Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

spc wrote:Just correcting your post.

Not a correction Stephen......an incorrect interpretation. (Just because you don't see the word "felon" doesn't mean the judge was misread)

Richard S is right, you would make a good politician.

spc wrote:Richard S is right, you would make a good politician.

So I can count on you to write my name in for President this November?

Devil5052 wrote:So I can count on you to write my name in for President this November?

If it was between you & Obama, yes. At least I know we would still be able to burn coal & get a tax write off on coal appliances.

Richard S. wrote:Just read up on it, it's a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case therefore he cannot be convicted of anything. No conviction, no felony.

If you walk into your local bank today, pull out a gun & rob the place, you are, in fact, a felon. You have just committed a felony. Dictionary: "An individual who commits a crime of a serious nature, such as Burglary or murder."
Depending on where you look up the word "Felon"....... being convicted or indeed even "charged" with a crime is not required.

(Just as Bush does with his "splitting verbal hairs" over what is "torture", some of you are doing the same thing with the word "felon"..........Any open minded, non-partisan, English speaking person really knows that GW Bush & Dick Cheney are indeed....FELONS)

Devil5052 wrote:If you'll scroll back through this thread Paul, you'll find that chemung already provided a link to the actual case. (to lengthy for me to wade through but knock yourself out)

I believe he provided a link to the appeals court ruling that overruled this judge's prior ruling to allow classified evidence into the trial. Not this new ruling from the lower court judge.

pvolcko wrote:I have no law degree

Then please refrain from expounding legal interpretations & challenging federal judges on their legal rulings.
I am not a lawyer either & while I have worked very closely with the law (& Asst. U.S. Attorneys) most of my life I try to avoid debating court findings on their legal merit.

Why should I? Your source is a Videographer with a communications degree and a blog. His legal opinion "Judge rules that Bush is a felon" is worth more than my "This ruling does not mean Bush is a felon"? For that matter, what legal expertise grants you the justification to post this thread in the first place? Seriously, if you want to put in place a "talk only about what you professionally know" ethic here then half or more of our off topic fodder is going to become offlimits, including a fair bit of what you post.

pvolcko wrote:That said, I do not know if this particular case is a criminal or civil case.

Then why go into lengthy legal arguments (which you admit to not being qualified to do) & on a case you admit knowing nothing about??

The depth of my legal arguments were cursory at best. I do not believe one needs to have a formal legal education in order to know and express this cursory knowledge. I offered my opinions and what I believe are the facts about the legal system to counter the hyperbole of calling Bush a felon on the basis of this pre-trial ruling. You've called my expertise into question. As I said, take it or leave it.

And regardless of the legal arguments, I certainly don't need a legal education to read a blog entry, recognize that the blog author is calling Bush a felon on the basis of the ruling, not the judge.

Another example: Mayor Nagin in New Orleans and the police chief down there instituted a gun confiscation program in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. They took no records, they gave no claim tickets, they directed the confiscation to happen under force if the owner was non-compliant. No due process, no finding of criminal activity, no search warrants. I don't know if they even made a half assed attempt to determine the legality of the action before taking it. They acted in direct opposition to at least the 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment, and the 5th amendment. Are they felons? No, they were deeply misguided and acted outside their authority. People sued to get their firearms back. Laws were passed to reaffirm that this kind of action was explicitly illegal and extra-constitutional. But, they aren't felons or criminals at the end of the day. I may believe the acts were criminal in nature, but I can't go around calling Nagin a felon or say that a judge ruled that he was a felon.

Well, I suppose I could, but I wouldn't be justified or correct to do so.