3 Burst results for "17 Hearings"
77WABC Radio
"17 hearings" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"That point. He's exactly correct more than any other right. Locally in the state and federally. But the reason why the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation is because it's in the constitution. Abortion is not. So the court ruled on the Second Amendment, and the court said on abortion, we take a pass, we should have always taken a pass, this matters not in the federal constitution it belongs in the states. That's not hypocrisy. That is, rationality. But if you disagree with Nancy Pelosi, you're all kinds of things. Maybe she should go back after all these decades in Washington, D.C.. To her, gated mansion, her gated estate. In Napa Valley, and look after her husband, you know, the drunk. Paul Pelosi, as we like to call him double P. Double P nobody really knows how a guy like this can make tens of millions of dollars. But there he is, double P, who was charged with DUI today. I don't think he'll do a long-term. I mean, after all he's out there and California's not washed in D.C., trespassing and parading. But Nancy Pelosi is a fool. Now, one other thing, you'll notice Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. By the way, are these two Siamese twins where they born at the hip. 'cause they're both together as done as they come. But Collins and our mansion, Manchin is utterly unreliable. He's another. Moron, quite frankly, every now and then he does the right thing so people praise him. But all in all he's a moron. The justices lie to us. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to us. In order to get on the court, and by the way, so did Barrett, she lied to. These three justices. They lie to us. So again, inflaming the true believers. I God, not only did they take women's rights away. Not only did they take women's health away. But they lied, now we hate them more than ever, don't we? While they're the liars actually, an old buddy of mine, Thomas chipping, senior legal fellow center for legal and judicial studies. Edwin meese the third center for legal and judicial studies at heritage. He wrote a piece about this in national interest, which was also covered in the heritage foundation, publication. Within hours of the publication of the leaked first opinion, he wrote a few weeks back. In Dobbs versus Jackson, the Supreme Court, he says, will overrule roe V wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Senate majority leader Charles Schumer, House speaker Nancy Pelosi, issued a joint statement accusing Republican appointed justices quote unquote of having lied to the U.S. Senate. And of course, two days later, Schumer identified the lies misrepresenting their views during their confirmation hearings. On respecting precedent when it came to decisions like roe. So I guess Chuck Schumer Schumer would have supported dred Scott. He would have supported plessy would have supported car matsu. Since those were decisions of the Supreme Court, which means they can never be overturned. While of course we now know that Susan Collins is taking the same position as his Murkowski. Why? Because they're relying on leftists end Democrats to get elected every time. No Supreme Court nominee has ever come close. To saying any such thing about any president. In fact, for decades nominees of both parties have studiously avoided giving even what justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described in her 1993 hearing as hints, forecasts, or previews. Transcripts of those hearings which are available, and he says here, here, show exactly what the justice is said. And expose how accusations of lying are a pure fiction. A pure fiction. And he goes through the justices that have testified over time. Republican nominees also I go on. There he goes on later. Have carefully duplicated the Sotomayor Kagan strategy. During Gorsuch's March 1720 17 hearing, for example, he told Frank in the senator. Holding that the constitution protects right to same sex marriage is absolutely settled law, he said. Gorsuch told Bloomberg at blumenthal from Kentucky, excuse me, folks. From Connecticut, that griswold. And eisenstadt, which created an extended a constitutional right to use contraception, are precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court that have been settled law. He told Chris Coons that Casey Lawrence versus Texas, which created a right to same sex sodomy in marriage, are all settled law in the sense that they are decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court entitled to the way to precedent quote unquote. Kavanaugh, September 28 hearing, followed the same pattern, Feinstein asking, what do you mean by set a log cabin? Could have been reading from the Sotomayor hearing transcript. He said, senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court. Blumenthal asks if Kavanaugh would commit sitting here today that you would never overturn roe V wade. Kavanaugh gave the expected response, senator, each of the 8 justices currently on the Supreme Court when they were in this seat declined to answer that question. In October 2020 hearing, justice Amy Coney Barrett told Feinstein that the decision quote is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. Barrett said the same thing to dermott about decisions upholding. The Affordable Care Act and senator Sheldon whitehouse. About U.S. versus Virginia, which struck down single sex education at the Virginia military institute. Republicans did not flinch and Republican nominees calling these precedents settled any more than Schumer did. When Kagan put citizens united in that category, settled. Each nominee chose to use that label precisely because at least in the Supreme Court confirmation context, it provides a way to respond while not compromising impartiality. When referring to precedence as settled, nominees also add phrases such as respect, started decisis. That would be a Leto. Entitled to all the weight that president usually gets. That's Kagan. Entitled to the way to precedent. Of course, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. Kavanaugh. And respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. Just as settled means a precedent exists these phrases refer to the process of determining whether a president should be overruled. The factors used in this process. Are well known in every resulted in the Supreme Court overruling its own precedents. Hundreds of times. Got it? Susan Collins, you're a liar. Murkowski, you're a liar. Manchin, you're a liar. And you're done to boot. Verizon AT&T and T mobile are changing you are charging you a premium
106.1 FM WTKK
"17 hearings" Discussed on 106.1 FM WTKK
"To that law lawyer. It's Josh Whitaker and Joe Hammer of Whittaker and Hammer here with you, Um We're going to talk about the innocence Commission. Joe tell me a little bit about it. Yes. So the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, which will just affectionately referred to as the North Carolina Innocence Commission. It's the first of its kind in the nation. It's a commission that was created by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2000 and six and actually began operating in 2000 and seven since then, the commission's reviewed over 2500 innocence claims and conducted multiple hearings. The commission's basically charged with providing an independent and balanced true seeking forum for credible post conviction. Claims of innocence in North Carolina. It's a separate body from the traditional appeals process, so the commission doesn't come into play if you're falsely convicted. A defendant would still file appeals. And if accepted, go to the Supreme Court if needed. It's just kind of an additional vehicle to pursuing, You know, justice in the case of an erroneous decision. Joe when I was doing are when I was doing our research, you know, I'm generally as as attorneys were generally generally aware of the existence of this body, but I didn't know too much about the creation of it. Um, And so it was a statute it was created by the General Assembly. It's created by statute. I know a lot of times on the outlaw lawyer. We like to go back and look at the statute because you know, like we did with the dangerous dog statute. I don't know that I've ever read the dangerous dog statute before our before our show on it. But anyway, I'm a shortness to the commission. The commission that's better than what But the car, the car, uh and the C. The Big C. The commission does a lot of good work and it is it is different and separate. Like Joe said It is not. You know, if you get convicted of a crime, you're still responsible for trying to get heard Court of Appeals. Taking it to the Supreme Court. You have to exhaust all your administrative options, so that's one. There's a couple of different criteria. You have to meet to get considered by the commission. Um, but they have been doing a lot since they were operating. So I think the statute passed in. Oh, six. They began. They began operating in those seven and since Oh, seven, I went to their website looks like they have received 2939 claims of innocence. Um, they've got 29 claims so far in 2021. They've had 17 hearings and 15 exoneration. So we've got 15 folks convicted of fairly Serious crimes who have had their convictions exonerated. Um and so that's always a good story. You know, we would. We would argue as attorneys. We have one of the best judicial systems in the in the world, and it's but it is not perfect and it can be biased and it's just as imperfect as the people that operate it and serving the Juries and Serving the judiciary, so to have a body that can review this is I think very important and when it opened when they started, it was the first of its kind in the nation, and I really don't think I I went back to do some research, and I got back as far as 2018. I didn't see any other state doing anything similar to this, Um, still Yeah, and and like you said, we don't have an infallible system because of the fact that it's just at the end of the day as good of a framework as we may have for our legal system, it's just people who are imperfect. Mistakes are made biases, prejudices. There's all kinds of issues with the system, and we do the best we can. But at the same time, the fact that we have this vehicle to look back at things to make sure that anyone who has has been wrong by some injustice can get some relief. I think it's a great thing. And like you, said 15 exonerations. I mean, I think one exoneration is would be enough to justify the existence of the program and the fact that you've got 15 people wrongfully convicted that have been able to Find some relief. How great is that for those folks? Yeah, we'll talk a little bit about what it takes to apply to the commission. Like you said. These are fairly serious offenses. You're not applying to the Innocence Commission to get you out of a traffic ticket. I mean, these are these are major things and so too, in order to apply directly You must be claiming complete factual innocence for the crime for which you were convicted and any related and or lesser offense, So it can't be something you know years, claiming that It's a lesser degree. It's got to be complete factual innocence for both the crime which which you were convicted and or any lesser offense, and you also have to be convicted. Like you said of serious serious crimes, which include homicide, robbery, sex offenses, or class A through e felonies in North Carolina State court. Right. So you can't be convicted of first degree murder and make a claim to the commission and say it should have been manslaughter because that would be a lesser included offense of first degree murder. So you have to be completely innocent. Um, Charlie, the innocence commissioning it is, um in order. So the commission that's what you have to have and so forth in order for the commission to actually review your claim. In addition to being completely innocent and to having a serious offense, you have to, um it has to be a credible and verifiable evidence of innocent so they can review the transcripts from your cases. You know, they can review everything that's already there. But they need new evidence of innocence that the jury In your conviction did not hear that was not available or was not available prior to a plea or a jury trial. So your your criminal charge when it was finalized, there's there's evidence that was either withheld wasn't available. A lot of these have new DNA evidence because there's new, You know, a lot of these are from the eighties and the early nineties, There's new test and and so there has to be some new evidence. And I think you see when you look at the number of claims received verses, the number of hearings you know, you've got almost 2900 Plus claims received and you've got 17 hearings coming from that so The every case isn't going to get reviewed. There's gotta be some kind of like you said new evidence of innocence. Something new. Um, again, we put a lot of we still put a lot of faith in our system. And this is just kind of an additional check where new things have arisen that give that credible potential for innocence that that are going to be reviewed. So My statute. The commission can't review procedural errors, sentencing issues or any other claims that are not associated with actual innocence. So you can't just go back and look at Procedural errors again. It's got to be that new evidence that's being looked at or like you said some issue with the degree of sentencing. That's not what they're here to look at. The Innocence Commission also can't represent claimants that are appealing to them. They also require that claimants wave all privileges, including but not limited to the self incrimination. Attorney client privilege, spouse, so privileged doctor patient privilege. So you're basically waiting all of those privileges to be considered here, and you also have to turn over. Any additional evidence of the crime of anyone else's involvement or any new crimes that are associated to law enforcement as well. So there are a lot of strings attached here and a lot of additional things that must be complied with. Yeah, so the commission is basically telling you, you know the procedural errors, the sentencing issues all that would be handled through the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. That all has a Mechanism to be to be reviewed. Here It is the innocence..
WAAM Talk 1600
"17 hearings" Discussed on WAAM Talk 1600
"Family tried for a month. You don't like it? Get rid of it, But I'm I'm not sure why? Because the information you get We'll put you far ahead of the curve. If the deep state is taking us on I encourage you to become part of our freedom family. It's my honor to welcome back someone who puts you far ahead of the curve as it relates to your security and safety in particular as it relates. To the border. And, as he taught me is Michael Cutler taught me years ago. It's not just Texas and New Mexico and Arizona and California, which are border states on the South. But every state his a border state. We have airports. We have other facilities that well. That make every State in our union, a border state. The problem with, uh Talking about? Border security and border safety. When you watch the bought off lame stream fake media is they bring these people on to pontificate about these issues. And they're not experts. They're experts and given an opinion, but but they don't have any boots on the ground experience. And this is where Michael Cutler Is so different and so ahead of the pack. He I believe is the top expert in our country and border safety and security. A little background Mike has 30 years of experience with the former Immigration and Natural and Naturalization Service I n s positions included the following He was an immigration inspector assigned to Kennedy International Airport in New York. He was an Examiner to the unit, which was responsible for adjudicating petitions filed by United States, citizens and lawfully admitted permanent resin aliens on behalf of their alien spouses. Mike was a criminal investigator. A special agent for the I N s in New York City, and he was in the Indians representative to the Unified and Television Intelligence Division of the D E A in New York. He was a senior special agent assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Bottom line folks. Mike's career was unusual in that it provided him with a a grand tour if you will. That gave him extensive insight into the many aspects of immigration and also provided him with an intimate view on how immigration impacted other law enforcement agencies and, frankly, every person of the country. Within the United States. He has a website. Michael Cutler. C U T L E R Michael Cutler dot net It's my Honor to Welcome back my friend Mike Cutler. Mike Welcome back to the Operation Freedom Platform. Thank you so much safer, Happy. Thank you for that great introduction, and I have to tell you my frustration over where we are with the current administration is is beyond the stratosphere. I think it's currently in lunar orbit. You know, I provided testimony to the 9 11 Commission and I believed in total. I've been before 17 hearings in the House and Senate. I want to know what the point All of that was. Because all of the findings and all of the recommendations of the 9 11 Commission are being not only ignored. But the Biden administration sees where the vulnerabilities were, and seemed to want to amplify the vulnerabilities. I don't know any other way of putting it. What's upsetting to me is that even those folks who want the border secured don't talk about the nexus between immigration failures and the terror attacks of 9 11 and subsequent terror attacks. The 9 11 Commission made it crystal clear that 9 11 could never have happened if immigration had done its job effectively because virtually every alien came into attack US violated multiple sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. So when Nancy Pelosi is running around flapping her wings Um, perhaps suffering brain freeze from all that expensive ice cream. Oh, we need a 9 11 style commission to look at what happened on January 6th what happened in January? 6th never should have happened. I didn't see it as an armed insurrection. However, the only person shot was an unarmed civilian. A veteran of the U. S. Air Force. Shot by a federal officer, apparently, and I have to say, apparently because to this day no one is talking about who shot and killed an unarmed woman. Should she have gone where she went? No, absolutely nuts, but didn't deserve the death penalty. In effect. That's what it is. And so Pelosi is running around. We needed 9 11 style commission. OK, Nancy. Have you read the 9 11 report? Why would you want a 9 11 Style commission? If you're ignoring the findings and recommendations of the original commission, and if you look at where we are, and the point that you make that I've always been making about America being the country 50 border states the spot on Because when aliens run the border, all the mainstream media wants to do is talk about Arizona and all the other border states and the safe houses and what's going on in Arizona and so forth that I expect by the way to be part of a panel discussion in Arizona through the magic of Skype, or perhaps soon we'll see how that works out at the end of the week. But the bottom line, though, is that there are safe houses as we speak throughout the country. I was part of the anti smuggling unit in New York City. Back in the late seventies, early eighties, we busted safe houses in Brooklyn and Queens, New York When you think of that El Chapo Guzman and his wife, by the way, just found guilty of aiding and abetting his drug trafficking money laundering operation. He was tried where in Brooklyn, New York, the eastern District of New York, just about a mile or two down the road from Chuck Schumer's house. Because he turned New York into a hub for the distribution of narcotics throughout the East Coast. Why would you pick New York when it's got the biggest and best trade Police department? Well, it could be the number one. New York has lots of access to transportation Seaport Airport, the Canadian border, but it's also biggest New York is a sanctuary city and his sanctuary state. We're giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and we don't know who they are. And terrorists have not used an airplane to my knowledge to carry out a successful terror attacks since 9 11. Weapon of choice involves motor vehicles. Think about that. And if you consider the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, an illegal alien rented the truck and another illegal alien. They will. Both visa violators drove the truck loaded with bombs. The shooting at the CIA. A month earlier, the name of cancer drove a Korea van into the parking lot of the CIA in Virginia, jumped out with an AK 47 opened fire and killed two CIA officers willing to three others. And fled the country. Because bad guys from other countries have an escape hatch. They can leave, they can go back to their home country, frequently taking them out of the reach of law enforcement in the United States and Kansas case, given the nature of the crime. Our guys tracked them down, brought him back. But among trial found him guilty. He was executed. But that didn't bring the dead back to life, and it didn't heal the wounds of those he shot. In fact, those two attacks with the predications my very first congressional hearing. Before the House Immigration subcommittee back on May 20th 1997 and now we absolutely have a disaster on the Mexican border, and when Donald Trump said, I'm going to go to the border It's like someone took the panels to Kamala Harris. I'm going. I'm going over the wake you up. Sorry. Come on, we'll go back to sleep. Did she go to the border? Not really. She found an interesting way to go to the border without going to the border. She went to El Paso, Texas. Well, Paso is interesting because I've been to El Paso. It's right across the river from CEO Dead Wars, which is the most dangerous city in Mexico because of the drug trade, But she didn't really walk along the border she met with are people who obviously know that she's the boss. What are they going to say? Although one brave CBP official did say That the conditions at the detention centers are worse now than at any time that he was aware of. But now the Biden administration is asking anybody in management positions and border patrol to either leave. Well, they will be forced to accept a different assignment because they were actually working their heart set to secure the border because they understand the dangers to themselves, their country and their families. And so Kamala Harris goes out there And she says, Well, we're going to address the root cause of illegal immigration..