“TRUMP ASKED US TO GO HOME”; Video Re-Surfaces Of Jacob Chansley Urging Peace

Thanks. That is the problem the same professional paper title for both the A’s & the C’s students. I’m not impressed by titles. I’m impressed by competence in action. Good for you. That is important.

I’m thinking there may be a possibility that the original lawyer for Jason Chansley may have been a C or C- law student with a professional law title hanging on the wall.

 

I never said "mostly correct." I said he is correct that his face was the face of the January 6th riot. That is all. I also said I would not compare him to Rosie the Ribbiter either, which Turley did. I also said that I disagree with Turley that his rights were violated. that is not mostly correct.

My rebuttal was the fact about opinion in "how would you know" when in fact you made that very same claim that you use Turley primarily to formulate your opinion. I literally said you need to look at more than one voice or viewpoint. That means stop looking at places exclusively or primarily that try to justify your opinion with another opinion that is close to your own.

 

It doesn't matter! The rules of evidence don't require something to be actually exculpatory, only that it is possible, and the prosecutors are not the ones who get to determine that. I have said in this thread many times that I do not care what happens to the horned dude, as long as he deserves it, and the process against him was fair, which includes obeying all the rules of evidence.

Which is to say they had a right to have that footage, whether or not it actually contained anything in there that exonerated their client. Period. That's not even an opinion, that's the rules of evidence in a criminal proceeding, not something that I plucked out of my ass because I want this guy to get off. I don't care if he does or doesn't, repeating myself, as long as the proceeding was fair and followed the rules. I'll bet you $100 to your favorite non-political charity that he at least gets his plea deal revoked and they have to start again in his prosecution. Let's say within the next 18 months, with a 6-month extension if that is in the works, but not yet finalized. The wheels of justice turn slowly, too slowly for my liking, but tis what it tis. Though my favorite charity is me. Which, in my case, is understandable.

 

I do not remember who it was, and I have learned the hard way that you're not allowed to use people's own words against them here anyway, but the other day someone said matter of factly that the video was not exculpatory, and therefore the defendant was not entitled to use it. I asked who decided that, and to the best of my knowledge did not get an answer. To be fair, the posts are flying fast and furious, so it's easy to miss some, so they certainly may have and I missed it, but unless it's classified information, in which case a defendant is still entitled to use it for their defense, albeit under a different set of circumstances (as an example, the Judge may examine it and decide if it's relevant or not, and if it is used at trial, it may be with closed doors and itself subject to being classified, but we're not dealing with that here, so it's not relevant.

 

that is a different question apart from the issue of Jacob Chansley. It is obvious there was not enough law enforcement there on that day. And not all the questions have been answered. Some conspiracy theories try to make Nancy Pelosi's fault or "Polosi wanted this to happen" and other conspiracy theories, but that does not negate the justification of the charges on any of the capital defendants. Meanwhile, the six officers who died from the results of this chaos are being dragged through the mud by the very person who also claims to have law enforcement's back. Except in this case, Tucker does not seem them as law enforcement, just political pawns. If you want to start another thread on why there was not enough law enforcement that day, I would be more than happy to read what you say and will respond with my analysis.

The question of fairness, in legal terms, comes under the phrase substantial due process. If you read the Brady Rule and the definition of exculpatory evidence, apply the rules and definition rationally to the videos being released and compare them to the charges and evidence of the defendants who have already pled guilty or were found guilty by a jury of their peers, one can reasonably conclude Jacob Chansley standing outside prior to the riot taking place of him yelling at everyone "that Trump wants us to go home and be peaceful." It is obvious no one went home and 1000 showed no signs of peace, but destruction. We have one defendant already asking for his charges to be dismissed. This pretrial motion will be heard, and there is a 99% chance of probability that the judge will not dismiss one thing. The judge may ask or order the prosecution to hand over all tapes that identify the defendant, but that may be the end of that pretrial motion. But again, we have to look deeper. And deeper means do any of these videos that we have seen justify not charging any capital defendant? No, it does not. It does not justify in lowering whatever sentence they may have or had either. So, if the Brady rule was followed, then were his rights violated still? No they were not.

Most of the people who are claiming his rights were violated can fall into three categories
1. The political assumption and belief that the conspiracy theories are true or mostly true
2. Want to create different rules for capital rioters compared to social justice rioters
3. Just want to use this event to get back at the Democrats politically in any way possible and don't really care about the claims being alleged.

I have maintained, through the use of the Brady Rule and the Definition of exculpatory evidence that Jacob Chansley's rights were not violated. None that I can see publicly or from Tucker Carlson's show or from the internet gossip that is going on. Emotions are flying high, especially for those who still quite literally believe DJT won the 2020 election and still believe in the election lies. But emotions don't save you from legal issues when faced with our jurisprudence system. I do have legal experience, but having legal experience, actual real world legal experience does not necessarily limit a person to just being a lawyer. Just need to try to use the defintiion. Use the rules of Brady Rule and go through each point, one by one, with the videos at hand and determine for yourself. Don't rely on opinion. Use the evidence already outthere, and go one by one. Does Jacob Chansley in the vidoes being release exonerate him from the charges? If any question of the four is no from the Brady Rule, then you have your answer.

 

Actually, it does matter. Rules of evidence are very precise. It is basically, but not limited to, to rule 401. Some have argued about the Brady Rule. I have argued that Brady rule does not apply since the evidence is not exculpatory and meets the requirements in it is not exculpatory. Bear in mind, in rule 402, not all relevant evidence is admissible. And the rule explains if it meets certain requirements why it is not admissible.

Jacob's Chansley's attorney may be upset, but it won't change the fact that his client pled guilty and there is very little he can do. His really only option is to try to vacate the plea bargain if Jacob Chansley agrees. Jacob's attorney is very competent and he knows it is risky. The original charges were five charges altogether with a maximum sentence of 25 years. So, if the plea bargain is vacated by the defense and the judge agrees, then all five charges are on the table and no double jeopardy applies here. But given the fact that Jacob Chansley is remanded and the judge who denied his bail and sentenced him will still be the same judge, the chances are not good Jacob Chansley would win on any count. And that is the risk here for Jacob Chansley.

 

It still applies to the point of sovereignty. In this case, McDonald's assets, private, corporate assets, were sovereignty or ownership.

 

This was a two hour riot induced by police management incompetence and initiated in part by government and Anfifa instigators. Why weren’t Epps and Soloman arrested and tried? Also the lead FBI guy was the same who entrapped the morons in Michigan who were lead into planning to kidnap Whitmer.

 

I used Turley's legal expertise to form my opinion on the obligation of the defense to provide everything they have during the discovery process to the defendant. I find I mostly agree with what he has to say on all legal matters.
Sorry if you misunderstood or don't appreciate my prerogative. You'll just have to get over it.

 

so who was Antifa? Jacob Chansley? Ray Epps? Who. there is no evidence to even remotely make that claim. We do know there were proud boys there, 3 percenters, and a few other groups. All in all, a dozen extremist groups participated, all of whom had one thing in common, they believed in the election lies from DJT. This is not arguing DJT instigated it, but his rhetoric did encourage the riots, all based on a lie.

https://www.voanews.com/a/2020-usa-...t-groups-took-part-capitol-riots/6200832.html

 

Precisely what my source, Jonathan Turley has opined.

Thank you for reiterating why the above is so important. We, as Americans, have the duty to speak out, if we find someone who has already been tried and sentenced didn't get due process under the law. We have been told by Chansley's legal defense that they didn't get to see what was aired on Tucker Carlson's show, and IF they didn't, this is a game-changer for Mr. Chansley. Now if the DOJ can prove they sent everything this is also the end, and nothing more should be said about it. However, if Chansley's team pushes the issue because they weren't sent everything to begin with, we all should be on board with Mr. Chansley getting at least some sort of rectification for damages rendered.

 

Defense is required to provide any evidence that may exonerate their client to the prosecution. They provide a list of possible defense witnesses that may be used if it is going to trial and their dispositions. The defense knows that for evidence to be presented, it must be accepted by the court. The Prosecution is not the defense for Jacob Chansley. Their job is to prove their claim he committed the crime. The defense's job is to prove that he didn't do this crime. That is overtly simplistic, but the point is that the defense is not there to help the prosecution and the prosecution is not there to help the defense. Jonathan Turley is a defense attorney. He has lost plenty of cases even though there was more than enough evidence to convict the client. And he has won a few too.

Now, for Turley's job, he is to mitigate what happened. To give you an example, let's look at former Federal District Judge Thomas Porteous, who was impeached in 2008 or so for bribery charges, among other things. He describes the bribery as "mooching." This is trying to negate what someone did than what they actually did.

 

Thank you for stating the above for the record. I'm not sure why some have to make what we all should be standing for into a food fight.

 

No, it’s NOT up to the jury. Whether or not a piece of evidence is exculpatory is a question of law. Juries answer questions of fact. A jury is not allowed to see evidence that is prejudicial and lacks probative value. Just as the defense doesn’t want evidence that makes the defendant look bad without providing information about the actual crime, the prosecutors don’t want evidence that makes the jury empathize with the defendant without providing information on the crime. The jury is supposed to reach decisions based SOLELY on the facts of the case, not on emotional side stories. That is what the judge is for. It’s his job to JUDGE whether evidence is appropriate before it gets to the jury.

 

I get all that, but why aren't you addressing the discovery process? This is what Turley, (my aforementioned source), and almost everyone here has been discussing. Please review the thread before going further with this. I'm not going off in a different direction. My points, Turley's points, are about the possibility that Chansley's Constitutional rights were violated during the discovery process.

If you want to discuss this, what I am writing, get back. Otherwise, this discussion is over.

 

I don't understand why anyone would not be on that side. I suppose it helps to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I would want to receive a fair trial if I was ever charged with a crime. If you take it away from anyone you might be taking it away from yourself.

 

We wouldn't be even discussing this case if the media didn't make such big deal out of it in order to boost their ratings. After Chansley is released from prison, he should hire a publicist, go on the talk show circuit/podcasts, and maybe even write a book and become a multi-millionaire.

 

Absolutely!
Curious, did the poster ever advise you as to what side you're on yet?

 

Ya know, in looking at that photo I'm surprised the prosecution didn't argue that his hat was threatening. Maybe he planned on ramming the LEO with the horns rather than the "spear".

 

No, I think all they can see is that I'm not on their side.

 

Unless they know how the defense planned on using the evidence I'm not sure how they can draw the conclusion that it's not exculpatory. Would the evidence have changed the way Chansley pled? Maybe.

 

I have addressed the discovery process in this thread in detail Any and all videos that Tucker has provided publicly does not meet the infamous Brady Rule. It does not follow the Federal Rules of Evidentiary Procedure, namely, rule 401, and may be denied per rule 402. It is interesting, but since Jacob Chansley pled guilty, which means he voluntarily waived his right to a trial and was still sitting in jail because the judge denied him bail, he choose, rightly or wrongly, to accept that plea deal. To do vacate that plea deal, to give him a chance, at trial by jury, may mean more jail time. In all, he had 5 charges against him with a maximum sentence of 25 years. The charge he pled guilty to had a maximum sentence of 20 years. He got 41 months, with time already being served while he was sitting in jail.

Under the Brady Rule and under the definition of exculpatory evidence, the evidence in question has to be both material and favorable. The videos may be material, but they are not favorable, even the ones where officers were escorting him. If you want that video, then you are going to have to accept what he said to those officers, what story did he say, and whether or not officers were following procedures at that time. He places him INSIDE the capital building at a time when the Joint Session of Congress was to certify the election. Since that was suspended because of the riots, it also means that Jacob Chansley should not have been there.

 

Soloman

 

You would think we would all be on the side of justice. and our commitment should be to speaking out together if one of our citizen's might not get due process. Their politics should have nothing, NOTHING, to do with any of this. IOW, no one should be butting heads over this.

 

Soloman? Who is Soloman? From the Bible?