It can't be a problem since the delay in the trial wasat the request of the defendant.
You surrender or waive your right to a speedy trial any time you ask for a postponement of one of the procedures associated with it or sign a waiver of said right because you need the time for whatever reason. It is always the defendant that surrenders that right and it is never taken.
In July or August of 2013, Brown filed a motion for continuation due to being overwhelmed by discovery and an inability to prepare for his September 2013 trial day. He asked to postpone until Feb. 2014. The government's response to that motion actually argues against it because of his speedy trial rights in which the judge ultimately agreed was waived with the granting of the continuance.
I mean the goods that were illegally taken and possessed and illegally disseminated. You know exactly what I'm talking about which is why you are posting AC instead of having such idiocy assicited in any way that could follow you.
Participation in fraud and selling stolen goods is hardly capitalism.
well, to the idiots who don't know any better, maybe it is but in reality it is no different then me selling your car out from under you. I know, I know, information wants to be free, but giving something away for free isn't capitalism either.
Maybe you should look into the theory of capitalism a bit and this time read past the title and forward of the books.
He surrendered that right himself. Or his lawyer did for him when they asked for the first extension.
Sigh.. Nixon was never impeached. You seem to have the rest of your post wrong so I'm not surprised you got that wrong too.
I don't see a first amendment issue anywhere. Possibly the gag order but those have long been held as constitutional. Speech is not without consequences. It appears he is getting due process. You may not like the due process he is getting, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. He also waived his right to a speedy trial and nothing has been shown to indicate it isn't a public trial. The trial hasn't commenced yet so we have yet to see on that. An no, there is no excessive bail imposed, his bail was refused because he posed a risk to the community and as a flight from justice. I guess threatening an FBI agent and his children along with hiding evidence from police doing a search say something in the eyes of the court.
Oh I know what you are saying about the frenzy.. that's likely why 13 counts were dropped- nothing but fodder to scare him and when it looked like it wasn't working, they decided not to bother.
I was watching the state supreme court on the Ohio channel the other day and saw a case in which one of the supreme court justices asked a prosecutor if the gun spec for a crime was mandatory or something the prosecutor can pile on for leverage in negotiating a plea agreement. To think that a supreme court justice advocating piling charges on someone to force them to plea guilty to something less instead of pursuing or ensuring justice.
I'm not the one you need to ask why to. It's the judge who came up with the rationale. It's sort of like making available is the same as distribution even though no distribution has been shown to of taken place.
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
United States v. McVeigh
Jones v. Clinton
Those are two cases a gag order was used in whole or part and stood up to challenges on their constitutionality. I'm sure there are more should anyone bother looking.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is. It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
The reasons judges give out gag orders is because information swarms taint juries. They become prejudiced before they can be selected for the jury unless you want a bunch of imbeciles on the jury who don't use computers and wouldn't know a hyperlink from hypertension or even who the current president or vice president is. That could screw the defense or prosecution up pretty badly.
Then China has just as much free speech as the US. The entire point is that government thugs aren't able to punish you for your speech.
You never heard the cliche about yelling fire in a crowded theater? You never knew people could be arrested, charged and convicted simply for threatening the president or most politicians with bodily harm or death?
Unless you meant people's actions in response to your speech, but in that case, people are responsible for their own actions. Punishing you for other people's actions because you said something is unjust and anti-free speech. You can pretend it isn't about the speech, but that doesn't even make sense.
No, I mean your own actions. And this isn't about speech although part of it was slightly connected to it. The guy was arrested for possessing stolen information (access device fraud concerning stolen credit card information) and hid two laptops (obstruction of justice charges) he knew the cops were looking for. Then before he was arrested, he threatened an FBI agent and the agents kids. That is when he was arrested and held without bail.
No, he is still being held for access device fraud (possessing stolen credit card info) and making threats to an FBI agent and his family. He is also on some obstruction charges connected to his hiding two laptops from a search.
The pasting of links and all are just in the middle of this making you think something that isn't really the case.
What exactly are those?
I mean which ones exactly. Denying someone bail is pretty common. Gag orders are pretty common. So what exactly is being violated here?
Wow.. I never noticed google images was https.
Thanks for pointing it out. I stand corrected.
Free speech doesn't make you immune to consequences of that speech, as a journalist or other. People are imprisons for things like saying they are going to kill the president, inciting a riot seems to be a good one, of course there is slander and libel, disclosing national security information or classified information like the names of CIA agents, and you can be imprisoned for participating in a crime whether your speaking about it or whatever.
This isn't about the government saying you are busted for speaking, it is the government saying you have intimate knowledge of the crime, you are involved somehow. If that is the case, free speech isn't an issue here other then the intent of the judge to not pollute any potential juries by a gag order. That is something that has long been held are valid whether the prisoner is a journalist or not.