Lester Dent

Father, grandfather, husband, semi-retired attorney & paperboy, deplorable, 🇮🇱 1A 2A. Am 1st. Repeal 19A! Satire? Sarcasm? 🤷🏻‍♂️Cannot be trusted. Or can I?

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

Ouch. Take that &#%* pin out of me!

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@AnaisJava @imatweet25 @usparkpolicepio I’m sure in your country defacing public parks & monuments is not a crime. C'est vrai, non?

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

I don’t do X much these days, but I felt this should be brought to everyone’s attention. I was asking ChatGPT a question about Lexis (I’m a Westlaw guy) & this is how it responded in part.

I had always suspected these AIs were human brains strung together in vats of half blood, half sodium solicilate*. This proves it. AI are PEOPLE!

@elon I hope you look seriously into the “hardware” the competition is using.

* classic reference to a 1960s Bill Cosby comedy routine. Too soon?

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@NezahualDoomer2 @libsoftiktok Curious as to conservatives who have advocated for the assassination of Democrat presidents who weren’t fired. Names, please.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@hakeemjeffries Wait… isn’t she a Democrat? Like totenkopf in Maine? I remember how Democrats refused to decry antisemitism after 10/7, & you have the Hamas Squad in the house. Shapiro would have won you PA but … oh, yeah, he’s Jewish. Antisemitism is a plank of the Democratic Party.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@SkepResCenter Just read about the Jamestown president John Ratcliffe’s death. It ain’t quite what Disney showed…

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@HaroldFordJr Today on The Five was not your finest moment.

You claimed *none* of the 407 mass shootings from the Gun Violence Archive (which uses the weakest definition) were gang or drug related. Where did you get that? The GVA data shows that over 50% are gang/drug related. & statistically over 50% black male shooters mostly 17-35. Go beyond anti-2A sources. Talk to Heather McDonald or John Lott. Of those 407 shootings, how many made the news? Guess why? There is a gun violence problem but it is not because of guns. It is subcultural. But we’re not allowed to talk about that.

“Bloodbath?” Really? Maybe “very fine people” should also be mentioned. Or injecting bleach.

You’re better than this. People on the right are not rioting, burning down minority owned businesses, killing political opponents, or talking constantly about killing the other side’s politicians. Take off your partisan blinkers.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@yubidad @AustinJustice This is what Grok did with the numbers. Not sure why his chart came out the way it did. But the point stands. A lot depends on the values on the y-axis.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@tspooky @RepSwalwell It’s not the stench of desperation you are smelling from him…

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@christopherrufo Powerline’s Scott Johnson & John Hinderaker have been all over this angle for years. Starting in 2018.

https://t.co/x3Ic6HYCVf

They have been covering the Feeding our Fraud (er, Future) cases since February 2022. It may have seemed a scoop to you but to many it was old news.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@WesternLensman Hmm. Why is Epstein’s email address redacted?

He’s dead, Jim. (WOW, I just realized how on the nose that was!)

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@Hi_IQ_Trump & law enforcement relates to communism’s main elements how?

You bore me. I sympathize, because I knew everything when I was in HS & and undergrad, too. Doesn’t mean I have to play with you any more.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

I hope to see a lot more black ICE on the roads this winter.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

You are using dicta instead of controlling law. The actual cases limiting free speech are Brandenburg v Ohio & progeny.

Speech advocating violence or illegality is protected unless it is intended to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

Examples based on Brandenburg:

“We should lynch all blacks” is repugnant but protected.

“Let’s go & lynch Otis Brown down the street right now! I have the rope! Who’s with me?” is unlawful.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

lol. Stalker much?

I’m about as anti-communist as you can get. I make Nixon & JFK look like red diaper babies.

Take your sovereign citizen arguments to court the next time you get a speeding ticket. The judges need a good laugh.

Show me where I have written anything that says I am in support of abolition of private ownership of the means of production, a classless society, or distribution based on need rather than market profit.

You fling pejorative labels around like a leftist without knowing what they mean.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

Not this way. You’re reaching to defend the indefensible. I appreciate the sentiment but it’s just not viable.

Judges use jury instructions to instruct juries in the applicable law. Often juries come back & ask for clarification. Both sides of a case will propose jury instructions & a judge will chose, mix & match, or throw out completely for a model instruction.

The model jury instructions for the crime of seditious conspiracy says the following in pertinent part:

“The government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

“1. That two or more persons agreed or conspired to use force to oppose the authority of the United States, or to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; and

“2. That the defendant knowingly and intentionally joined that agreement.

“To ‘use force’ means to use physical force, violence, or intimidation through the threat of physical force.”

The Third Circuit’s model jury instruction varies slightly:

“An agreement to use force requires an understanding that physical force, violence, or intimidation will be employed.”

Lawyers cannot just make up their own new definitions. They can argue anything, of course, & do, but that doesn’t mean they can redefine elements of a crime.

A judge who varied from the general form of these instructions which explain the law would set up for a successful appeal.

This is just one of the appealable issues of the Trump 34-count conviction. The judge did not give lawful or proper jury instructions. It is why I think it pretty obvious the convictions will be overturned (still in the appeal process to have the case removed to federal court).

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

Again, “pitting against citizens” is free speech protected under the 1A.

And there is the requirement of calling for physical force. They did not do that.

People on X are always complaining that the DOJ is not locking people up or even charging them. “Like this post if you want Hillary in jail!”

I may want it. But I also recognize there is no way to make this happen. Little thing called statutes of limitations. & no, other people hiding criminal behavior does not toll the SOL. This is why there was a rush to charge Comey in September - the SOL on his lying to Congress was expiring.

& no, things that pols do that in our estimation do great harm to the country & citizens do not satisfy the elements of treason.

Article III, Section 3, clause 1 (repeated in the USC verbatim) defines treason:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Treason convictions in the US (the few that there were) all were based in shooting conflicts. The first were during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1795 (pardoned by Washington). They were examples of “levying war.” “Adhering to enemies giving aid & comfort” perhaps best described with Iva Toguri d’Aquino (named after the war by media as Tokyo Rose), convicted after WWII. With d’Aquino, while she was convicted on 1 charge & acquitted on 7 others, evidence emerged in the 1970s that there was prosecutorial misconduct. President Ford pardoned her on his last day in office in 1977.

There have only been 7 convicted of treason in federal court (one, John Brown, was convicted in VA of treason against that state).

Levying war

1.Philip Vigol (1795 - Whiskey Rebellion)
2.John Mitchell (1795 - Whiskey Rebellion)
3.John Fries (1800 - Fries Rebellion)

Adhering to enemies (WWII)

4.Tomoya Kawakita (1948)
5.Herbert John Burgman (1949)
6.Mildred Gillars (“Axis Sally”) (1949)
7.Iva Toguri d’Aquino (1949)

Why wasn’t, say, Jane Fonda charged with treason during Vietnam? Or the “Plumbers” of Watergate fame? Or John Kerry for his meeting with N Vietnamese & anti war actions? Or Edward Snowden? Or Charles Lindbergh? Or the Hollywood 10 during HUAC? For several reasons, but mostly because treason is difficult to charge given the 1A & fear it could be abused.

There will be no treason charges. At least not until the Dems take over the WH & DOJ. Then all hell could break loose. Especially if Bondi tries to use that charge.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@Muggzley @txind1836 @JustTjbulldog @JasonCrowCO Not the way the law works. It’s like people throwing around the term “treason” (which I admit I’ve done myself).

Force refers to physical force. Trying to redefine force in a different way would be futile.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@mafia_mastiff @GuntherEagleman @SpeakerPelosi @SenWhitehouse @RepJeffries Gotta admit, first real chuckle of the day. I like subtle.

[Lester Dent @LesterDent]

@Strangeland_Elf Were you wearing appropriate period dress? Just a suggestion.