Their verdict: ". . . it reads more like a joke than a description of anything real, we’re marking this claim as miscaptioned."
Miscaptioned. WTF?
"This rating is used w/photographs & videos that are “real” (i.e., not the product, partially or wholly, of digital manipulation) but are nonetheless misleading because they are accompanied by explanatory material that falsely describes their origin, context, and/or meaning."
Jokes are "misleading," guys.
These people are fucking morons. 🙄
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Denney Case: What happened today & what happens now?
You could hear the frustration in Judge Faruqui's voice that the Govt left Denney sitting around for weeks & didn't give him the Preliminary Hearing he was entitled to in Texas but he thought he could do nothing about it. /1
On the one hand, he did take the govt to task for screwing up the procedure because they are the ones that are supposed to be handling it & doing so properly & it's not small potatoes when you're talking about liberty. /2
On the other hand, he's a magistrate judge & he's right that that does limit the power that he personally has & one of those limitation is that he can't override the ruling of another magistrate (per a decision of the Chief Judge in our court). /3
Update on Jan6 Defendant Being Held Illegally. 3/5/22
@shipwreckedcrew filed another motion:
"DEFENDANT LUCAS DENNEY’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM CUSTODY" asserting a violation of the statutory requirement to indict in 30 days that I explained./1
He lays out the statutes, 18 USC 1361 & 1362, and applies them to Denney's facts: he was arrested on Dec 13, 2021 & is still not indicted yet as of today, March 5, 2022 - 82 days later. So case MUST be dismissed.
Before folks say, I agree his math on the 30 days (or 40 if 10 days are excluded for "reasonable" time for transport from TX to DC) is wrong. Looks like he went from the date of the detention hearing instead of arrest. He filed an errata to fix it. Link drive.google.com/file/d/128tE3F… /3
You don't see this very often in federal court, but one of the Jan 6 Defendants I think is actually being held illegally. I will explain. The Defendant is Lucas Denney. His case number in DC is: 21mj686. /1
/2 He has a slew of charges and an arrest warrant was issued for him in December 2021. He was charged on a complaint, NOT an indictment.
He was arrested on December 14, 2021 in Texas and taken before a magistrate there. /2
He appeared before the TX magistrate on December 14, 2021 for what the federal rules call an "Initial Appearance." That is just what it sounds like: it's the first time a judicial officer sees you after you are arrested. It's to make sure you have been legally arrested. /3
This is what it looks like when you enter into a written plea agreement about the Sentencing Guidelines. It’s from the OathKeeper plea today. He’s agreeing all these added on levels apply & he won’t be able to challenge any of it at his sentencing. /1
He’s got little to no criminal record so, after getting some levels off for pleading guilty, he’s at level 29, which in his history category translates to 87 to 108 months incarceration. /2
In his case, his lawyers think that stipulating to all of this is worth it for him because they are getting the cooperation deal in return, which will take levels off - sometimes as much as half the levels - at the time of sentencing. /3
A rule of law issue. One of our values is that the law applies equally to everyone & therefore everyone is entitled to a lawyer to help them understand & enforce their rights, even the most vilified people.
/1
A corollary to this value is that lawyers are NOT synonymous w/their clients. Representing someone or a company or a govt doesn’t mean you agree with that client’s views or actions. If this isn’t the rule, then the whole system of laws & the rule of law begin to disintegrate.
/2
This principle is in the lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. This is DC’s: 1.2(b) “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social, or moral views or activities.”/3