Whaddya mean “extra steps”?
4 Likes
Not a lawyer, still less an American lawyer, but I gather from US lawyers on Twitter that this restriction is unconstitutionally broad. It needs to be something like “you can’t attend these specific protests on these specific days at these specific places, because we have good grounds to think you’ll do something illegal there.” It can’t just be a blanket ban on a constitutionally protected activity. Imagine if instead it said “you can’t talk to the press” or “you can’t blog” or “you can’t write to your Congress(wo)man”. Same level of egregiousness.
ETA. Michael Cohen, who, remember, is a convicted felon, not an innocent-until-proven-guilty party awaiting trial, had his medical furlough from prison revoked because he wouldn’t agree to refrain from “engagement of any kind with the media, including print, tv, film, books, or any other form of media/news": a judge subsequently ruled that condition unconstitutional and released him.
24 Likes
Stone’s restrictions didn’t happen when he was released, but later when he used social media to threaten the judge.
21 Likes
So, they can get out of jail so long as they surrender their constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and petition for redress of grievances? Seriously? This seems wrong. IANAL, but it seems to be wrong.
On rereading this, “any assemblies or public gathetings.” This does not bar them from protests, it bars them from public life. ACLU, I have a job for you!
21 Likes
Iirc 1/3 of federal judges are trump appointments now.
I’ve been listening to the Opening Arguments podcast, and it aplears that, aside from SCOTUS trump has very successfully perverted the entire federal court system with yes men picked by the heritage foundation.
It’s actually even worse as there’s quite a few of these judges, where being appointed by trump is their very first job straight out of law school.
19 Likes
I guess I’ll have to re-read the US Constitution; I guess I missed the parts about “don’t leave the jurisdiction, don’t talk to this list of people, don’t go near the witnesses, go to AA meetings, and so on”.
7 Likes
When a previous case applies, it is not “whataboutism”
Don’t conflate asking questions about how a previous case applies with a “whataboutism” or you’re basically saying “if you don’t know the answer, don’t ask a question, and don’t try to learn anything”
Other than that your response was good—you pointed out that Stone’s restrictions were about his behavior after release, and warrented by that behavior. I hadn’t followed the minutae of his behavior (there was so much) and I only remembered some of his release clauses, which seemed relevant to the discussion, but, as you pointed out, aren’t really.
Ordering people to go to AA is an establishment clause violation.
Of course most judges are christian, or at the very least theists, so they don’t see much wrong with forcing people to go to religious gatherings.
And yes AA IS DEFINITELY RELIGIOUS. THEY HAVE PRAYERS. They have love bombing. They tell you to buy and read the “Big Book” which constantly references “the good book” and tells you all about god’s plans for you.
23 Likes
You’re correct, but I had been led to believe that some states have secular alternatives for AA and NA.
15 Likes
Invoking law & order can be put to use by the good guys, as well:
19 Likes
Yeah, I tried that here in Seattle of all places. There are advertized “secular 12 steps”. I attended 4. All of them involved communal prayer, and had cult like enrollment behavior.
These were explicitly self labeled as “secular” too. One of them I even came early, asked to figure out who was running the meeting. He confirmed “oh yes we’re secular”. 10 minutes later: “hey everyone, let’s join hands and say the prayer of serenity. ‘Lord, grant me the…’”
I’ve given up on it.
Maybe secular 12 steps exist, but I doubt it. The whole 12 step operating system is built out of cult methodology in the first place.
23 Likes
This is terrible and should not be tolerated, but I (as a lawyer, but not this kind of lawyer, and not YOUR lawyer) am less certain this is slam-duck unconstitutional. Current law allows all kinds of conditional on pre-trial release.
2 Likes
I only know anything about NA/AA because it was court ordered for someone close to me; I havent done the research to know if a truly secular program exists or not.
5 Likes
In that case — and guessing that some defendants are given a choice between (for example) 30 days in the county jail or twice a week for 6 months at AA meetings — I wonder how many have opted for jail. Perhaps close to zero? Even a ‘dull’ judge would know that forced AA must be like inviting someone to a pool party, and not caring why they refuse to get wet.
2 Likes
Honestly I think I’d rather spend time in jail than be preached at.
I had that all my childhood growing up and it’s rather triggering to me.
8 Likes
Yet how many – if any – lawyers and scholars have gone to the mat to robustly fight “current law”? Ever? Just curious.
1 Like
I hear you on that.
Some may accept AA, religious org, etc if it meant NOT losing their job because of jail. That’s what these punish-with-religion judges hold over these peoples’ heads.
6 Likes
A lot of people fight these conditions and lose, but some win. Many excellent lawyers do so pro bono. So I guess a lot? I mean I guess it depends on what you mean by “gone to the mat” and scholars mostly write articles…
Nice, illegal sentences for illegal arrests. The judges who signed these ridiculous orders need to be removed from the bench.
4 Likes
I’d show up and explain to everyone attending why they are wasting their time, and how AA has a worse record than just going cold turkey. With charts & graphs and copious citations, of course.
4 Likes
