This is incorrect. Double jeopardy is only violated when the same crime is charged twice by the same legal sovereign. The state government is a separate legal sovereign from the federal government, and both are permitted to charge the same individual for the same crime if the same act resulted in both state and federal laws allegedly being violated.
This is known as the dual-sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy prohibition. It was affirmed by SCOTUS in 2019.
Oh, well that sucks. So he may actually get charged again, interesting, the charges should have never been filed in the first place and this is clearly political, so even if charged again, there is little hope for the prosecution. Still sucks though.
Thanks for the info, I had no idea that this could be a thing.
Two questions:
Question: is a local government like the city a seperate sovereign? So could you have a city charge, then a state, then a federal?
Other question: how is a state a seperate sovereign anymore if they must follow federal law? Are people sovereign? Why or whynot?
A county is not a sovereign entity. It is a municipal corporation subject to the pleasure of the state in which it is incorporating. A state is sovereign. The federal government is, but it is extremely limited by the constitution. Unfortunately because we exist under Common Law too much fraud was allowed to be introduced into the system. Our current government is in direct violation of the founding documents (AKA the social contract) under which it was formed.
Both of these ideas of State sovereignty are frauds perpetrated on the people. The people are sovereign. We are led to believe instead that the government is sovereign and the people are vassals. This is a violation of Natural Law (which is impossible, though not impossible to make people believe) and a fundamental fraud in the construction of The Matrix.
The only sovereignty inherent in a government is the sovereignty implied by the group of sovereign citizens with a joined purpose that make it up.
When a government is founded, it is founded with articles of incorporation (in the case of the original U.S. government that article was the Constitution). This makes it a legal person made up of a group of people. This allows for that group to be a single party in any legal grievance (lawsuit).
In such a system the individual and the government are both the same level of entity. Both sovereign, with the rights inherent in a sovereign (which are actually just our inalienable rights). In the case of a government it will likely have fewer rights than the citizen, but it can't have more. It only has the rights necessary for it to carry out its purpose (a common defense e.g.). Even within those rights it never has the right to violate a citizens rights. The fifth amendment was a direct violation of citizens inalienable rights. So were several after that. The fraud was there from the beginning.
The real fraud comes in when the Corporation becomes a separate entity from the sovereign members that make it up. I am not sure when that happened (in a legal sense). It may have been there for quite a while. In the case of the U.S. it may have been there from the beginning. I haven't quite worked that out yet.
Perhaps if Kyle is charged by the Federal government this fraud will come to light.
I believe that any local-level crime (such as a county-level violation) would still be considered a state-level prosecution.
However, I am not a lawyer and do not know this for certain, nor do I have enough time at the moment to confirm that at the moment. That also largely prevents me from giving you a useful answer to your second question.
I'm not defending the practice or saying I understand the intricacies of it from a legal standpoint, as I do not work in the legal field. I only know that a state and federal charge can be leveled for the same crime from the same event without violating double jeopardy.
To be clear, though, I highly doubt the DOJ will be interested in keeping Rittenhouse in the news at this point. Even if the prosecution hadn't completely fucked up the case, I still find it unlikely they would have won based on the evidence that was presented in court. Unless there is some massive piece of evidence that both the prosecution and defense failed to address, I can't imagine a federal trial would have any reason to come to a different conclusion, and I cannot imagine why the DOJ would want to devote resources to what would likely be a losing case that, as you stated, is under significant accusation of being politically-tinted. Even if they win, they'd likely lose.
No problem. But as I added onto my post, I don't think you need to worry about Rittenhouse going back on trial. I can't imagine how it would be worth the resources for the DOJ to try prosecuting a case that was kind of embarrassing for a number of reasons. There's not much you can do with a gunshot victim that admitted Rittenhouse had a viable reason to shoot him in self-defense.
I think their opportunity to make an example of Mr. Rittenhouse has come and gone. Had the prosecution team been made up of competent lawyers who presented a good case, then we might see the DOJ looking to step in, but instead, they'd have to follow up a clown show, and I'm not certain how they could possibly benefit. Even assuming they're completely corrupt, there would have to be some sort of win to motivate them, and I can't figure out what sort of win is worth the risk they'd take. Rittenhouse isn't really that big of a fish.
Apparently DJ means that you cant be charged for the same crime twice *from the same sovereign" so a state can't charge you twice, the federal gov can't charge you twice, but if you commit a federal crime, both the state and federal can charge you for the same crime once. But because Kyle didn't commit a federal crime as far as I'm aware of, he should be fine. He didn't move the gun across state lines, the gun was already there.
Hmm. What a joke. This kid should own every news outlet and most of the homes of members of our government. Let the lawsuits fly. Thanks for clarification on that.
That's a declaration of war against the citizenry. People can sugar coat it, but that's EXACTLY what this is.
They will have to find charges that he wasn't accused of. No double-jeopardy
This is incorrect. Double jeopardy is only violated when the same crime is charged twice by the same legal sovereign. The state government is a separate legal sovereign from the federal government, and both are permitted to charge the same individual for the same crime if the same act resulted in both state and federal laws allegedly being violated.
This is known as the dual-sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy prohibition. It was affirmed by SCOTUS in 2019.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf
Oh, well that sucks. So he may actually get charged again, interesting, the charges should have never been filed in the first place and this is clearly political, so even if charged again, there is little hope for the prosecution. Still sucks though.
Thanks for the info, I had no idea that this could be a thing. Two questions: Question: is a local government like the city a seperate sovereign? So could you have a city charge, then a state, then a federal? Other question: how is a state a seperate sovereign anymore if they must follow federal law? Are people sovereign? Why or whynot?
A county is not a sovereign entity. It is a municipal corporation subject to the pleasure of the state in which it is incorporating. A state is sovereign. The federal government is, but it is extremely limited by the constitution. Unfortunately because we exist under Common Law too much fraud was allowed to be introduced into the system. Our current government is in direct violation of the founding documents (AKA the social contract) under which it was formed.
Both of these ideas of State sovereignty are frauds perpetrated on the people. The people are sovereign. We are led to believe instead that the government is sovereign and the people are vassals. This is a violation of Natural Law (which is impossible, though not impossible to make people believe) and a fundamental fraud in the construction of The Matrix.
The only sovereignty inherent in a government is the sovereignty implied by the group of sovereign citizens with a joined purpose that make it up.
When a government is founded, it is founded with articles of incorporation (in the case of the original U.S. government that article was the Constitution). This makes it a legal person made up of a group of people. This allows for that group to be a single party in any legal grievance (lawsuit).
In such a system the individual and the government are both the same level of entity. Both sovereign, with the rights inherent in a sovereign (which are actually just our inalienable rights). In the case of a government it will likely have fewer rights than the citizen, but it can't have more. It only has the rights necessary for it to carry out its purpose (a common defense e.g.). Even within those rights it never has the right to violate a citizens rights. The fifth amendment was a direct violation of citizens inalienable rights. So were several after that. The fraud was there from the beginning.
The real fraud comes in when the Corporation becomes a separate entity from the sovereign members that make it up. I am not sure when that happened (in a legal sense). It may have been there for quite a while. In the case of the U.S. it may have been there from the beginning. I haven't quite worked that out yet.
Perhaps if Kyle is charged by the Federal government this fraud will come to light.
I believe that any local-level crime (such as a county-level violation) would still be considered a state-level prosecution.
However, I am not a lawyer and do not know this for certain, nor do I have enough time at the moment to confirm that at the moment. That also largely prevents me from giving you a useful answer to your second question.
I'm not defending the practice or saying I understand the intricacies of it from a legal standpoint, as I do not work in the legal field. I only know that a state and federal charge can be leveled for the same crime from the same event without violating double jeopardy.
To be clear, though, I highly doubt the DOJ will be interested in keeping Rittenhouse in the news at this point. Even if the prosecution hadn't completely fucked up the case, I still find it unlikely they would have won based on the evidence that was presented in court. Unless there is some massive piece of evidence that both the prosecution and defense failed to address, I can't imagine a federal trial would have any reason to come to a different conclusion, and I cannot imagine why the DOJ would want to devote resources to what would likely be a losing case that, as you stated, is under significant accusation of being politically-tinted. Even if they win, they'd likely lose.
Okay thanks for your honest reply.
No problem. But as I added onto my post, I don't think you need to worry about Rittenhouse going back on trial. I can't imagine how it would be worth the resources for the DOJ to try prosecuting a case that was kind of embarrassing for a number of reasons. There's not much you can do with a gunshot victim that admitted Rittenhouse had a viable reason to shoot him in self-defense.
I agree
I think they want to do anything to drag him through the mud. And nothing grimier than federal mud.
I think their opportunity to make an example of Mr. Rittenhouse has come and gone. Had the prosecution team been made up of competent lawyers who presented a good case, then we might see the DOJ looking to step in, but instead, they'd have to follow up a clown show, and I'm not certain how they could possibly benefit. Even assuming they're completely corrupt, there would have to be some sort of win to motivate them, and I can't figure out what sort of win is worth the risk they'd take. Rittenhouse isn't really that big of a fish.
Exactly
Looks Like I am wrong on that
So if you are acquitted in a non federal court, some federal douche can put you right back on trial?
Looks like it
2 questions then. Is double jeopardy a myth? And why weren't federal charges brought against OJ? Oops. Never mind.
Apparently DJ means that you cant be charged for the same crime twice *from the same sovereign" so a state can't charge you twice, the federal gov can't charge you twice, but if you commit a federal crime, both the state and federal can charge you for the same crime once. But because Kyle didn't commit a federal crime as far as I'm aware of, he should be fine. He didn't move the gun across state lines, the gun was already there.
Hmm. What a joke. This kid should own every news outlet and most of the homes of members of our government. Let the lawsuits fly. Thanks for clarification on that.
You're fucking shitting me.
Arrest that cocksucker already!
Kenoshan Patriots should rally and tell the DOJ to piss off.
The jury has spoken! That’s final! What’s that short fat penguin looking character trying to pull?
Term limits or GTFO
how many pants shitting Skekses can the system host ffs
NY must fix its election.
It has for generations
He should just go back to pooping in his pants...
Perhaps another distraction? Maxwell and Smollett trials are set to start the 29th…
Is he in charge of the DOJ ?