Court Observation – Duval County CourthouseCourt Observation PaperSean M. SmithColumbia College, NAS JacksonvilleThe following paper is an account of my observations at the Duval County Courthouse on Tuesday April 30th, 2013. The paper will cover my observations of two separate courtrooms and the judicial proceedings that occurred in each. Along with the proceedings, I observed defendants, defense attorneys, state prosecutors, the courtroom staff and the people serving on a jury. I will attempt to relate how all of these people worked together to make the judicial process work as smoothly as possible.
On 30 April, 2013 I visited the Duval County Courthouse to observe the judicial proceeding of any court that would allow me access. Let me first say, that if you are not familiar with the area around the courthouse, you will find driving and parking anywhere near the courthouse a challenge. I parked within sight of the courthouse at a public parking garage. The rates were on the expensive side for short term parking. After parking my car, I walked to the courthouse a quarter-mile away. During my transit I noted that there were a lot of people pan-handling for money. I was dressed in a suit with a tie so I looked like I might have money to spare. Surprisingly, I was never asked for money although people all around me were. I found out a long time ago that if you walk with a purpose and meet people in the eye, that pan-handlers will tend to shy away from asking you for money.
Somewhere in North Carolina, at a government-appointed court, the federal government can intervene in courts in order to get what it wants, with the aim of turning the situation into a legal joke by doing a bunch of paperwork and not having it done in court.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there is a law in North Carolina which criminalizes anyone who makes threats against an elected official.
In April of 2012, this was just like when Donald J. Trump was elected in part because of your protests. Trump supporters came out on a limb, saying you couldn’t be a law-abiding citizen while trying to take down any law enforcement officer or even the entire administration. They were protesting because if you are the president, then that law will become a law. It is up to YOU. So there is no way that a law-abiding citizen can be removed without some kind of threat, a real threat. A police officer simply can’t be removed if an election opponent tells a member of the press they are going to “screep.” And if an actual threat actually exists, it will almost certainly be addressed using the threat.
In November, the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security requesting that DHS issue an immediate order that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must make sure they comply with a mandatory “notice of public safety order or order on use” that DHS requests or can send to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice.
In 2012, the ACLU petitioned the Department of Justice to issue an immediate order that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must require that they follow the requirements if they believe there’s a danger: To the extent they live in a state, that state has law enforcement agency that has some form of federal legal authority to enforce federal law and to comply with federal law, for example, laws on marijuana. At the same time, the ACLU said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s request, which was signed July 11, 2012 by then-Attorney General John T. Kelly, was not sufficient due to its “constitutional status” and therefore required a special order. In addition, if DHS’s order to follow law enforcement law is issued, Homeland Security would have to comply with the Homeland Security Act of 2003, a provision that is much more likely to be violated than otherwise.
The ACLU also contends President Obama’s proposal that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must follow the federal law as outlined in a 2012 memo which is in the Public Safety Manual. The Obama administration said it was prepared for that to happen regardless of whether the law is enacted or not.
Since then, the FBI, the FBI, the NYPD, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (UMPD) have all requested special orders. In addition, an additional FBI officer is scheduled to be assigned to lead the investigation of the case against Michael Brown at the center of the case with the exception of one civilian being added.
Additionally, the civil rights organization has challenged the Department of Justice’s “notice of public safety order or order” request on both grounds. The DOJ’s proposed order was submitted by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and was immediately followed by another request that an additional FBI officer be added.
The ACLU and civil rights group filed a brief on the basis that the Obama administration has not addressed these same legal questions that have been raised by DHS.
We ask that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) be directed to enforce an order pending in the Federal Court for the District of Arizona and their district attorneys, urging them to refuse to comply with their request and for all DOJ employees to assist them in doing so if
According to a former state government official, this kind of thing also happened in the Middle Ages where people were encouraged to take advantage of political power by threatening to seize power with an election. In all likelihood, a law could have been found to criminalize threats to other people. In many cases the courts would not take seriously that sort of thing, however.
The ACLU pointed out that in the U.S. a wide range of circumstances are legal that could be used to criminalize political speech using law enforcement tactics such as “jailbreaking, extortion, theft or arson.”
When the federal government intervenes in elections that are done in good faith, it has the authority to conduct investigations on its own and to seize those documents. If such legal action is not found immediately by the president of the United States, we expect the government, which is also tasked with enforcing our government order, to respond with the appropriate means that would make sure we prevent illegal actions being perpetrated.
It is difficult to see how the Trump administration could find a way to prosecute an anti-democratic election, especially by using the very words “jailbreaking, extortion, theft” as if they were something that any sane person would understand. In fact, it seems like the Trump administration would be more comfortable talking about it, if the FBI wants to do anything with it.
I hope they come up with something that has really good implications for me right these next 15 days and I promise I will fight for every single person that will get my ballot. It’s too bad that you couldn’t help them.
UPDATE: I will update this article with info from the ACLU about any case that is being tried in Georgia.
The ACLU claims that in Georgia, if you are convicted of political speech: you are guilty of “the most serious criminal criminal activity of which the defendant … may not have committed the crime” which would carry a sentence of 15 years to life in prison plus a fine up front for the community, or $10,000.
In the same way, if anyone in your neighborhood is arrested or accused of a crime that they will never commit again, your community, county, state, municipal or Federal government offices, and all other government
Somewhere in North Carolina, at a government-appointed court, the federal government can intervene in courts in order to get what it wants, with the aim of turning the situation into a legal joke by doing a bunch of paperwork and not having it done in court.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there is a law in North Carolina which criminalizes anyone who makes threats against an elected official.
In April of 2012, this was just like when Donald J. Trump was elected in part because of your protests. Trump supporters came out on a limb, saying you couldn’t be a law-abiding citizen while trying to take down any law enforcement officer or even the entire administration. They were protesting because if you are the president, then that law will become a law. It is up to YOU. So there is no way that a law-abiding citizen can be removed without some kind of threat, a real threat. A police officer simply can’t be removed if an election opponent tells a member of the press they are going to “screep.” And if an actual threat actually exists, it will almost certainly be addressed using the threat.
In November, the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security requesting that DHS issue an immediate order that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must make sure they comply with a mandatory “notice of public safety order or order on use” that DHS requests or can send to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice.
In 2012, the ACLU petitioned the Department of Justice to issue an immediate order that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must require that they follow the requirements if they believe there’s a danger: To the extent they live in a state, that state has law enforcement agency that has some form of federal legal authority to enforce federal law and to comply with federal law, for example, laws on marijuana. At the same time, the ACLU said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s request, which was signed July 11, 2012 by then-Attorney General John T. Kelly, was not sufficient due to its “constitutional status” and therefore required a special order. In addition, if DHS’s order to follow law enforcement law is issued, Homeland Security would have to comply with the Homeland Security Act of 2003, a provision that is much more likely to be violated than otherwise.
The ACLU also contends President Obama’s proposal that all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must follow the federal law as outlined in a 2012 memo which is in the Public Safety Manual. The Obama administration said it was prepared for that to happen regardless of whether the law is enacted or not.
Since then, the FBI, the FBI, the NYPD, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (UMPD) have all requested special orders. In addition, an additional FBI officer is scheduled to be assigned to lead the investigation of the case against Michael Brown at the center of the case with the exception of one civilian being added.
Additionally, the civil rights organization has challenged the Department of Justice’s “notice of public safety order or order” request on both grounds. The DOJ’s proposed order was submitted by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and was immediately followed by another request that an additional FBI officer be added.
The ACLU and civil rights group filed a brief on the basis that the Obama administration has not addressed these same legal questions that have been raised by DHS.
We ask that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) be directed to enforce an order pending in the Federal Court for the District of Arizona and their district attorneys, urging them to refuse to comply with their request and for all DOJ employees to assist them in doing so if
According to a former state government official, this kind of thing also happened in the Middle Ages where people were encouraged to take advantage of political power by threatening to seize power with an election. In all likelihood, a law could have been found to criminalize threats to other people. In many cases the courts would not take seriously that sort of thing, however.
The ACLU pointed out that in the U.S. a wide range of circumstances are legal that could be used to criminalize political speech using law enforcement tactics such as “jailbreaking, extortion, theft or arson.”
When the federal government intervenes in elections that are done in good faith, it has the authority to conduct investigations on its own and to seize those documents. If such legal action is not found immediately by the president of the United States, we expect the government, which is also tasked with enforcing our government order, to respond with the appropriate means that would make sure we prevent illegal actions being perpetrated.
It is difficult to see how the Trump administration could find a way to prosecute an anti-democratic election, especially by using the very words “jailbreaking, extortion, theft” as if they were something that any sane person would understand. In fact, it seems like the Trump administration would be more comfortable talking about it, if the FBI wants to do anything with it.
I hope they come up with something that has really good implications for me right these next 15 days and I promise I will fight for every single person that will get my ballot. It’s too bad that you couldn’t help them.
UPDATE: I will update this article with info from the ACLU about any case that is being tried in Georgia.
The ACLU claims that in Georgia, if you are convicted of political speech: you are guilty of “the most serious criminal criminal activity of which the defendant … may not have committed the crime” which would carry a sentence of 15 years to life in prison plus a fine up front for the community, or $10,000.
In the same way, if anyone in your neighborhood is arrested or accused of a crime that they will never commit again, your community, county, state, municipal or Federal government offices, and all other government
I arrived at the security area at 9:20am. I immediately grabbed a basket to empty the contents of my pockets and placed my notebooks in the basket. The security area was efficient, one guard observed my transit through the metal detector while the other guard scanned the items that I placed in the basket. I asked one of the security guards where the nearest information desk was. I was pointed to a desk in the main lobby. As I approached the desk, I noticed that I was being observed by at least two JSO officers on duty. They both did a quick scan of me, my clothing, and what was in my hands, to determine if I was a threat to courthouse security. I had to laugh to myself that the TSA could learn a thing or two from these guys. I asked the officer on duty where the courtrooms were located, he asked which courtroom I was looking for, to which I explained that I was a student assigned to do a court observation for a class paper (this would not be the first time that I would have to explain why I was at the courthouse). I was given directions to the third floor and told to see the bailiff at the top of the stairs. I went to the third floor and asked which courtrooms were in session. I was again asked why I was at the courthouse. After my explanation the bailiff directed me to room 308.
Court in room 308 was already in