Are there any US lawyers here? (Re. San Bernardino)

[MacCruiskeen]

Wouldn't an immediate go at a legal solution just lead to a "terrorism" style court case where everything is classified, etc.

I'm really trying to understand that part.

I'm really trying (really struggling) to believe that you're really trying to understand it, because it is not at all hard to understand and I have already said it very clearly in very simple words. See above.

[tapitsbo]

Sounds like energy that could be invested in compiling information and signal boosting it in places with wider readership than RI.

[MacCruiskeen]

Sounds like energy that could be invested in compiling information and signal boosting it in places with wider readership than RI.

"Signal boosting it" where, exactly? The only people who can do anything about this American miscarriage of American justice are Americans. So to whom, exactly, should I boost that signal? To which brave and honest Americans where?

Seriously, I will be very grateful for any serious concrete suggestions.

Sounds like energy that could be invested in compiling information and signal boosting it in places with wider readership than RI.

Are you, or is anyone else here, actually doing that? Or are you just saying "Take it elsewhere, it's not my responsibility"? Because I am trying (struggling) to believe that most* people here are not simply evading the issue, either wordily or silently (discreetly).

*If you're not among them, don't feel addressed.

[tapitsbo]

I'm not American; you seem a lot more competent than me at possible compiling.

You're almost at 6666 posts Maccruiskeen!

Surely you know of some venues that have a higher readership than this site? Or do they all moderate/delete any such discussions (just wondering). I imagine that Reddit and 4Chan would not tolerate this conversation.

[MacCruiskeen]

You're almost at 6666 posts Maccruiskeen!

It is the Mark of the Beast to the power of six. Draw your own conclusions from that.

[Iamwhomiam]

That was pretty funny WRex, "He's a little busy, though."

But we also have JLaw, unless he's become burdened with another lawsuit defending an ex-husband from his former wife, who's seeking adequate support for their children.

I've provided this link several times over the years, Mac:
http://www.projectsalam.org/.

If you do contact PS, please do not mention who referred you, as some are still my friends.

You could also write your Ambassador to the US to ask him to share your concerns with the US Ambassador to your country, (Germany? Scotland?), and have him demand said US Ambassador answer all the questions you seek answers to, but you probably shouldn't if you ever want to fly again.

As far as I can tell, this appears to me to be a genuine case, perhaps the very first, of an autonomous, relativistically domestic case of Muslim initiated terrorism. To call it Jihad would be misplaced. I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. Ft. Hood could have been another.

Wondering why no one has asked the mother-in-law, who at the time you were asking you thought her mother, whether her dead child was really dead, whether the so-called "dead" daughter-in-law was the size of her daughter, well that seems just a bit too much, at least for me.

I have seen no concern, none for any of the victims, including the so-called dead perpetrators. Read the Maddow piece and re-read this thread, as I have. I'll add more to the SB shooting thread later, to follow-up.

[tapitsbo]

Hunter was a lawyer too, right?

[MacCruiskeen]

I have seen no concern, none for any of the victims, including the so-called dead perpetrators.

Now, that is shameless, but only marginally more shameless than your entire post.

jesus wept.

I have seen no

Spoken like a true lawyer. You have "seen no [anything]" only because you are taking enormous care to keep your eyes well covered.

[MacCruiskeen]

^^

I understand that people are distressed by this mass murder and its implications, especially if they're in the US, and I do sympathise with that distress, not least because I share it. (For the record, I also have some very good old friends in the States, in NYC & Chicago.)

Syed Farook and his wife are innocent, they were framed and murdered while the killers escaped, and their graves are now being spat on by the planet's rulers and the fine gentlemen (and ladies) of the press, so that the War on Terror can continue to expand as it enters its fifteenth year.

Seven days on, no other conclusion is possible for anyone who is still paying even the slightest attention. Not an ounce of serious evidence has been presented against them.

[Iamwhomiam]

Mac, all over again - you got nothin no evidence at all, only second or fifth hand reporting, not even a single bullet casing, yet you know.

This will pass, too. With you, it's like a fever you'll eventually shake off, just like your interest in the source of that photo you felt so very important.

Thanks for the shaming. At this I concede you remain champ.

Doesn't do much to bolster your argument, though.

[MacCruiskeen]

You are a lawyer, IAWIA, that is for sure. Be proud. And be glad you bear no resemblance whatsoever to a manacled mummy.

[Iamwhomiam]

No one here has provided you with what you've asked for, except me. I put you in touch with real live legal advocates who have represented Muslims accused of terrorist crimes in US courts. You're fucking welcome, asshole.

Now the ball's in your court. I'm a man of action who likes to get results; You asked, I produced. What you do now is up to you. I'm tempted to ask PS in a week or two if they've heard from you. There is no better source I know of with a record of providing such representation.

[MacCruiskeen]

Mac, all over again - you got nothin no evidence at all,

You're the lawyer, IAWIA, and you're the American, so you tell me:

1) What does "burden of proof" mean?

2) Does that principle still apply as part of US jurisprudence and legal/criminological practise?

only second or fifth hand reporting, not even a single bullet casing, yet you know.

See above.

This will pass, too. With you, it's like a fever you'll eventually shake off, just like your interest in the source of that photo you felt so very important.

M'lud, irrelevant. M'lud, also factually untrue, for the record.

Thanks for the shaming. At this I concede you remain champ.

If you feel ashamed, IAWIA, you will know why. I would feel ashamed too, if I had posted what you have posted in this thread.

Doesn't do much to bolster your argument, though.

My argument, lawyer, is in the other thread, as you very well know; although (being a lawyer) you pretend not to, unconvincingly.

Personally, I think lawyers should be both honest and wily, rather than merely gratuitously nasty and transparently evasive. But then I'm old-fashioned that way. I grew up with American heroes, real and fictional, whom I could wholeheartedly admire.

[MacCruiskeen]

Just so no one has to go to the trouble of googling:

Burden of Proof
Generally used to describe the threshold that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must reach in order to have that fact legally established. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof#

It will of course be pointed out to me that the two persons accused of mass murder in San Bernardino are themselves now dead and will therefore never appear at trial. I had, for the record, noticed that already.

So I am hoping that someone can direct me to the precise paragraph in US law that permits anyone (the FBI, the state police, the corporate media, SITE, etc.) to accuse dead persons of mass murder with complete legal impunity, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence.

Thanks for any serious tips from professionals or even knowledgeable amateurs. (I know that US law has changed a lot in recent years.)

[mentalgongfu2]

So I am hoping that someone can direct me to the precise paragraph in US law that permits anyone (the FBI, the state police, the corporate media, SITE, etc.) to accuse dead persons of mass murder with complete legal impunity, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a legal fight of this sort would require a civil lawsuit for slander and defamation of character against the accusers. Such a suit must be brought by someone with legal "standing" such as a family member who can demonstrate injury (financial, emotional) resulting from the allegations.