I just finished reading this article and I wanted you to see it. DT has interfered time and time again with a ceasefire agreement. I alerted Biden on X before the election about what was happening, I’m no longer on X. Biden needs to do something before he leaves office.
I'm guessing charging somone with terror charges and not murder charges (in Luigi's case) and makeing death threats (in Briana's case) is done for purposes such as, in Luigi's case. To ask for longer sentence and/or the death penalty. And in Briana's case, for the prosecutor to ask for denied bail, longer sentence etc?
Death/killing seem to be fluid concepts. What we choose to focus on determines their importance. Currently, thousands have died in Gaza. Gun violence is the number one killer of children. Many die due to denial of healthcare by for-profit insurance companies. Do we truly care about all of these or just when someone who the system is designed to protect is murdered?
I posted Brianna Boston's GoFundMe link before but that lady Iryna(?) took it down and claimed the charges were dropped. After reading this I looked again and unfortunately no they are not. Her husband opened a new GoFundMe and here's the link.
Thanks for the link. I'd hope that if myself or anyone I care about was ever targeted by the government in this way, others would step up to help with defense costs. Any one of us could be the next Brianna.
Both judges should recuse. But, if they don’t, I have no confidence SCOTUS will support a recusal requirement when the appeal process reaches them. Their willingness to invent new law supporting corporate America and the “conservative movement” out of thin air is frightening. How long People are willing to tolerate that behavior is a very big unknown.
One would presume that terrorism-related charges would correspond to the alleged victim being the member of a class protected by anti-terrorism laws, such as Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Muslims - but not CEOs of insurance companies. That's just absurd. Since when was there a prior case of an individual or group attacking a health insurance company or its employees? This charge could set a dangerous precedent.
Neither the “founding fathers” nor the documents they created were meant to create democracy or to protect the people. It was, as was the Magna Carta, meant to transfer power and wealth to a class of elites from the king. All laws are created by those who rule to benefit those who rule in some way.
Recent history suggests this is an idealistic version of our Constitution but currently not no at all what the citizens of this country witness- not even close. Furthermore, when impropriety is overtly demonstrated by the highest court in our country, how can anyone successfully argue for- or against - the constitutional right of equal justice?
The Boston prosecution is 100% misguided. Making a statement of opinion is protected speech absent evidence of any tangible threat. This case should be dismissed, and if it isn’t then your suspicion that the judge isn’t impartial will be in play.
While I applaud your diligence in reporting—and I agree both judges are ethically compromised—at the magistrate stage, the judge has very limited authority. In federal court, they advise defendants of their rights, appoint an attorney if necessary, and (in some circuits) handle discovery disputes and some pre-trial motions. Magistrate judges do not retain any authority after the case is indicted (presented to a grand jury). When the district judge (trial) is appointed, s/he makes all binding decisions thereafter, even if a magistrate initially holds a hearing about a dispute. The magistrate makes written recommendations/findings that the district court can adopt, modify, or reject. The point being, despite the apparent conflict, these judges’ actual impact on the case is minimal.
Fair assessment, Ellen. My point is that ethical code of conduct specifically says it is broad to avoid even any *appearance* of conflict. Given what we know about the kids for cash judge, the corruption on the supreme court with secret gifts and bribes, the massive influence health insurance corps apparently have to bring about terrorism charges, why risk even a magistrate judge with that background? Ethics goes beyond the law for a reason, especially when its a nuanced situation like this, and especially when it seems easy to dismiss something as not that big of a deal. It's to protect due process at all costs, and why I think it's that much more important its protected here.
Yes, but if trial counsel doesn't move for the court to recuse until after the trial, it looks insincere, to say the least. This is why so many of us squirmed uncomfortably at Aileen Cannon and Jack Smith's failure to move for her recusal in the documents case. We were wondering why he didn't move for her recusal once it became obvious that she was biased in Trump's favor.
No guarantee of that. Possibility but no sure fire promise of anything. Some are arguing that because Magione's judge is simply a magistrate judge, the conflict isn't strong enough. Others could argue that because the financial conflicts aren't fresh they don't hold water. This is why ethics goes beyond the law and why its critical we uphold them relentlessly.
The case has not yet been presented to a grand jury, or else it has but no indictment has been handed down yet. The indictment will contain the actual charges, including any related to terrorism.
Great work QR. These 2 judges could be fair, but the rules are there for a reason and should be followed. It appears the insurance industry is very shook. I don’t believe an individual American citizen feeling threatened would be catered to as it appears the monied insurance companies are. Another example of separate legal systems for rich corporations/individuals? It is beginning to look that way.
That's exactly it. I'm sure both are fine judges and I re-emphasize this is not a personal attack on them. It's a reflection of the consistent standard of due process we need to apply in every situation.
Conflicts of interest on the part of judges selected to try cases that arise from class warfare are not an aberration. They are an essential feature of the system. It is too critical for our government and corporate ”leaders” to quash any potential uprising of the peasants by not allowing these cases to be tried by judges who are not reminded of where their loyalties need to lie.
so you are saying essentially while there exists a process to file a complaint to formally call out these 2 judges' conflicts of interest, it's pointless. Is there a judicial watchdog group that might do so, I wonder?
I used to be a court clerk, and I can tell you that judges are among the worst egotists/narcissists out there. Few would recuse from a nationally-followed court case without a fight. They love being in the limelight.
I think its just a reflection of what's considered the norm nowadays. Look at how much Clarence Thomas has gotten away with. As a society we need to keep the pressure on to demand ethical accountability.
Omg, ceasefire must be done
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/gaza-death-trap-msf-report-exposes-israels-campaign-total-destruction
I just finished reading this article and I wanted you to see it. DT has interfered time and time again with a ceasefire agreement. I alerted Biden on X before the election about what was happening, I’m no longer on X. Biden needs to do something before he leaves office.
I'm guessing charging somone with terror charges and not murder charges (in Luigi's case) and makeing death threats (in Briana's case) is done for purposes such as, in Luigi's case. To ask for longer sentence and/or the death penalty. And in Briana's case, for the prosecutor to ask for denied bail, longer sentence etc?
certainly seems rigged from SCOTUS on down…
Death/killing seem to be fluid concepts. What we choose to focus on determines their importance. Currently, thousands have died in Gaza. Gun violence is the number one killer of children. Many die due to denial of healthcare by for-profit insurance companies. Do we truly care about all of these or just when someone who the system is designed to protect is murdered?
I posted Brianna Boston's GoFundMe link before but that lady Iryna(?) took it down and claimed the charges were dropped. After reading this I looked again and unfortunately no they are not. Her husband opened a new GoFundMe and here's the link.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-briana-bostons-legal-defense
I have had to deal with denials from insurance and frustration causing an angry response is totally understandable.
Thanks for the link. I'd hope that if myself or anyone I care about was ever targeted by the government in this way, others would step up to help with defense costs. Any one of us could be the next Brianna.
Especially after Jan. 20th.
Both judges should recuse. But, if they don’t, I have no confidence SCOTUS will support a recusal requirement when the appeal process reaches them. Their willingness to invent new law supporting corporate America and the “conservative movement” out of thin air is frightening. How long People are willing to tolerate that behavior is a very big unknown.
One would presume that terrorism-related charges would correspond to the alleged victim being the member of a class protected by anti-terrorism laws, such as Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Muslims - but not CEOs of insurance companies. That's just absurd. Since when was there a prior case of an individual or group attacking a health insurance company or its employees? This charge could set a dangerous precedent.
Yep exactly right. Hence the point I make in the screenshot at the top of my article. This is dangerous territory for everyone.
Neither the “founding fathers” nor the documents they created were meant to create democracy or to protect the people. It was, as was the Magna Carta, meant to transfer power and wealth to a class of elites from the king. All laws are created by those who rule to benefit those who rule in some way.
Good information.
Equal justice under the law…?
Recent history suggests this is an idealistic version of our Constitution but currently not no at all what the citizens of this country witness- not even close. Furthermore, when impropriety is overtly demonstrated by the highest court in our country, how can anyone successfully argue for- or against - the constitutional right of equal justice?
The Boston prosecution is 100% misguided. Making a statement of opinion is protected speech absent evidence of any tangible threat. This case should be dismissed, and if it isn’t then your suspicion that the judge isn’t impartial will be in play.
Agree on all counts Lewis.
While I applaud your diligence in reporting—and I agree both judges are ethically compromised—at the magistrate stage, the judge has very limited authority. In federal court, they advise defendants of their rights, appoint an attorney if necessary, and (in some circuits) handle discovery disputes and some pre-trial motions. Magistrate judges do not retain any authority after the case is indicted (presented to a grand jury). When the district judge (trial) is appointed, s/he makes all binding decisions thereafter, even if a magistrate initially holds a hearing about a dispute. The magistrate makes written recommendations/findings that the district court can adopt, modify, or reject. The point being, despite the apparent conflict, these judges’ actual impact on the case is minimal.
Fair assessment, Ellen. My point is that ethical code of conduct specifically says it is broad to avoid even any *appearance* of conflict. Given what we know about the kids for cash judge, the corruption on the supreme court with secret gifts and bribes, the massive influence health insurance corps apparently have to bring about terrorism charges, why risk even a magistrate judge with that background? Ethics goes beyond the law for a reason, especially when its a nuanced situation like this, and especially when it seems easy to dismiss something as not that big of a deal. It's to protect due process at all costs, and why I think it's that much more important its protected here.
I’m a retired federal criminal public defender and later, private defense attorney licensed in 3 jurisdictions (DC, VA & CA).
I know. I know you speak from experience and I appreciate your keen and shrewd insight.
Wouldn’t the outcome of either trial be challenged on the basis of the judge having not recused?
Yes, but if trial counsel doesn't move for the court to recuse until after the trial, it looks insincere, to say the least. This is why so many of us squirmed uncomfortably at Aileen Cannon and Jack Smith's failure to move for her recusal in the documents case. We were wondering why he didn't move for her recusal once it became obvious that she was biased in Trump's favor.
No guarantee of that. Possibility but no sure fire promise of anything. Some are arguing that because Magione's judge is simply a magistrate judge, the conflict isn't strong enough. Others could argue that because the financial conflicts aren't fresh they don't hold water. This is why ethics goes beyond the law and why its critical we uphold them relentlessly.
The case has not yet been presented to a grand jury, or else it has but no indictment has been handed down yet. The indictment will contain the actual charges, including any related to terrorism.
Great work QR. These 2 judges could be fair, but the rules are there for a reason and should be followed. It appears the insurance industry is very shook. I don’t believe an individual American citizen feeling threatened would be catered to as it appears the monied insurance companies are. Another example of separate legal systems for rich corporations/individuals? It is beginning to look that way.
That's exactly it. I'm sure both are fine judges and I re-emphasize this is not a personal attack on them. It's a reflection of the consistent standard of due process we need to apply in every situation.
Conflicts of interest on the part of judges selected to try cases that arise from class warfare are not an aberration. They are an essential feature of the system. It is too critical for our government and corporate ”leaders” to quash any potential uprising of the peasants by not allowing these cases to be tried by judges who are not reminded of where their loyalties need to lie.
Yep, its not a bug, its a feature.
so you are saying essentially while there exists a process to file a complaint to formally call out these 2 judges' conflicts of interest, it's pointless. Is there a judicial watchdog group that might do so, I wonder?
The state and local bar associations. There is also an oversight/ethics division of the court system.
Surely, all defense attorneys representing each will have to file motions demanding the judges recuse themselves due to conflict of interest...right?
Calling Luigi and Brianna terrorists while the US government is committing a fucking genocide is the height of hypocrisy.
Self awareness at historic lows, or perhaps the hypocrisy is the point.
It's always been the point. And the US is very bad at self reflection. It hates to admit it when it's wrong.
Perhaps both?
This is outrageous! Why on earth would a judge with any integrity put him/herself in a position like this? Is it that difficult to recuse?
I used to be a court clerk, and I can tell you that judges are among the worst egotists/narcissists out there. Few would recuse from a nationally-followed court case without a fight. They love being in the limelight.
I was afraid of that!
Very much on purpose, I’m afraid. There’s no ethics anymore. Just money. It’s all just money.
I think its just a reflection of what's considered the norm nowadays. Look at how much Clarence Thomas has gotten away with. As a society we need to keep the pressure on to demand ethical accountability.
Americans don't care that we're being ruled by felons and scoundrels.