelligence would fully understand what
> was and was not permitted under the statute simply
> from reading the words as enacted, even though
> their learned selves were having to slog along
> through one page after another in attempting to
> come to anything close to such an understanding.
>
> The Court did at least have the grace to admit
> that they were going to great lengths here to find
> a means by which to save the statute. Kind of
> explains some of the strained reasoning.
>
> So in the end, it is all about the law here.
> There is nothing about ACORN or anyone who ever
> worked at ACORN. That -- as you so completely
> fail to understand -- is not the domain or
> province of the Court.
If you hadn't noticed to this point, you're having to try waaaay too hard.
The appellate courts absolutely do deal with matters of fact as they relate to the proper application of the law by the lower court. As the decision considers the specific activities of ACORN with respect to, for example, fraudulent registrations submitted by ACORN justifying the State's interest, as well as the matter of vagueness as far as what is deemed "registration" as argued by Busefink. As well as numerous other specific facts of the case as they apply. Because Busefink's appeal was based on First Amendment and Constitutional grounds and the court's decision ultimately rolls up to that level in addressing her appeal, doesn't mean that it did not consider factual aspects of the case or that the facts of the specific case were irrelevant in reaching it's decision.
Your original tangential BS attempt above was to try to portray the case as some completely separate assessment of the standing and quality of the State's law independent of anything to do with the actions of Busefink/ACORN. That's not the case. The case was, very specifically, an appeal of Busefink's conviction. Her conviction was upheld. The separate convictions of Edwards and ACORN itself also stand without appeal.
>
> > The rest of your ideological idiocy isn't worth
> > responding to.
>
> Meaning simply that you lack a means or basis for
> any response. You are sadly both ignorant and
> uninformed. Those two things are going to slow a
> lot of people down.
Meaning that it was just more of your rambling partisan bullshit that's not worth responding to.