Perhaps we need a refresher on INNOCENT vs NOT GUILTY...

[brooklynite]

A number of posts have expressed irritation that some people (myself included) have said Marjorie Taylor Greene deserved to remain on the ballot in November, following her Administrative Hearing on Friday.

While this was a Hearing rather than a Trial and civil rather than criminal, the concept remains the same: MTG deserves to remain on the ballot NOT because she's "innocent" but because she's been found, for now, "not guilty". Judges and Juries don't determine innocence. They PRESUME innocence and place the burden on the Prosecutor or Plaintiff lawyer to prove otherwise. On this case, the Plaintiff attorney had the burden of proving "guilt" (engagement in, support for, planning for insurrection etc.) sufficient to invoke Amendment 14 Article 3. He failed to do so. His argument was: MTG had a history on incendiary language (true, but unlinked by evidence to the statements made on Jan 6); she supported "insurrection" against the British in 1776 so she must be inclined to support it in 2020 (alleged but not proven); and she used "code words" that insurrectionists so she must have had a relationship with them (possible, but again not proven). As a result, she's considered "not guilty" of the charge against her, based on the evidence presented.

nb: unlike criminal law, there isn't a double-jeopardy provision at play here. If the Plaintiff attorney or someone else can FIND evidence, they can bring in back to Court.

[hlthe2b]

1. NO rendering either way has occurred. The admin judge has asked parties for follow-up

So, any conclusion as to the judge's opinion is premature. Generalized platitudes about "innocent until proven guilty" that is the hallmark of our entire judicial system aside, there has been no decision rendered. Even when it is rendered, this is not a clear-cut (binding) case and certainly not a criminal case. Thus, the SOS will have the final word in GA, not this administrative judge. His opinion is merely informative.

Judge Charles R. Beaudrot Jr. said at the end of the proceedings on Friday that he will give the parties until next Thursday at midnight to file their follow-up briefings on certain matters the judge wanted more input on. He said though that he hopes they will file them sooner.

"We do need to get this done," he said. "Georgia courts move very fast, we will move very fast.. this is extraordinarily important stuff."

The judge said once the briefings are filed, he would aim to have his findings completed within a week.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-hearing-what-happens-next/85-8b9c8961-a3db-409d-83a1-e8cf85659e20

[moniss]

2. I've always said

that the term "not guilty" is inappropriate. It should be "not proven".

[stopdiggin]

3. Yep. the fact that I don't WANT her in congress

is not the equivalent of finding reason she should be barred from the ballot.

(And yes, - also aware that a lot of people are utterly convinced the the 'evidence' here is straightforward and clear as a bell. That is one set of opinion - the judge seems to have arrived at another. And I think it pretty hard to assert that a jury - had there been one in this matter - would have come to anything like unanimous agreement to the contrary.)

[dpibel]

12. What opinion has the judge arrived at?

This is news to me. Last I heard, the judge was waiting for supplemental briefing and would be making his recommendation in the required time period.

[stopdiggin]

16. the premise of the OP

(which you appear to agree with) is that this effort will probably not prevail. I agree with that assessment. I think that a lot of people agree with that assessment. You seem to agree with that assessment. I stated that there was diversity of opinion (but that I thought there was probably a 'winner' in that debate - and that it was entirely predictable). As such - I'm completely in the dark as to what it is that has you so upset. Statements like "this is our 1776" are probably not going to get you convicted of sedition - in front of almost any bench (in this country). The 'swing and a miss' was in thinking that this petition had any shot of winning in the first place.

----- -----

[Hoyt]

4. Oh, hell, we all know she's guilty of something and should be removed from ballot,

since we can’t win in that district nowadays.

[dpibel]

5. Another swing, another miss

Just for starters, you're not the finder of fact. You can (and certainly do) opine to your heart's content as to the weight and quality of the evidence.

What you can't do is say what has or has not been proven. That's the province of the finder of fact. Your stating it as a certainty is fatuous.

You're probably right. The AL judge likely will find in Greene's favor. But you really are out of line to claim you know for a fact what the outcome will be.

As for your trenchant analysis, "she supported "insurrection" against the British in 1776 so she must be inclined to support it in 2020 (alleged but not proven)" is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Even from you.

The point of the 1776 argument is that when she said "This is our 1776," she was communicating that her people had come to the same point as the people in 1776.

I mean really. That's clear to anyone, and your formulation of it is...what's the word?...oh, yes. Fatuous.

And you haven't at all discussed the standard of proof. According to the plaintiff's brief, it's preponderance of the evidence. That's a world different from BRD and also, I'm thinking, far from "evidence sufficient for Brooklynite." It could figure in.

Frankly, I agree with you. This complaint is unlikely to prevail.

But I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as frivolous as you like to present it.

And I don't actually hold your legal analysis in quite the esteem you seem to.

Especially since I'm pretty sure you haven't read the complaint and, thus, are holding forth without even a basic knowledge of the legal theories at issue.

[NotTodayPutin]

9. Seems a bit harsh

Just saying

[dpibel]

14. Thanks, coach

[brooklynite]

10. Plenty of other people here have concluded what the outcome will be...

As for "frivolous", I'm not arguing against the merits of the claim; I'm observing that evidence supporting the claim wasn't presented. If you disaqree, point to the evidence presented that would convince a Judge (or Jury) of the Plaintiffs' case.

[dpibel]

11. What portion of this is obscure to you?

From my post:

"Frankly, I agree with you. This complaint is unlikely to prevail."

In light of that, what possible sense can I make of your subject line?

As for the evidence presented, there was plenty--especially the 1776 part that you find so amusing--to indicate that she was calling for violent resistance to the transfer of power.

The judge (in this case there is no jury, so not sure what your parenthetical is about) is absolutely within his rights to disbelieve all of her equivocation and half-denials. In which case, there actually is evidence that she was at the very least inciting.

It's not evidence satisfactory to you. I get that.

I also get that "Brooklynite doesn't find the evidence sufficient" is absolutely the same as all those people Brooklynite likes to remind "we all know is not sufficient." IOW, you are engaging in the conclusory behavior you are very fond of calling other people out for.

I'll say it for you again: I agree with your conclusion. I do not believe Greene will be excluded from the ballot.

I believe that's because the evidence can go either way. And the way of status quo and safety is the way the judge is likely to go.

But I believe you are stone cold wrong that there is a complete failure of evidence on the part of the plaintiffs. I honestly don't believe you have the chops to make that call.

[dpibel]

13. "You can't allow it to just transfer power 'peacefully'

like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our president."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017731047 At 1:52

That's actually pretty straightforward.

[ForgedCrank]

6. It's the same

thing. All people are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. If a not guilty verdict is rendered, the person in question is back to being presumed innocent, are they not?

[Lucid Dreamer]

7. Yes, there remains the presumption of innocence with a Not Guilty verdict, but

factual innocence may not be true.

People that have actually committed crimes have been acquitted.
In that case that person would be factually Not Innocent [not a legal term] yet be Not Guilty [a legal term].

[Diablo del sol]

8. Not surprising

But you are missing the point completely.