Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

As I've mentioned, Kim Foxx is not running for re-election. The nominee
of the Democratic Primary on March 19 will likely win the general
election.

Eileen O'Neill Burke, former judge, former prosecutor, seemed to have a >reasonable attitude on prosection.

I was going to vote for her. No more.

A Cook County state's attorney candidate once helped convict a boy whose >murder confession was found to be coerced
Eileen O'Neill Burke is talking up protections for kids during police >interrogations. But the former prosecutor is tied to a Black child's
wrongful conviction.
By Chip Mitchell
WBEZ
Dec 19, 2023, 3:08pm CT Updated 5:52am CT

https://www.wbez.org/stories/eileen-oneill-burke-tied-to-a-black-boys-wrongful-conviction/c691e3ad-fcb5-4c13-8505-4a7305fc5faf

Clayton Harris, the opponent, sounds like more of the same.

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. The primary is Tuesday March 19, 2024. My state, unlike
the rest of the country, elects presidential convention delegates at the
same primary as we nominate candidates for state and county office.
Municipal and township office isn't voted upon in the even-numbered
year.

Here's the radio interview (in the form of a podcast) Eileen O'Neill
Burke gave this morning.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cook-county-states-attoney-hopeful-makes-her-case-to/id400254289?i=1000647833489

She's really impressive. Three decades as judge and on the appellate
court. She'd take a balanced approach to prosecution. Unlike the
incumbant state's attorney, she wants property crime under $1000
prosecuted. She points out, correctly, that the felony threshold in
criminal law is $300 and the right way to raise the threshold is by
amending the criminal code. But she still talked about prosecuting lower
level felonies in a less punitive process that might be able to divert defendants from future bad acts. She still thinks the property owners
are victims of property crimes.

What I really liked was talking about on-the-job training for newly
hired prosecutors, as a graduate school seminar, reviewing specific
aspects of constitutional law that they will run into in the courtroom.
Also she wants to do similar legal training for rookie police officers
in civil rights they will have to observe when encountering the public,
at arrest, and when conducting searches. She wants a class for both
rookie cops and rookie prosecutors, with mock trial preparation teaching
new prosecutors how to prepare witnesses and to teach rookie cops how to
behave in court.

But she still does not have an adequate answer for her 1994 prosecution of
a boy, 8 years old at the time of the crime, for first-degree murder. The physical evidence did not fit and she should have considered whether the confession was coerced. This was entirely on her and she did not explain
what she considered when bringing charges. Instead, she blamed it entirely
on an inadequate defense counsel, who had the boy repeat the confession
and didn't challenge it at trial. Well, that's on the defense and has
nothing to do with her decision to charge on inadequate evidence.

Here's the interview from a week earlier with Clayton Harris III,
similar attitudes on prosecution to the incumbant.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cook-county-states-attorney-hopeful-makes-his-case/id400254289?i=1000646771579

I'm incredibly unhappy because I still think I'm voting for Harris,
despite liking her issues and promises and disliking his.

That prosecution was unethical.

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

In article <us2f20$2km88$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

As I've mentioned, Kim Foxx is not running for re-election. The nominee
of the Democratic Primary on March 19 will likely win the general
election.

Eileen O'Neill Burke, former judge, former prosecutor, seemed to have a >reasonable attitude on prosection.

I was going to vote for her. No more.

A Cook County state's attorney candidate once helped convict a boy whose >murder confession was found to be coerced
Eileen O'Neill Burke is talking up protections for kids during police >interrogations. But the former prosecutor is tied to a Black child's >wrongful conviction.
By Chip Mitchell
WBEZ
Dec 19, 2023, 3:08pm CT Updated 5:52am CT

https://www.wbez.org/stories/eileen-oneill-burke-tied-to-a-black-boys-wrongfu
l-conviction/c691e3ad-fcb5-4c13-8505-4a7305fc5faf

Clayton Harris, the opponent, sounds like more of the same.

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. The primary is Tuesday March 19, 2024. My state, unlike
the rest of the country, elects presidential convention delegates at the
same primary as we nominate candidates for state and county office.
Municipal and township office isn't voted upon in the even-numbered
year.

Here's the radio interview (in the form of a podcast) Eileen O'Neill
Burke gave this morning.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cook-county-states-attoney-hopeful-makes
-her-case-to/id400254289?i=1000647833489

She's really impressive. Three decades as judge and on the appellate
court.

Only a few more days and I get to go to the voting booth and help vote
our communist D.A. out of office. His polling is hovering somewhere
around 11% and he lost a poll of his own ADAs, who were asked if they
wanted to see him win a second term, 394 to 6.

He has twelve challengers in the race, all of whom save one would make a
decent D.A. The last one is a full-on self-proclaimed communist just
like Gascon himself. The top two will go on to the general election.
Given Gascon's numbers, there's a good chance he won't even be in the
top two and we'll be rid of him by next Wednesday.

If he loses, maybe he'll move to Chicago next and enrich your city the
way he did with San Francisco and L.A.

She'd take a balanced approach to prosecution. Unlike the
incumbant state's attorney, she wants property crime under $1000
prosecuted. She points out, correctly, that the felony threshold in
criminal law is $300 and the right way to raise the threshold is by
amending the criminal code. But she still talked about prosecuting lower level felonies in a less punitive process that might be able to divert defendants from future bad acts. She still thinks the property owners
are victims of property crimes.

What I really liked was talking about on-the-job training for newly
hired prosecutors, as a graduate school seminar, reviewing specific
aspects of constitutional law that they will run into in the courtroom.
Also she wants to do similar legal training for rookie police officers
in civil rights they will have to observe when encountering the public,
at arrest, and when conducting searches. She wants a class for both
rookie cops and rookie prosecutors, with mock trial preparation teaching
new prosecutors how to prepare witnesses and to teach rookie cops how to behave in court.

But she still does not have an adequate answer for her 1994 prosecution of
a boy, 8 years old at the time of the crime, for first-degree murder. The physical evidence did not fit and she should have considered whether the confession was coerced. This was entirely on her and she did not explain
what she considered when bringing charges. Instead, she blamed it entirely
on an inadequate defense counsel, who had the boy repeat the confession
and didn't challenge it at trial. Well, that's on the defense and has
nothing to do with her decision to charge on inadequate evidence.

Here's the interview from a week earlier with Clayton Harris III,
similar attitudes on prosecution to the incumbant.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cook-county-states-attorney-hopeful-make
s-his-case/id400254289?i=1000646771579

I'm incredibly unhappy because I still think I'm voting for Harris,
despite liking her issues and promises and disliking his.

That prosecution was unethical.

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

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

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

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

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

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't.

I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States Muslim community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply surrender
and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last
two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during
the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) --
to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to
stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons,
or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah.

In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen
but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time
if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and
appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8
year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly
no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her
reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any
hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

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

On Mar 17, 2024 at 11:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to
make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't.

I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States Muslim community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply surrender
and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last
two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during
the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) --
to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to
stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons,
or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah.

In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen
but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time
if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8
year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly
no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any
hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win the race. Who's surprised?


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

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

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win >the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet or >wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

That was a few days ago. Those were mail-in ballots that were NOT
mishandled, and would have included both Democratic and Republican
primary ballots. They failed to aggregate the votes properly cast on
those ballots with the interim total announced Saturday.

It has nothing to do with thwarting the Republican nominee. We already
know whom the nominee is. Bob Fioretti ran unopposed. Also, it's a former alderman so it's not like you'd have voted for him.

Burke vs. Harris is a race for the Democratic Party nomination. Burke is
simply willing to prosecute offenders based on the state criminal code threshold for low-level felony charges and Harris wants to continue
Foxx's policy of letting first-time arrestees off the hook for low level felonies. They weren't far apart on other issues.

Fioretti won't be all that different from Burke.

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

In article <uu48vd$3mth9$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win >the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZN
FmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet >or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

That was a few days ago. Those were mail-in ballots that were NOT
mishandled, and would have included both Democratic and Republican
primary ballots. They failed to aggregate the votes properly cast on
those ballots with the interim total announced Saturday.

It has nothing to do with thwarting the Republican nominee. We already
know whom the nominee is. Bob Fioretti ran unopposed. Also, it's a former alderman so it's not like you'd have voted for him.

Burke vs. Harris is a race for the Democratic Party nomination. Burke is simply willing to prosecute offenders based on the state criminal code threshold for low-level felony charges and Harris wants to continue
Foxx's policy of letting first-time arrestees off the hook for low level felonies. They weren't far apart on other issues.

Fioretti won't be all that different from Burke.

So in this case, the trunk ballots will favor the candidate who's the
most 'progressive' lunatic of the two Democrats.

We just had a new outrage from our communist D.A. You see, L.A. has been plagued of late by a rash of street takeovers and street racing. In one horrific incident, two boys (11 and 8) were killed when they were struck
by street racers on a residential street at speeds of 80+mph. One of the
kids was thrown over 250 feet and every bone in his body was shattered.

The problem has become so significant that there are several regional taskforces and one state-level taskforce directed by the governor to
combat it. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to stop and
catch these guys.

And now it comes out that our communist D.A. has issued a directive to
all the ADAs to decline charges on street racers, street takeovers, and reckless drivers. He directed that such offenders be given pre-trial
diversion to attend a 3-hour video class on responsible driving instead,
after which there will be no record of their offense, not even any
points on their licenses.

He's basically raised a huge middle finger at all the cops and city and
state officials, to include the governor, who have directed significant resources to stop this crime spree and said, "Make all the arrests you
want, but here in L.A. County, I'll make sure none of them ever see the
inside of a cell."

We only know about this because one of the ADAs was so outraged, she
went to Fox 11 News with the story and produced the emails showing
Gascon personally ordering this. Gascon did it by email so that it
wouldn't appear in the Official Policies of the L.A. County District
Attorney, which is publicly available on the website.

The day she appeared on Fox 11, the ADA got a knock on her door at home.
Two D.A. Investigators were there and hand-delivered her a letter from
Gascon accusing her of violating various departmental policies by going
to the media without authorization. She said she felt like it was an
episode of THE SOPRANOS, with Gascon's personal henchmen showing up on
her doorstep, all because she just told the public what they have every
right to know.

Thank god Gascon's poll numbers are rock bottom. Unless something
significant happens to change things, his opponent, Nathan Hochman, a
former U.S. Attorney, will boot Gascon out of office in the November
run-off.

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

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

The day she appeared on Fox 11, the ADA got a knock on her door at home.
Two D.A. Investigators were there and hand-delivered her a letter from
Gascon accusing her of violating various departmental policies by going
to the media without authorization. She said she felt like it was an
episode of THE SOPRANOS, with Gascon's personal henchmen showing up on
her doorstep, all because she just told the public what they have every
right to know.

I'm glad they didn't show up with the SWAT team to leave her dead. Is
there some reason Gascon couldn't have handed her a note at the
courthouse?

Had she followed up with the same tv station?

. . .

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

In article <uu4cma$3mth9$4@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

The day she appeared on Fox 11, the ADA got a knock on her door at home. >Two D.A. Investigators were there and hand-delivered her a letter from >Gascon accusing her of violating various departmental policies by going
to the media without authorization. She said she felt like it was an >episode of THE SOPRANOS, with Gascon's personal henchmen showing up on
her doorstep, all because she just told the public what they have every >right to know.

I'm glad they didn't show up with the SWAT team to leave her dead. Is
there some reason Gascon couldn't have handed her a note at the
courthouse?

Had she followed up with the same tv station?

Not sure.

I was thinking Gascon should have reached out to Erin Reagan and
borrowed Bobby Bacala to deliver his letter. Would have really cemented
the "mob tactics" feel of his move.

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

On 3/28/24 12:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 17, 2024 at 11:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to >>>>> make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't.

I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States Muslim >> community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply surrender
and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last
two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during
the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) --
to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to
stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons,
or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah.

In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long
discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen
but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time
if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and
appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8
year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been
unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly
no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a
sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her
reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any
hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win the race. Who's surprised?

Trump was surprised when he couldn't get the extra ballots in Georgia.
I know, you don't have the balls to talk about such things.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet or
wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

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

On 3/29/24 8:58 AM, FPP wrote:

On 3/28/24 1:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 17, 2024 at 11:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to >>>>>> make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't. >>>
I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States
Muslim
community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply
surrender
and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last
two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during
the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim
Brotherhood) --
to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to
stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons,
or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah.

In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long
discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen >>> but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time >>> if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and
appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8
year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been
unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly
no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a
sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her
reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any >>> hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the
Democrat win
the race. Who's surprised?


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a
closet or
wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

Going Full MAGA  now, are we?  The ballots were legitimate and were kept under lock and key.

It was human error.  You know, like we've seen ever since there have
been humans.  If you think there's fraud, say so.  Don't be your usual giant pussy.

A Dem winning a political office in IL, what are the fucking odds of that?

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

In article <uu6hf2$au1q$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 3/28/24 1:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 17, 2024 at 11:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to >>>>> make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't. >>
I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States Muslim >> community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply surrender >> and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last
two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during
the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) -- >> to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to
stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons,
or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah.

In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long
discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen >> but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time >> if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and
appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8
year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been
unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly
no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a
sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her
reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any >> hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/Z
NFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

Going Full MAGA now, are we? The ballots were legitimate and were kept
under lock and key.

It was human error.

Sure. Funny how these human errors always crop up whenever a Dem is in
trouble in a close race. And the trunk ballots always give the Dem a
boost.

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

On 3/29/24 1:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uu6hf2$au1q$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 3/28/24 1:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 17, 2024 at 11:38:53 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 4, 2024 at 10:06:12 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

At some point my primary ballot will arrive by mail and I'll have to >>>>>>> make a decision. . . .

My ballot has arrived. I'm going to have to decide.

I'm headed to the polls now. May god have mercy on me...

I put this off for nearly two weeks, hoping it would go away. It didn't. >>>>
I read that the hypocritical Muslim community wanted a protest vote
against Biden by writing in "Gaza". Strangely, in the United States Muslim >>>> community's calls for cease fire, it never asks Hamas to simply surrender >>>> and return hostages and prisoners of war. Nor at any point in the last >>>> two decades did they ask other Muslim nations -- Iran and Egypt (during >>>> the brief period in which it was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood) -- >>>> to stop arming Hamas, nor did they ask their fellow Arab governments to >>>> stop giving Hamas foreign aid as it did nearly nothing but buy weapons, >>>> or rip it off for massive cash reserves.

It's like there would be peace in the Middle East if there were no
outside influence.

I decided my for FOR Biden was a protest against their hypocrisy. Gah. >>>>
In the general election, I can vote third party if anybody puts up
someone I'd vote for. He'll win my state's electors regardless of my
vote.

Yeah yeah, I'm stalling.

I'd ordered mail-in ballots for my mother and myself. After a very long >>>> discussion about the two candidates for State's Attorney, I made a
decision. She was quite concerned about how the policy of not
prosecuting for retail theft under $1000 was bad for shopkeepers. I
pointed out that it's not just the aggregate value of merchandise stolen >>>> but the damage that's done to the shop, and they really should be
indicted them on additional charges with serious damage.

In the state criminal code, it's a felony if it's over $300, and
apparently, Kim Foxx won't even prosecute a misdemeanor most of the time >>>> if it's under $1000. Eileen Burke says she'd prosecute according to
state law as she's supposed to follow state law. Clayton Harris would
keep the policy in place.

The Chicago police union endorsed Burke but said even Harris would be
better than Kim Foxx.

I was quite impressed with her record on the bench at trial court and
appellate court, but the answer she's been giving on her prosecution,
very early in her career while an Assistant State's Attorney, of the 8 >>>> year old boy for murder on an obviously coerced confession, has been
unacceptable. She blamed the boy's attorney. Yeah, I've no doubt it
could have been a brand-new lawyer on his first major case, with nearly >>>> no resources and no clue how to defend an unsympathetic client with a
sympathetic victim.

But she believed the cop. She wanted the story to be true. It's her
reputation when she puts on specious state's evidence without asking any >>>> hard questions.

It's the second most unethical thing a prosecutor can do, the first
being prosecuting a defendant knowing he's actually innocent of the
crime.

Basically, my mother said, I don't want an unethical state's attorney.

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat >>> win the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/Z
NFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet >>> or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

Going Full MAGA now, are we? The ballots were legitimate and were kept
under lock and key.

It was human error.

Sure. Funny how these human errors always crop up whenever a Dem is in trouble in a close race. And the trunk ballots always give the Dem a
boost.

Funny you have no statistics or facts of any kind to prove this. Tell
it to the MAGAs they'll believe you because they're as fucking stupid as
you are. While you're working on this, remember to apologize for lying
about the Nazi party's marching in Skokie.

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

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win >>>the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet >>>or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

That was a few days ago. Those were mail-in ballots that were NOT >>mishandled, and would have included both Democratic and Republican
primary ballots. They failed to aggregate the votes properly cast on
those ballots with the interim total announced Saturday.

It has nothing to do with thwarting the Republican nominee. We already
know whom the nominee is. Bob Fioretti ran unopposed. Also, it's a former >>alderman so it's not like you'd have voted for him.

Burke vs. Harris is a race for the Democratic Party nomination. Burke is >>simply willing to prosecute offenders based on the state criminal code >>threshold for low-level felony charges and Harris wants to continue
Foxx's policy of letting first-time arrestees off the hook for low level >>felonies. They weren't far apart on other issues.

Fioretti won't be all that different from Burke.

So in this case, the trunk ballots will favor the candidate who's the
most 'progressive' lunatic of the two Democrats.

Would you withdraw the paranoia? AP projected Burke, who is willing to prosecute retail theft if over $300 as a felony (as the criminal code
says), to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Harris lost. It's not
felt that there are enough mail-in votes to be counted that would allow
Harris to take the lead. Votes postmarked by primary election day and
receive by Tuesday will be counted.

. . .

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

On 3/29/2024 9:14 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

. . .

Looks like Chicago found a stash of "trunk ballots" to help the Democrat win
the race. Who's surprised?

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1773149827200630784/vid/avc1/480x270/ZNFmPg27UJ8tARgW.mp4?tag=14

Funny how these last minute ballots found in someone's trunk or in a closet
or wherever absolutely never favor the Republican candidate, isn't it?

That was a few days ago. Those were mail-in ballots that were NOT
mishandled, and would have included both Democratic and Republican
primary ballots. They failed to aggregate the votes properly cast on
those ballots with the interim total announced Saturday.

It has nothing to do with thwarting the Republican nominee. We already
know whom the nominee is. Bob Fioretti ran unopposed. Also, it's a former >>> alderman so it's not like you'd have voted for him.

Burke vs. Harris is a race for the Democratic Party nomination. Burke is >>> simply willing to prosecute offenders based on the state criminal code
threshold for low-level felony charges and Harris wants to continue
Foxx's policy of letting first-time arrestees off the hook for low level >>> felonies. They weren't far apart on other issues.

Fioretti won't be all that different from Burke.

So in this case, the trunk ballots will favor the candidate who's the
most 'progressive' lunatic of the two Democrats.

Would you withdraw the paranoia?

I'm afraid we've already lost him to it.

AP projected Burke, who is willing to
prosecute retail theft if over $300 as a felony (as the criminal code
says), to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Harris lost. It's not
felt that there are enough mail-in votes to be counted that would allow Harris to take the lead. Votes postmarked by primary election day and
receive by Tuesday will be counted.

. . .

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