Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Assault on the Capitol (DC)

User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#901

Post by northland10 »

I feel for the poor lawyer for Copeland. Fox 13 from SLC had some apparent extra info on Copeland.
The U.S. Army confirmed to FOX 13 that Copeland served in a tank unit from 2007 to 2015. He deployed to Iraq in 2009 and again in 2012.

Then in 2013, Copeland served four months for drug possession in the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to Army records. He apparently was stripped of rank, too. Copeland has described himself as a former staff sergeant. The Army says he was a private when he discharged in 2015.
Maybe those familiar with the promotion process can correct me, but the math seems wrong. If he entered in 2007 (he would have been around 20 then), it would have been difficult to make SS by 2015 and yet he allegedly claims he was even though he served time in 2013 for drug possession.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#902

Post by RTH10260 »

was this person already mentioned in this thread?

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#903

Post by RVInit »

northland10 wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:49 pm I feel for the poor lawyer for Copeland. Fox 13 from SLC had some apparent extra info on Copeland.
The U.S. Army confirmed to FOX 13 that Copeland served in a tank unit from 2007 to 2015. He deployed to Iraq in 2009 and again in 2012.

Then in 2013, Copeland served four months for drug possession in the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to Army records. He apparently was stripped of rank, too. Copeland has described himself as a former staff sergeant. The Army says he was a private when he discharged in 2015.
Maybe those familiar with the promotion process can correct me, but the math seems wrong. If he entered in 2007 (he would have been around 20 then), it would have been difficult to make SS by 2015 and yet he allegedly claims he was even though he served time in 2013 for drug possession.
He could have made SSG from 2007 to 2015, but the drug bust by 2013 would have prevented that, I'm pretty sure. It takes about 7 years, so depending on what month in 2007 he came in and what month in 2013 he was busted for drugs, he may have been on the verge of making SSG. The drug bust would have put a complete halt to that progress. He definitely lost whatever rank he had gained once he started his stint at Leavenworth.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#904

Post by Maybenaut »

RVInit wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:24 am
northland10 wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 9:49 pm I feel for the poor lawyer for Copeland. Fox 13 from SLC had some apparent extra info on Copeland.
The U.S. Army confirmed to FOX 13 that Copeland served in a tank unit from 2007 to 2015. He deployed to Iraq in 2009 and again in 2012.

Then in 2013, Copeland served four months for drug possession in the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to Army records. He apparently was stripped of rank, too. Copeland has described himself as a former staff sergeant. The Army says he was a private when he discharged in 2015.
Maybe those familiar with the promotion process can correct me, but the math seems wrong. If he entered in 2007 (he would have been around 20 then), it would have been difficult to make SS by 2015 and yet he allegedly claims he was even though he served time in 2013 for drug possession.
He could have made SSG from 2007 to 2015, but the drug bust by 2013 would have prevented that, I'm pretty sure. It takes about 7 years, so depending on what month in 2007 he came in and what month in 2013 he was busted for drugs, he may have been on the verge of making SSG. The drug bust would have put a complete halt to that progress. He definitely lost whatever rank he had gained once he started his stint at Leavenworth.
I wasn't able to find his appellate case on Lexis or on the Army Court of Criminal Appeals website. I did find a one-sentence denial of a petition for grant of review at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and that included the case number at the ACCA, but it wasn't on Lexis and it's not in the ACCA database (unusual, but it happens). According to the article, he got four months (perhaps longer, but was out in four months). To be eligible to appeal to ACCA he must have had a sentence of one year or longer, OR a bad conduct discharge (even without looking at his record, I'm betting on the BCD - everyone with a drug conviction gets a BCD, even people who are at or near retirement eligibility). Anyhoo, the case opinion, even if the case was submitted on its merits with no errors assigned, would have included a statement of the case, including the guy's rank at the time of trial.

He was likely busted down as part of the sentence, which would have taken effect immediately. But even if he wasn't, Article 57(a) provides for automatic reduction to the lowest paygrade 14 days after sentencing.

ETA: He was likely on "appellate leave" after he got out of Leavenworth. You're no longer in a pay status, but the military can reach out and grab you if lightening strikes and your conviction or sentence are overturned on appeal. That would explain the 2013 bust and the 2015 discharge. The CAAF denial was on 23 December 2014, and once his appeals were complete, he would have been discharged shortly thereafter.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#905

Post by Kendra »

CNN's Brian Stelter has paperback version of Hoax coming out Tuesday, with new chapters for 1/6 and Fox. I bought the Kindle version last year and iy's been updated. I'm just barely into the prologue and :popcorn: on McCarthy.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#906

Post by filly »

Fox News refused to air this ad. If you have a twitter account or are on Facebook :shock: you might consider getting this out there:

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#907

Post by Kendra »

https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/c ... e-justice/
Capitol Police Officers Blast Republicans Who Voted Against Jan. 6 Commission in CNN Interview: ‘We Deserve Justice’
Video at the link.
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#908

Post by Kendra »

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#909

Post by Kendra »


@EricSwalwell
Well, Swalwell FINALLY did his job, served complaint (on my WIFE).

HORRIBLE Swalwell’s team committed a CRIME by unlawfully sneaking INTO MY HOUSE & accosting my wife!

Alabama Code 13A-7-2: 1st degree criminal trespass. Year in jail. $6000 fine.

More to come!
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#910

Post by neonzx »

:shrug:

If he had nothing to hide, why was he avoiding service of process?
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6554
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#911

Post by Slim Cognito »

In other words, Mo wussed out and his wife had to deal with it.
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#912

Post by Kendra »

I :daydream: there's video showing the servers served the wife on the front porch and didn't enter the home to call bull shit on him.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#913

Post by filly »

Kendra wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:57 pm I :daydream: there's video showing the servers served the wife on the front porch and didn't enter the home to call bull shit on him.
Picking up on Josh Hawley's lie about the terrorists storming his home with his wife and kids inside.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#914

Post by sugar magnolia »

Yeah, if they stormed into the house it would be burglary. If they just had the temerity to step onto his porch it's trespassing. Since he quoted the law for trespassing, I'm guessing they didn't make it into the house at all.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#915

Post by Maybenaut »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:01 pm Yeah, if they stormed into the house it would be burglary. If they just had the temerity to step onto his porch it's trespassing. Since he quoted the law for trespassing, I'm guessing they didn't make it into the house at all.
Probably not burglary. In most jurisdictions burglary requires intent to commit a felony once inside. Could be breaking and entering, though.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#916

Post by filly »

I think taking Mo Brooks’s word for anything is a fool’s errand . I think his legal research skills are lacking as well.
somerset
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:06 pm
Occupation: Lab Rat

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#917

Post by somerset »

From CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/06/politics ... index.html
Philip Andonian, another attorney for Swalwell, challenged Brooks' comments.

"No one entered or even attempted to enter the Brooks' house. That allegation is completely untrue. A process server lawfully served the papers on Mo Brooks' wife, as the federal rules allow," he told CNN. "This was after her initial efforts to avoid service. Mo Brooks has no one but himself to blame for the fact that it came to this. We asked him to waive service, we offered to meet him at a place of his choosing. Instead of working things out like a civilized person, he engaged in a juvenile game of Twitter trolling over the past few days and continued to evade service. He demanded that we serve him. We did just that. The important thing is the complaint has been served and Mo Brooks can now be held accountable for his role in inciting the deadly insurrection at the Capitol."
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#918

Post by noblepa »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:01 pm Yeah, if they stormed into the house it would be burglary. If they just had the temerity to step onto his porch it's trespassing. Since he quoted the law for trespassing, I'm guessing they didn't make it into the house at all.
IANAL, but I don't believe that merely stepping onto the porch, by itself, constitutes trespass. Walking up to someone's front door and knocking or ringing the doorbell is the normal course of business.

If there were clearly visible and legible "No Trespassing" signs posted and if the person refused to leave after being asked to do so, then it might rise to the level of trespass.

Its the mistake that many, both left wing and right wing, often make, of thinking that if someone does something I don't like, then they are obviously violating the law.

Question for the IAAL's here. I've heard that if a process server confronts someone who refuses to take the complaint in his/her hand, then simply dropping it at the person's feet constitutes acceptable service. In this case, if the process server went to the door, rang the bell and Mrs. Brooks came to the door but refused to open the door and take the complaint in her hand, would dropping it on the doorstep constitute acceptable service?
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#919

Post by noblepa »

What does Swalwell hope to accomplish with this lawsuit?

It is not a criminal complaint, so there is no chance of Mo Brooks going to jail (at least as a result of this lawsuit).

As a civil suit, Swalwell will have to show a specific "injury" in order to have standing to sue. I suppose that being put in fear of one's life may constitute a specific injury.

If Swalwell is successful, what kind of redress is available? Monetary damages? How do you put a price on fear?

Can Brooks realistically argue that any statements he might have made that had the result of inciting the insurrection were made in his capacity as a member of the House of Representatives and are therefore protected? If he is being sued in his official capacity, can he have DOJ lawyers (or at least gov't paid lawyers) defend him in court?
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#920

Post by Uninformed »

If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#921

Post by Kendra »

:like:
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#922

Post by Kendra »

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... ssion=true
Fox News declined to broadcast an ad Sunday about the violence that law-enforcement members faced as they tried to stop the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, according to the creators of the political commercial.

“We couldn’t have fathomed in our wildest imaginations that even a Fox News would reject an ad that simply condemns the insurrection, and condemns people who support the insurrection,” said Ben Meiselas, one of the co-founders of MeidasTouch, the liberal Political Action Committee that created the 60-second ad. “What Fox has really become is a fascist echo chamber gatekeeper for their base.”

Broadcast and cable networks have discretion in refusing to air ads by political campaigns and advocacy groups. A Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#923

Post by RTH10260 »

new?
User avatar
Greatgrey
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:53 am
Location: Unimatrix Zero
Verified: 💲8️⃣

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#924

Post by Greatgrey »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:01 pm Yeah, if they stormed into the house it would be burglary. If they just had the temerity to step onto his porch it's trespassing. Since he quoted the law for trespassing, I'm guessing they didn't make it into the house at all.
Here’s the video.

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)

#925

Post by sugar magnolia »

Greatgrey wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:25 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:01 pm Yeah, if they stormed into the house it would be burglary. If they just had the temerity to step onto his porch it's trespassing. Since he quoted the law for trespassing, I'm guessing they didn't make it into the house at all.
Here’s the video.

Spitting on his car is such a classy move, too.
Post Reply

Return to “The January 6 Insurrection, including Criminal Cases”