//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Attorney, Washingtonian, etc. Pls don’t tell my firm I’m posting. I’m not your lawyer and none of what I post is legal advice.
Lawyer dude









Loading...
Bear in mind though that you can have lawful overt acts that further the unlawful end of a conspiracy, which is probative of the conspiracy itself. So we don’t yet know what the government will characterize as independently unlawful conduct
4d
Lawyer dude
Overall I very much doubt the government will be able to secure convictions on all counts for all conspirators. I also expect there will be discovery on vindictive prosecution, which could, if granted, lead to voluntary dismissal by the government. /fin
Convict on 111(a) “assault” (name of statute is assault but it includes “force” that does not injure the officer) -no way kicking a car caused sufficient damage for there to be felony destruction of property -the vast majority of the acts alleged in furtherance of the “conspiracy” are lawful 2/
too many folks in politics are mentally ill
Yeah I think “harassing” an officer during the performance of their official duties is constitutionally protecting speech. Scary if not, because attempt is always a lesser included offense. So, if I yell at an officer during a protest, have I attempted to interfere? Tough to differentiate!
I think it’s maybe slightly slower by a day, but still notable that it’s slower than normal
-a minority of the overt acts alleged are unlawful, including blocking a federal from enforcing federal law through the use of homemade shields -so much of the overt acts alleged are so clearly constitutionally protected that any conviction would broaden a TON commonly understood culpability here
5d
5d
Skimming this as I walk the pup. Some very tentative, very initial thoughts: -Interstate threats generally requires the threat to cross state lines. Allegations to that effect are weak. -A number of DDC judges held that the government must show intent to interfere with a specific officer to 1/
They’re actually cootie machines. If you get too close to one, your friends from kindergarten teleport over to make fun of you
2d
5d
8d
5d