We're not talking about lawyers you've dealt with, we are talking about J. Mark Brewer. Avoiding the issue. Sorry, but a law degree doesn't impress me much.
As opposed to legal minds with no law degree....?
Yes, but there are many attorneys who know the law at least as well as he does who disagree with him.
Oh really...?? Show me one of these "attorneys" who actually refutes his specific arguments regarding Sutton's changing or rewording the statutes to facilitate indictment and prosecution. I want one actual name. Please provide it. And show me were I can view their counter-arguments to Brewers points. You CAN'T.
I have better things to do with my time.
Translation : You simply don't want to read his brief. So you don't even know what you are talking about. And you still expect to have any credibility...??
Le me get this straight. You're claming that Congress called a special session when they heard about the case, and they invited Sutton in to re-write the statute, which they then proceded to rubber-stamp, just to railroad two BP guys they never heard of. Is that right?
Where in the HELL did I eve say that....??? You are simply showcasing your complete ignorance of the case.
What Sutton did was to change the wording of the statute. He combined wording from the original statute with wording from the sentencing guidelines to create a altered version of the original. This is done by the prosecutor to make it easier to indict and convict in court. If you had bothered to read the brief you would have least understood this. Period.
In addition, Brewer points out that Sutton isn't the first prosecutor to pull this kind of stunt. There have been others. And the Appellete Courts have ruled that a prosecutor cannot actually modify the statutes in that fashion. That has to be done by Congress.
Congress had nothing to do with Sutton's legal malfeasance. If you had actually read the brief you would know this. Sutton realized that he could fully exploit Cardone's inexperience as a Federal Judge and he did just that.
If they did, it would be one hell of a silly ruling, seeing as how Congress always has and always will write statutes.
This was all Johnny's doing, not Congress'. Wake up.
How can a statute be "in error?" Congress can pass whatever statute it wants. If you have an issue with the jury instructions, well then your beef is with the judge, not the prosecutor.
Making a complete ass out of yourself. It was Sutton who changed the wording of the statute, NOT Congress. And he really wasn't supposed to do that.
All the evidence suggests he wasn't. The behavior of Compean and Ramos suggests he wasn't. Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?
Where did they actually destroy evidence...? Tossing shell casings on the ground...?? Ramos testified that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots as they were walking back up the ravine. I believe him. Ten .40 caliber rounds makes an awful lot of noise. My guess is that the other agents were talking about gun shots when the FOS arrived. Thus he assumed they already knew about it. I believe that they did. Later on, some of the other agents would change their stories.
Don't you think?
Ramos testified that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots as they were walking back up the ravine. I believe him.
When he heard other agents talking about shots, did he say, "We fired them and tossed the shell casings into a ditch"? Why not?
The statute is on the books. No one except congress can change it. This idea that Sutton somehow re-wrote it is absurd.
I want one actual name.
Andrew McCarthy of NRO did yeoman's work debunking some of the absurd arguments of various C&R advocates. Whether he specifically addressed Brewer I don't know. I suspect not. He doesn't have time to refute every crackpot out there.
Translation : You simply don't want to read his brief.
Correct. I have better things to do than read every single thing written about the case.
So you don't even know what you are talking about. And you still expect to have any credibility...??
You're treating this Brewer brief as if it were the Bible or something. Newsflash: it's just one lawyer's opinion. It has no more authority or weight than any other lawyer's opinion, which are a dime a dozen.
He combined wording from the original statute with wording from the sentencing guidelines to create a altered version of the original. Where did they actually destroy evidence...? Tossing shell casings on the ground...??
No. Tossing them into a ditch so that they couldn't be found. Trying to cover up evidence is, in and of itself, pretty strong evidence of guilt. Basic common sense dictates that if you're not guilty, don't act guilty.