Skip to comments.
Michigan Supreme Court justice charged with fraud (Dem)
Breitbart ^
| 1/19/2013
| ED WHITE Associated Press
Posted on 01/20/2013 6:20:58 AM PST by PapaBear3625
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
To: kjo; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; Impy; InterceptPoint; jazminerose; PGalt; theothercheek; GreatOne; ...
Usually the Obama Justice Department protects its own...some kind of screw-up. You hit the nail on the head. And conversely, they have no hesitation to to go after Pubbies with full fury and indignation. That double standard is why we call it the Obama INJustice Department!!!
And speaking of fraud of all kinds (most importantly, in rigging elections, particularly the last presidential race), that's a cornerstone of the Democratic Party's program, policy, and power nationally.
To: PapaBear3625; theothercheek; AJFavish; David; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; Red Steel; jazminerose; ...
That's probably why Holder's people did federal charges. It protects her from state charges (double jeopardy). You are incorrect on that: the "double jeopardy" clause of the US Constitution does not protect the same individual from being prosecuted by both the federal and state governments on criminal charges arising from the same set of events. The US Supreme Court decided that in a landmark case in the 1950s, so, even though it may seem to be unjust, that's been accepted constitutional law since then.
IIRC, back in the 1990s, some police officer(s) involved in the Rodney King case were acquitted on California charges, but then charged by the feds for civil rights violations.
To: PapaBear3625
Holder may still protect her, but it is proper to file federal charges because this is a federal crime.
23
posted on
01/20/2013 10:04:06 AM PST
by
doug from upland
(Obama and the leftists - destroying our country one day at a time)
To: justiceseeker93
the "double jeopardy" clause of the US Constitution does not protect the same individual from being prosecuted by both the federal and state governments on criminal charges arising from the same set of events.
True. I'm not going to hunt it down now but I know of a Detroit case where a man came home and found 3 people breaking into his house (for the 3rd time that week). The guy chased them and cornered 1 man in an alley and killed him.
The local judge was very lenient and gave the guy two years with the actual jail time amounting to some 6 months. The feds charged the guy and gave him 15. BTW, both the shooter and the deserving ammo receptacle were black.
24
posted on
01/20/2013 10:10:19 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: cripplecreek
If your story is correct, the federal charge was probably felon in possesion (of a gun that had moved interstate). A pure murder not on fed or indian land wouldn’t be in fed court. Felon in possession, on the other hand, could be. And if many past offenses, he could get up to 15.
To: PapaBear3625
Filing state charges is not “double jeopardy” if there is a state statute that was violated.
26
posted on
01/20/2013 5:15:30 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson