Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Holy Shit! Halligan spliced transcripts to court claiming Grand Jury did see both indictments!
This judge is about to go nuclear when they read this response:
Reddit Law Subreddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/CofesKS6XW
Response filed by Halligan: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf
Link to explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/YJpoEvNNoV
Look at Section Il in the filing, for example:
"Il. The Court Acknowledged the Clerical Discrepancy and Directed That the Two-Count True Bill Be Docketed"
Below it, sentence fragment --> transcript image --> paragraph --> image.
The first transcript image shows that the magistrate identifies the two conflicting documents, "I'm a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent." (Magistrate's quote)
Discrepancy -- check; court confirmed.
Now, let's go back to the Sect. Il title: "Direct That the Two-Count True Bill Be Docketed"
That's not exactly what happened though...
"I assume you intended to make it public, so these both will go on the docket in -272 now that it's been presented in open court. I just want to make sure that you understand that and that was your intention."
That, on one hand, is a magistrate judge obviously declaring what will or won't be on the record, but the key point (for me -- I'm sure someone else will vociferously disagree) is that when the judge is clarifying or trying to elucidate intent, they're not actually in direction or control of the substantive matter, rather they're procedurally ensuring that the jury's will be enacted.
The jury, it seems, never actually saw the indictment that Halligan was pushing forth, because only the foreperson and juror (from the reporting elsewhere) signed it, not all 12.
That's just example, but when you piece it together with, "any assertion that the grand jury
"never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcriptLI" it doesn't pass the smell test on whiff.
Even their conclusion doesn't hit the real problem: the federal grand jury NEVER SAW THE INDICTMENT THAT THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR PURSUED.
"Il. The Court Acknowledged the Clerical Discrepancy and Directed That the Two-Count True Bill Be Docketed"
Below it, sentence fragment --> transcript image --> paragraph --> image.
The first transcript image shows that the magistrate identifies the two conflicting documents, "I'm a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent." (Magistrate's quote)
Discrepancy -- check; court confirmed.
Now, let's go back to the Sect. Il title: "Direct That the Two-Count True Bill Be Docketed"
That's not exactly what happened though...
"I assume you intended to make it public, so these both will go on the docket in -272 now that it's been presented in open court. I just want to make sure that you understand that and that was your intention."
That, on one hand, is a magistrate judge obviously declaring what will or won't be on the record, but the key point (for me -- I'm sure someone else will vociferously disagree) is that when the judge is clarifying or trying to elucidate intent, they're not actually in direction or control of the substantive matter, rather they're procedurally ensuring that the jury's will be enacted.
The jury, it seems, never actually saw the indictment that Halligan was pushing forth, because only the foreperson and juror (from the reporting elsewhere) signed it, not all 12.
That's just example, but when you piece it together with, "any assertion that the grand jury
"never voted on the two-count indictment" is contradicted by the official transcriptLI" it doesn't pass the smell test on whiff.
Even their conclusion doesn't hit the real problem: the federal grand jury NEVER SAW THE INDICTMENT THAT THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR PURSUED.
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Ridiculously inept criminals. 