Comments on: Devastating pre-trial rulings against Rasmieh Odeh in naturalization prosecution

By: Spiny Norman

Spiny Norman — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:53:45 +0000

That jury was never going to vote to convict, no matter what happened in the courtroom.

By: Tyrconnell

Tyrconnell — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:04:35 +0000

Okay, not having much experience in court proceedings, if it’s normal for to call all pleadings as credible, I can now accept that this judge was not actually agreeing with the accusation that the Israelis raped this woman to get her confession. Thank you for the knowledge, the day is not wasted.

By: Paul In Sweden

Paul In Sweden — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:31:24 +0000

Convicted wrongly or not, she served ten years in prison on a life sentence. That is something that required to be disclosed and is not something that could have been accidentally omitted.

By: Paul In Sweden

Paul In Sweden — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:53:32 +0000

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)is designated as a terrorist group by the USA(POTUS CLINTON Executive Order 01/24/95), Canada & the EU. The indictment charges Rasmieh Odeh with being a member of the PFLP which specifically denies admission under the Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) INA section 212, codified as Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1182, but the Court ruled that the government may not use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” as those terms are prejudicial.

It seems to me that if the indictment is specifically charging prior membership in a designated terrorist organization that ‘Terrorism’ is material to the case. Would the court decree that during a drug case that drugs are prohibited from being mentioned? Can we have a murder trial where the word murder is prohibited? O_o

There has to be some kind of distinction between material elements of the case and the court’s concept of ‘prejudicial’.

By: platypus

platypus — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 04:17:26 +0000

In cases like this, I wish the entire cost of the prosecution could be dumped onto the defendant for forcing a trial in which the outcome could only be conviction. Constitutional rights, in my view, are not license to abuse the system. Until we authorize jury nullification, cases like this have no business being taken to a jury.

Yeah, I know I’m being dreamy. Better here than in a courtroom.

By: TB

TB — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:40:34 +0000

It’s just a platitude. It’s irrelevant to the case and means nothing.

The question at hand is did she or did she not lie on the application about her conviction? If she was convicted, she was required by law to disclose that conviction.

Failure to disclose that conviction would qualify as lying on the application.

In addition, she KNOWINGLY failed to disclose this conviction. It wasn’t like she was out of the country and not present for her own trial. She knew she had a conviction.

Seems pretty much open and shut to me. They have her application. They have records of her conviction. She didn’t disclose the conviction on her application. Guilty. Nullify it all and kick her out of the country. Preferably somewhere far away and that’s under sharia law.

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:43:42 +0000

It is a canon of the law that a party’s pleadings are assumed by the court to be credible.

That just makes sense, if you think about it. The court has no business making judgments until the evidence has been placed before it. So the court is to take all pleadings at face value. Unless…as in summary judgment…it isn’t.

See…? This is why lawyers go to law school.

HEH!

By: Gremlin1974

Gremlin1974 — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:26:03 +0000

Do you somehow disagree with what the Judge said? I don’t understand your comment. If coercion was used then of course it was wrong, but that isn’t the issue before this Judge.

Frankly, I am more concerned with no being able to call a duck a duck. If someone is a terrorist that isn’t prejudicial its just honest.

By: Tyrconnell

Tyrconnell — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:20:13 +0000

Guess this is something that gets to me about this Judge:
“The Court of course agrees that confessions obtained through the use of torture and rape are antithetical to the concepts of fairness, due process and basic human rights. Moreover, the Court accepts as credible Defendant’s claims of torture and is not unaffected by the inhumane circumstances of her detention in the West Bank.”

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:17:47 +0000

I watch Ito totally lose control of his courtroom and that case.

He’s largely culpable, IMNHO, for that debacle. The prosecutors, too. I don’t blame the defense for doing their job and taking advantage. I wouldn’t, but that’s me.

By: Andrew Branca

Andrew Branca — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:06:12 +0000

The OJ case is notable precisely because it was so bizarre. And, almost 20 years ago.

Sure, there are plenty of feckless and idiot judges (just ask Mark Steyn).

Sure, one can never be certain a jury isn’t going to go clear off the rails, achieve escape velocity, and visit Betelgeuse.

It happens.

But it doesn’t happen all THAT often.

And as Rags notes, this judge seems to have his gear strapped on tight.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:35:21 +0000

This is no Judge Ito. He’s not gonna put up with any playing.