District Court Judge Cormac Carney has tossed charges of assault against a pair of white nationalists because it was unfair not to prosecute some lefties too:
An Orange County federal judge has dismissed criminal charges for the second time in five years against accused members of a Southern California white supremacist group suspected of inciting brawls at political rallies throughout the state.
....In his decision, Carney granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing that Rundo and Boman were being selectively prosecuted, while “far-left extremist groups, such as Antifa” were not. “Prosecuting only members of the far right and ignoring members of the far left leads to the troubling conclusion that the government believes it is permissible to physically assault and injure Trump supporters to silence speech,” Carney wrote in his order.
Carney was appointed by George W. Bush. That's about all the explanation you need for this.
This is not the first time Carney has weaponized his authority to dismiss cases. In 2020 Carney was upset that COVID lockdowns ordered by the chief judge barred him from holding in-person trials. In fact, he was so enraged that as retribution he began dismissing charges against defendants waiting for trial. His jihad ended a few months later when the 9th Circuit overturned him.
Yup, he's a conservative. Is he a distant relative of Bob Dornan?
I'm confused. How is he making rulings in 2024 if he resigned in 2020?
Different seat.
this is still a confusing way to put it. he stepped down from being the *chief* judge in the district but continued to hold his seat on the court.
Hummm, this surprises me....I never actually considered Selective Prosecution to be an actual defense in a criminal matter. Of course, I no longer and never did much criminal work, but still, this seems way off the chart to me...I wonder if this will be taken up to the 9th Circuit as an appeal?
Well, learn something new every day. Best Wishes, Traveller
My mom used to say, "If [fill in the blank] jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?" Obviously, if she had the opportunity to ask District Court JINO (judge in name only) Cormac, he'd say, "Yes ma'am!"
Selective enforcement/prosecution is indeed a valid defense. In fact, it has an impact on traffic tickets. It's why merely keeping up with the guy in front of you gives you some measure of protection from speeding tickets. If they just pull you over, your defense is "I was just keeping up with traffic". They can charge you but they have to pull over a whole bunch of people.
This case turns on what the actual pattern of facts are. I mean, to most of us on the left, "antifa" is just a shadow, a ghost that MAGAs use to validate their own violence.
However, there are some real groups out there who are leftish and are looking for a fight. What is the pattern of facts that led to this dismissal. I mean, there could be a pattern of facts that justify the decision. It's possible, though I think unlikely. We have no idea whether there is such a pattern though.
the story notes that while valid, the selective prosecution defense rarely works.
"In fact, it has an impact on traffic tickets."
It's one thing to argue selective enforcement when both crimes/infractions are being carried out at the same time, same location, and the law enforcement is being done by the same official.
It's another when it's just put forth as an abstract idea that bases the reasoning on what may or may not happen elsewhere, with the law enforced by different people, and against non specific defendants under other circumstances.
In California, the answer is, 'the officer only can pull over so many vehicles at once, sucks to be you,'
Isn't this defective?
Clearly, it must be both sides....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/19/blm-march-portland-shooting
PPB is literally a white supremacist organization. With all that entails.
Like the song says:
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Those who died are justified
For wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died
By wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
"...[Ben Smith] had posted a comment on the YouTube channel of the anti-antifascist blogger Andy Ngo...'This is why you arm yourselves folks.'"
Two anti-'s make a pro- is how I read that.
Andy Ngo had specifically posted that evening, before the protest, revealing the volunteers' armed status and route.
The gunman was just following orders, as they'd say.
To state the obvious, seems this judge should be looking at the evidence in the case at hand rather than weighing decisions based on how he perceives other groups are treated by the legal system.
Judge Carney is also speaking in the dumbed-down language of MAGA. Logic holds less value when in the Trumpian state of mind.
Speaking of Trump, we have all learned the harm that a sociopath, one with a voracious appetite for attention and validation, can do when they get into a position where they can influence millions of people. Trump steadily harms our country, but also the entire world. Depressing to think this monster may become president again.
Does that work both ways?
If a town ignores street blockades by KKK marchers but prosecutes similar blockades by BLM marchers is there any recourse?
Sounds like a judge who should be removed.
Citing the binding precedents of Yabbut, Waddabout, and Simztami, the judge dismissed the case for Libruls Unfairly Being Unfair.
Maybe he did his graduate studies at "What's Ammata U"
That's what I'd call pernicious neglect, neglect of public responsibility in the most open, flagrant and aggressive manner.
Wow, this two-bit hack seems not only well-named, but also to be quite the little wannabe tyrant, working out his personal issues on the public docket, and dime.
What a pathetic little sack of crap. Dude needs to trade his robes for a therapy couch.
The reality of this is clear. The judge dismissed the charges because he is sympathetic to the cause of the accused. Any excuses given are just that, excuses. The judge is a racist and any trials held in his court are suspect and any non-white person convicted in his court should immediately appeal their conviction based on his clear bias.
Trump has been whining like a banshee about impartial "political" judges too--do you think he has a point?
Just about every ruling, every procedure, has gone against him, do you think he has a point?
No, Trump does not have a point.
Nope.
Smarter trolls, please.
No, I don't think he has a point. Just because some Republican judges put Party Over Country doesn't mean that Democrats do. Oh, sure, a few probably do; every group has some nutcases. But they're not sitting on Federal Court benches. Democrats go out of their way to nominate "centrists" so that the Law will in fact "Be Blind".
Yeah I mean what really even is truth? If you think about it, liek, nobody really knows man.
Truth:
The outcome of a process involving careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretations of the observation.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, 2nd paragraph.
Can you cite a decision against TFG anywhere that wasn’t grounded in the law, but based on the kind of specious rationale as was this one?
Almost every decision apart from those in the Florida documents/espionage case has gone against him because he’s not merely guilty, he’s also making unreasonable and hence losing arguments and even more unreasonable demands. He deserves to lose and be held at least partially accountable for his many crimes and frauds.
Thankfully retiring in May. But going out in a Daily Blaze of glory.
Partisan hackery seems to be a growing trend lately in the judiciary. The AG who won't extradite, for instance. One side is quite happy to ignore political violence that favors its goals.
In other news, shield laws are protecting people and organizations sending abortion pills to women in states that outlawed abortion, and it looks like SCOTUS doesn't want to deal with it. This will doubtless result in violence from the Right, and I wonder if some conservative judge will be quite happy to set the perpetrators free as this one has done.
"The AG who won't extradite" was grossly overplayed. The accused in question is currently in custody facing serious charges involving causing major bodily harm, and is wanted in another state on murder charges. The AG in the state where he's in custody said, essentially "you can't have him until we're finished with him". That's reasonable, but it's been reported as "you can't have him", which is quite different.
It’s been reported differently than you’re describing it because the prosecutor didn’t say anything like what you said. She was very clear that this was something she was doing to embarrass Alvin Bragg for daring to prosecute Donald Trump for paying a porn star with whom he had an extramarital affair that he didn’t want the voters to know about. She a bad person and a bad prosecutor.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/21/us/arizona-prosecutor-refuses-extradition-soho-killing-case/index.html
If Kellyanne Conway didn't have to deal with anybody else in the world she'd be perfectly sane.
They're all like that.
Does this mean we can ignore Supreme Court decisions because liberal potential justices were not elevated to the Court in the same way that conservative justices have been?
"In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions." -Abraham Lincoln
Saying, in word and/or in deed, "I'm right, you're wrong, and this conversation is over" is the disease. Bad actors are just symptoms of the disease.
To act on symptoms is to tamper with the system. Tamper with the system, and the symptoms will get worse. To reduce and/or eliminate the symptoms, aka mold public sentiment, act as if you understand the cause.
Sounds pro-criminal to me
How hard is it as a judge to simply not defend the Klan? Surely with the added responsibility to make sure we don't kill each other when breaking their power. But this judge fails to accomplish both.
However, the conversation in politics can't be reduced to white supremacists beating up people. Racism is much more complex than that, and so is violence.
America's overall violence problem stems from a weak social safety net and hyperintensive, often sexist, work culture that drives people into jealousy, attachment disorders, and addictive violence behaviors, and away from the legitimate economy, as well as a regulatory state that has been generally chastened and weakened by poor campaign finance control.
American racism is much more present than our culture thinks of it."They want to take my taxes and laws and help the underclass people" is a racist, pro-slavery argument point blank hiding itself in modern arguments about privatizing the economy. Black neighbors are held at arms length then attacked by suspicion, and malnourished students are put in unchallenging schools because their test scores are a fraction lower than people who have wealth, and academics give this as evidence to prove the Bell curve theory right and racism right. So who gets media degrees, science degreees, and who can fundraise for politics skews to richer, older white people. Racism is systemically baked into the campaign finance laws and school tracking system in America and statistics bear this out.
Places like Connecticut and New York which have strong "donor democracy," in other words, a grant system for campaign finance, have much more equitable governance than other places in the country. They have tax credits for working people, higher minimum wages, immigrants integrated into college. New York for all its issues the media tell us about as a large capitalist city has a strong democratic culture that it built since at least the 1990s and has similar strengths when it comes to fair representation of power.
The lobbies of violence machinery have a lot of power, talking head hate preachers like Ben Shaprio and the NRA both foment violence. In theory the state can deny the Klan allies a charter of business and they shouldn't be able to fundraise but the last time this happened they threatened assassination.
If we see power in America as an issue of who is closing doors to democracy and who is opening them, we get a better picture than the usual patriotic pablum about securing our place in history blah blah blah. America largely isn't a democracy yet, that's what the truth is. We have an aristocracy that uses media and education system to cut deals with some middle class people but everyone outside that bubble deserves a voice.
There's more work to do at the systemic side of things to address racism and violence than just calling out a racist judge, there's a whole network of racist influences on all of us from everything from reality TV to the schools we go to, to how we raise money for government. Ending racism and starting democracy are the same thing.
What evidence of “selective prosecution” did the judge require in order to make this decision? Peer-reviewed papers? Expert testimony with accompanying statistics analysis? Or “I heard it on Fox News”?
scotus overturned a selective prosecution dismissal previously in US v Armstrong.
Yeah, but he was black.
Just stumbled on this site because I saw a story about this case and wanted to see if anything else was out there.
The standard to make out a selective prosecution claim is incredibly high, which makes me skeptical, but then, I haven't read the order.
Unfortunately, the media does a pretty terrible job on reporting on legal matters, and they end up using partisan shorthand, such as "Trump-appointed," etc., to signal their view.
I'd caution against adopting that same approach.
There are good Bush judges and bad Bush judges. There are good Obama judges and bad Obama judges.
The Supreme Court justice who authored the opinion that Title VII protects transgender people in the workplace? A Trump justice!
The Supreme Court justice who authored the Grutter opinion allowing affirmative action? A Reagan justice!
Because of the way the media in general filters things though, legal issues are often made out as though they're simple as can be, good v. evil, etc., and that's virtually never the case. Of course, the whole reason things end up in court in the first place is because they're complicated, not clear cut.
This is all to say, if you're actually interested in assessing for yourself, the best thing you can do is just read the judge's actual opinion, instead of relying on who they were appointed by, or whether they're "conservative" or "liberal."
This judge may have simply been confronted with really compelling evidence that forced this decision. The prosecutors could have done a really terrible job of offering counterarguments and blown the case. Or maybe the judge really is a partisan hack. Whatever the answer is, it's in the order and it's in the court record, it's not on Twitter or in the media.