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.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.
Assault on the Capitol (DC)
- northland10
- Posts: 6459
- 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)
I feel for the poor lawyer for Copeland. Fox 13 from SLC had some apparent extra info on Copeland.
101010
- RTH10260
- Posts: 16773
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
was this person already mentioned in this thread?
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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.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.
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.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.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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.RVInit wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:24 amHe 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.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.
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.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.
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
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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 on McCarthy.
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
Fox News refused to air this ad. If you have a twitter account or are on Facebook you might consider getting this out there:
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/c ... e-justice/
Video at the link.Capitol Police Officers Blast Republicans Who Voted Against Jan. 6 Commission in CNN Interview: ‘We Deserve Justice’
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
@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!
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
If he had nothing to hide, why was he avoiding service of process?
- Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7289
- 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)
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.
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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.
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
Probably not burglary. In most jurisdictions burglary requires intent to commit a felony once inside. Could be breaking and entering, though.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.
"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
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
I think taking Mo Brooks’s word for anything is a fool’s errand . I think his legal research skills are lacking as well.
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
From CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/06/politics ... index.html
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."
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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.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.
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?
- noblepa
- Posts: 2604
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 2224
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
- Location: England
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
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.
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
Here’s the video.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.
What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3847
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: Assault on the Capitol (DC)
Spitting on his car is such a classy move, too.Greatgrey wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:25 pmHere’s the video.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.