The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1101

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:49 am

I don't know what GIL is upset about, he wasn't really planning on prosecuting a real action anyway, he's just mad he got out lawyered by a real lawyer.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1102

Post by TheNewSaint » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:55 am

Northland10 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:13 am
IIRC, Shaeffer was pinning hopes that the discovery on this case would shake out the evidence he believes exists and will set him free. Without the defamation parts, any discovery will not go there.
And the defamation parts are so over-reaching that there aren't any non-defamation parts. Pretty much everything Cox objected to in the book was framed as defamation in court filings. For Klayman to come back now and say those things weren't defanation will be problematic for them. The court (in its response upthread) has already called out Klayman for his later filings contradicting his earlier filings.

And yes, this is all just an attempt to re-litigate Cox's conviction. He thinks if he can get one more charge thrown out, he can walk.
This bramble need not be traversed.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1103

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:32 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:55 am
Northland10 wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:13 am
IIRC, Shaeffer was pinning hopes that the discovery on this case would shake out the evidence he believes exists and will set him free. Without the defamation parts, any discovery will not go there.
:snippity:

And yes, this is all just an attempt to re-litigate Cox's conviction. He thinks if he can get one more charge thrown out, he can walk.
In my non-lawyer mind, even if he fully succeeded in a civil case, that would do nothing to change his criminal convictions.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26816
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1104

Post by bob » Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 pm

Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:32 pm
In my non-lawyer mind, even if he fully succeeded in a civil case, that would do nothing to change his criminal convictions.
It would be a multi-step process. The short answer is that Cox is angling to get DIIISCOVERY!!! in the civil case, in the hopes of finding something that could be presented in the criminal case.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8197
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1105

Post by Northland10 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:02 pm

Refiling elsewhere, even if GIL tried to skirt the With Prejudice, will be difficult. Filing in DC would hit the DC anti-SLAPP statute and could be argued as not the correct venue. He cannot do a Florida filing because lying about Cox's residence would be really difficult. Texas was one of the few places he could practice without being licensed or even requesting PHV status.

I still would not be surprised by a DC filing that tried to litigate the defamation part. It's GIL.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5519
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1106

Post by Maybenaut » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:10 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:32 pm
In my non-lawyer mind, even if he fully succeeded in a civil case, that would do nothing to change his criminal convictions.
It would be a multi-step process. The short answer is that Cox is angling to get DIIISCOVERY!!! in the civil case, in the hopes of finding something that could be presented in the criminal case.
Maybe I shouldn’t stick my nose in because I haven’t really followed this. But lets say he gets discovery in the civil case and gets some information that would be helpful in the criminal case. Wouldn’t he still need to show that that that information was exculpatory and withheld (if it was in the hands of the government) or couldn’t reasonably have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence (if it was in the hands of someone else)?
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26816
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1107

Post by bob » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:26 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:10 pm
But lets say he gets discovery in the civil case and gets some information that would be helpful in the criminal case. Wouldn’t he still need to show that that that information was exculpatory and withheld (if it was in the hands of the government) or couldn’t reasonably have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence (if it was in the hands of someone else)?
I'm reluctant to attempt to read the mind of Cox (or Klayman), but it could be a variety of post-conviction claims, e.g., Brady, newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, actual innocence, etc.

But it would appear the common dominator is that Cox is trying to dig up proof that DZ Bill lied (and that the government either knew he was lying or nonetheless relied on his false evidence).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21408
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1108

Post by RTH10260 » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:04 pm

bob wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:45 pm
Grumpy Old Guy wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:32 pm
In my non-lawyer mind, even if he fully succeeded in a civil case, that would do nothing to change his criminal convictions.
It would be a multi-step process. The short answer is that Cox is angling to get DIIISCOVERY!!! in the civil case, in the hopes of finding something that could be presented in the criminal case.
Question: what is needed as "new evidence" that may require to open a closed case and go for a retrial?

ETA. I guess my answer lies in above couple of posts.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1109

Post by TheNewSaint » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:14 pm

At the center of all this is Schaeffer Cox's delusions. He believes he can't possibly have done anything wrong, therefore proof of his innocence must exist somewhere. So he hires Klayman to go on a fishing expedition for it.
This bramble need not be traversed.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1110

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:22 pm

Thanks everyone for your answers. So, even if a civil case reveals possibly exculpatory evidence, a criminally convicted person would still have to go through hoops to get the criminal case reopened, and more hoops to prove that the guilty finding was incorrect.

User avatar
Bushdoctor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:59 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1111

Post by Bushdoctor » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:31 pm

Meanwhile everyone at TFB should buy Bill's book - it's great!

User avatar
DZ Bill
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:23 pm
Location: Cog Bunker 5
Occupation: Badass

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1112

Post by DZ Bill » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:46 pm

:yeah:

Photoguy
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:15 pm
Location: Everybody has to be somewhere

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1113

Post by Photoguy » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:53 pm

Bushdoctor wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Meanwhile everyone at TFB should buy Bill's book - it's great!
I did! Just haven't found the time to sit with it, but looking forward to doing so soon! :thumbs:

User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 3689
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1114

Post by Azastan » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:56 pm

Photoguy wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:53 pm
Bushdoctor wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Meanwhile everyone at TFB should buy Bill's book - it's great!
I did! Just haven't found the time to sit with it, but looking forward to doing so soon! :thumbs:
It's a great read :D .

Somerset
Posts: 4116
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1115

Post by Somerset » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:42 pm

Bushdoctor wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Meanwhile everyone at TFB should buy Bill's book - it's great!
Bought it the day it came out (on Kindle - Sorry DZ, it wasn't available in China any other way)

User avatar
LtDansLegs
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:57 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1116

Post by LtDansLegs » Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:32 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:54 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:18 pm
Is this concerning?
However, Plaintiff's claims for mi sappropriation of name or likeness and for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent not based on defamation are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IANAL but I suspect those parts of the case weren't time-barred like the defamation parts. It's SOP for judges not to throw out any more than they have to.
:-D Thanks for saying almost word for word what I fell asleep in the middle of typing last night like an idiot

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7049
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1117

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:41 pm

That's a fun ruling! Non-lawyer paraphrase: "The court converts plaintiff's Motion For A Sweet Orange into a Motion For A Sour Lemon snd instructs the plaintiff to suck it."

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1118

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:34 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:41 pm
That's a fun ruling! Non-lawyer paraphrase: "The court converts plaintiff's Motion For A Sweet Orange into a Motion For A Sour Lemon snd instructs the plaintiff to suck it."
:rotflmao: :like:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8197
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1119

Post by Northland10 » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:28 am

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:41 pm
That's a fun ruling! Non-lawyer paraphrase: "The court converts plaintiff's Motion For A Sweet Orange into a Motion For A Sour Lemon snd instructs the plaintiff to suck it."
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
DZ Bill
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:23 pm
Location: Cog Bunker 5
Occupation: Badass

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1120

Post by DZ Bill » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:50 pm

Going to be in LA mid May for two weeks big announcement heading down the pipe in the next couple weeks if you want to get together for a beer or glass 9f wine let me know

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 3283
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1121

Post by scirreeve » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:02 pm

Flatcap wrote a letter to Individual 1 asking for a pardon. It is full of nonsense.
PARDON ME? By Schaeffer Cox - Innocent Political Prisoner

https://www.facebook.com/POTUS/ (Ask the President to Pardon Schaeffer Cox)

Dear President Trump,

The 9th Circuit's ruling cleared me of any wrongdoing in real-life reality. I'm glad at least for that. But they left me on the hook for a hypothetical crime in an imaginary dystopian Mad Max/Road Warrior type future.

The left-wing activist prosecutors (Joe Bottini and Steve Skrocki, the same ones who took out Senator Ted Stevens then got held in contempt of court for hiding the proof of his innocence) argued that my 2nd Amendment beliefs were proof that I was a criminal in the making.

They argued that if there was ever "Stalinesque martial law, mass arrests, and purges, at some undetermined and unknown point in the future, [ I ] Schaeffer Cox, would be compelled to take up arms against the government, be sufficiently armed and equipped to sustain a take-over of the 'government' or become a new government in the event of a 'government' collapse."

This is not me taking what the prosecution said, and recharacterizing it to make it sound stupid and outlandish. That's an actual quote. It's how THEY described their case in chief.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to prove that I would commit a crime in some hypothetical dystopian future. But it's also impossible for me to prove that I wouldn't. Because none of this has any connection to real life.

I'm not guilty of a crime. I didn't do anything wrong. I never hurt anybody. I'm an innocent political prisoner being held on the flimsiest of speculative pretexts. It's all a big hoax. They don't have a case, they just have a fake narrative they repeat OVER and OVER and OVER.

I know this is the part where I'm supposed to confess my sins and tell the truth. But the truth is, I was a young, cocky political figure who got to talking smack about the Deep State establishment and some of their less than savory activities in Alaska (i.e. officials sexually abusing Eskimo kids, then having the US Attorney block the honest local cops from investigating it.) and the powers that be really shut me up and showed me who's boss.

Now I'm just asking for some mercy from you, President Trump. I've got two young children who need their father back. I'm a normal and nice guy from a good family. My grand father was a WWII vet. My father is a West pointer. We are good Bible believing people. I would never hurt anyone. This whole case against me is a witch hunt. I'm not in prison for doing bad things; I'm in prison for telling powerful people not to.

When you got elected, the Obama/Clinton political machine was rejected by the American people. They're out of office. So it's only right that their political prisoners should be out of prison.

The FBI's JTTF's targeting and prosecution of their non-criminal political opponents was a project of Muller and Comey.

They specifically said their goal was to lock up: Veterans, gun owners, Libertarians, Conservatives, and Christians; i.e. people like me.

They were out to persecute the "Basket of Deplorables." The FBI was not engaged in law enforcement. They were engaged in a domestic political disruption operation. So it didn't matter if the people they targeted weren't committing any crimes. The Left-wing activists on the JTTF would just start chanting their standard issue mantra about how their target is a horrible villain. So the facts never even mattered. In my case, there WERE NO FACTS AT ALL, since it was all hypothetical speculation about some imaginary future.

It's a lynch mob mentality. Unfortunately, it works. And it's the same thing Muller did to you with this Russia collusion delusion hoax. They just march it forward and chant their slogans as they plough innocent people under. It's ugly. It's really unfair.

President Trump, I love my country. I believe in the American people (not the Deep State). I want to see our economy strong. And I'm loyal to you.

That's my real crime. Not this hypothetical 1984 "thought crime" nonsense they hit me with. PLEASE, it is within your power to right this wrong. My children need me back.

The American people wanted the Obamas and Clintons out of office. That means they also want their henchmen out of a job, and their political prisoners out of prison. That's your mandate. That's your calling.

Please pardon me across the board on everything. It's the just thing to do. Obama's political prisoners staying locked away in black site prisons is a black eye on this nation. These pardons are part of Making America Great Again.

You've got a friend in me,

--Schaeffer Cox
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21408
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1122

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:26 pm

scirreeve wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:02 pm
Flatcap wrote a letter to Individual 1 asking for a pardon. It is full of nonsense.
PARDON ME? By Schaeffer Cox - Innocent Political Prisoner

https://www.facebook.com/POTUS/ (Ask the President to Pardon Schaeffer Cox)

Dear President Trump,

:snippity:

You've got a friend in me,

--Schaeffer Cox
► Show Spoiler
That may be - but you ain't a voter no more :lol:

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1123

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:29 pm

Lots of waah waah but he hits all the conspiracy buttons so may work.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1124

Post by TheNewSaint » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:32 pm

That letter should be photocopied and handed around the prison for comedic purposes.

Hey Cox, "Fat Ass" from Shawshank Prison called, he said "stop being such a whiny bitch."
This bramble need not be traversed.

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3849
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: The Trial of Schaeffer Cox - GUILTY

#1125

Post by Whip » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:38 pm

RTH10260 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:26 pm
scirreeve wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:02 pm
Flatcap wrote a letter to Individual 1 asking for a pardon. It is full of nonsense.
PARDON ME? By Schaeffer Cox - Innocent Political Prisoner

https://www.facebook.com/POTUS/ (Ask the President to Pardon Schaeffer Cox)

Dear President Trump,

:snippity:

You've got a friend in me,

--Schaeffer Cox
► Show Spoiler
That may be - but you ain't a voter no more :lol:

think it's code for 'I won't conspire to shoot you'?

Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”