I'm surprised there have not been a flood of posts about Mar a Lago
issues. Though only one comes to mind.

I thought it was (almost?) an iron-clad rule that subsequent motions
about a given case were to go to the judge that started things off, in
this case, signed the search warrant. (Is there a legal term for this principle so I can search for more info? Judge-shopping is the
opposite.)

Appointing a master is not only the same case, it's directly related to
the search.

The 2nd judge noticed that at first, but as of today, seems to have
forgotten that it's an issue. When asking that the motion be redrafted,
she could have directed the lawyer to file it with the first judge.

Is she entitled to entertain motions or must she tell them to file with
the other judge?
-----

FTR for those don't remember or didn't notice or maybe I never said, 2
years ago or more some troll in other ngs started accusing me of having
nyms and trolling or something worse, things I hadn't done at all, and
not long after my usenet server Eternal September stoppped working, and
new accounts from them didn't work either (Maybe they nixed my IP
address or something).

So I switched to news.tweaknews.eu which worked fine in other groups,
but here, maybe related to the fact that mlm is moderated, I coud read
but not post. I tried posting through the email address and that
worked iirc for new threads, but then replying was a real nuisance
(copying the post, copying the subject line separately, trying to get my
From- to match what I had used here, and then for some it woudln't
appear in the same thread but a new thread.)

MLM is one of my favorite ngs, and pound-for-pound, it's my favorite,
but I didn't think it would help to complain to tweaknews. Maybe I
should have, maybe someone else did, or maybe during the past year or
more they just fixed it.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/30/2022 12:12 PM, micky wrote:

I'm surprised there have not been a flood of posts about Mar a Lago
issues. Though only one comes to mind.

I thought it was (almost?) an iron-clad rule that subsequent motions
about a given case were to go to the judge that started things off, in
this case, signed the search warrant. (Is there a legal term for this principle so I can search for more info? Judge-shopping is the
opposite.)

Appointing a master is not only the same case, it's directly related to
the search.

The 2nd judge noticed that at first, but as of today, seems to have
forgotten that it's an issue. When asking that the motion be redrafted,
she could have directed the lawyer to file it with the first judge.

Is she entitled to entertain motions or must she tell them to file with
the other judge?

I think the search warrant is separate from any subsequent criminal proceedings. When the FBI or local police want a warrant, they go to (a) whichever judge isn't busy right then, (b) a judge known to be easy to
get a search warrant from.

Subsequent proceedings are typically "calendared". That is, there is a
judge in charge of assigning cases, and they will assign the case to
whichever judge (and courtroom) will next have time available (based on estimates of how long a given type of trial takes).

Meanwhile, you get motions to suppress, to return what was taken, etc.,
which might be assigned to any judge who has a few minutes free. Those
things are usually settled in under 15 minutes AFAIK (or, at least, the
judge will allocate a few minutes for the lawyers to make their
arguments, then take the matter under advisement for a day or three).




--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/30/2022 12:12 PM, micky wrote:

....

So I switched to news.tweaknews.eu which worked fine in other groups,
but here, maybe related to the fact that mlm is moderated, I coud read
but not post. I tried posting through the email address and that
worked iirc for new threads, but then replying was a real nuisance
(copying the post, copying the subject line separately, trying to get my From- to match what I had used here, and then for some it woudln't
appear in the same thread but a new thread.)

MLM is one of my favorite ngs, and pound-for-pound, it's my favorite,
but I didn't think it would help to complain to tweaknews. Maybe I
should have, maybe someone else did, or maybe during the past year or
more they just fixed it.

The moderation process is a number of steps

1. You prepare a post and submit it to your news server.
2. Your news server has a list of addresses for moderated newsgroups
and emails your post to it. Not all news servers have this step or
maintain a current list.
3. My moderation server receives your email and processes it to the
queue. A copy is emailed to the moderator (me) for approval
4. I reply to the email with the "approve" word
5. My server gets the reply and sends the post to a news server that
validates that my server is permitted to post to a moderated group and
does the actual posting.

As I mentioned, a number of news servers don't handle the #2 step of
emailing the posting for approval. news.tweaknews.eu might be one of them.

There are very few news servers that want to handle the step 5 actual
real posting. It took me a while to find one.

Roy

PS.

My wife is in a rehabilitation facility recovering from a fall so I send
a lot of my time each day driving one hour each way to visit her. That
is why my act of "approving" posts is a bit delayed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hypothetical

Jane is driving her boss to the office in a company car. Suddenly the
boss says "Instead of the office, take me to the park"

Jane refuses and continues to the office.

Questions

1. Is Jane now kidnapping the boss?

2. If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses, does
that make it kidnapping?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Hypothetical

Jane is driving her boss to the office in a company car. Suddenly
the boss says "Instead of the office, take me to the park"

Jane refuses and continues to the office.

Questions

1. Is Jane now kidnapping the boss?

I'm not a criminal law expert, but in this case I think it would be
debatable, and dependent on Jane's intent.

2. If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses,
does that make it kidnapping?

That's a more certain case that it's likely kidnapping.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/31/2022 8:00 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Hypothetical

Jane is driving her boss to the office in a company car. Suddenly
the boss says "Instead of the office, take me to the park"

Jane refuses and continues to the office.

Questions

1. Is Jane now kidnapping the boss?

I'm not a criminal law expert, but in this case I think it would be debatable, and dependent on Jane's intent.

2. If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses,
does that make it kidnapping?

That's a more certain case that it's likely kidnapping.

Yes, you are correct

Kidnapping requires intent so the proper charge would be

25 CFR § 11.404 False imprisonment.

A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his or her liberty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 08:34:00 -0700, Roy wrote:

On 8/31/2022 8:00 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Hypothetical

Jane is driving her boss to the office in a company car. Suddenly the
boss says "Instead of the office, take me to the park"

Jane refuses and continues to the office.

Questions

1. Is Jane now kidnapping the boss?

I'm not a criminal law expert, but in this case I think it would be
debatable, and dependent on Jane's intent.

2. If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses, does
that make it kidnapping?

That's a more certain case that it's likely kidnapping.

Yes, you are correct

Kidnapping requires intent so the proper charge would be

25 CFR § 11.404 False imprisonment.

A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his or her liberty.

Presumably there would be some sort of exception concerning the
individuals safety ? Alternatively if the person said "Let me out" while
you were doing 65 on a freeway, and you complied *immediately* would you
be absolved of the probable death of the person ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/1/2022 2:11 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Presumably there would be some sort of exception concerning the
individuals safety ? Alternatively if the person said "Let me out" while
you were doing 65 on a freeway, and you complied*immediately* would you
be absolved of the probable death of the person ?

Most cars have doors that will open when the handle is pulled, so "let
me out" does not mean just "open my door". I think it would imply that
Jane should come to a stop so her boss can alight safely.

I also think that Jane is allowed to consider her own safety and
convenience. If she is on a freeway going 70MPH, at the very least she
would want to find a place where she can safely pull onto the shoulder
and let her boss out.

On some winding mountain roads there is no safe place to pull over for
several miles, and I think that -- since Jane's boss originally agreed
to ride with her -- she ise entitled to wait for a safe place to pull over.

As for "take me to the park," I would say that Jane is under no
obligation to do that. But if the boss doesn't want to go to the office,
I think Jane should offer him the option of getting out the next place
where she can safely stop.

I don't think Jane is required to deviate significantly from her route
to the office. For instance, she would not be required to turn around
and take him back several blocks.

Keep in mind that this analysis is legal only. If Jane refuses to take
her boss to the park, there is a good chance that he will fire her next
time he is in the office. So taking him to the park might be the most
prudent option. OTOH, if Jane knows that the only likely reason for the
boss wanting to go to the park involves something nefarious, she might
want to just let him off as soon as possible rather than being a party
to his plans.


--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:temopf$1nivg$1@dont-email.me...

Hypothetical

Jane is driving her boss to the office in a company car. Suddenly the boss >says "Instead of the office, take me to the park"

Jane refuses and continues to the office.

Questions

1. Is Jane now kidnapping the boss?

2. If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses, does that >make it kidnapping?

I agree it's really all about intent. If she and the boss have a good relationship and she interprets his comment as just kidding around (as in - it's a nice day, let's blow off work and go to the park), her refusal to act certainly does not constitute kidnapping. We also have no data on how he reacts to her not changing course. He may just ignore it or laugh it off.

If the boss says "Pull over and let me out" and Jane refuses, it would again depend on intent and tone, Perhaps they are just joking around and having
fun with one another. Another possibility to consider is if the boss is impaired in some way - perhaps he has been drinking or is having some kind
of medical emergency. In that case, as a loyal employee and perhaps friend, she may be trying to get him to a place of safety or to where he can receive treatment . That wouldn't be kidnapping.

But assuming none of that's the case and if it becomes obvious to her that
he really means it and wants out, then Jane would have to be given an opportunity to let him out safely - can't just stop in the middle of a
freeway. Presuming she does that and allows him to get out, then it's not kidnapping. Otherwise, yes it could be considered kidnapping assuming he
wants to make a case out of it.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)