Birthers routinely get lawyers and then get rid of them, if they can. Darren Huff is no different, but try as he might, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville stuck him to G. Scott Green. In my opinion, Huff should be kissing Green’s ass three times daily for coming up with what may be the only defense that might give a little help to Darren Huff. Basically it ran, the guy’s a bloviating asshole, who can’t keep his mouth from running away with his brain, but, anyhow …
According to The Knox News Sentinel:
Defense attorney Scott Green conceded Tuesday that Huff is a veritable poster child of a domestic terrorism suspect. He was a member of the Georgia militia and the “Oathkeepers,” a group of retired military folks still willing to bear arms to defend the U.S. Constitution. Although jurors don’t know it, Huff has also been linked to various white supremacy groups.
Just because he doesn’t think like we do, it’s no reason to convict him. Not a bad try, but as ‘A Legal Lohengrin’ at The Fogbow points out:
The fact is, the way Huff presented himself, the authorities simply had to take his threats seriously. However, the utterly cartoonish nature of this plot and the completely anticlimactic outcome make it frankly a huge stretch to argue anyone actually intended to produce assault rifles and storm the courthouse. I don’t think that’s believable. However, it is quite clear that Huff hoped to create a brouhaha of some sort, something that would probably fit the broad definition of a civil disorder. The fact that Huff’s expected huge mob of idiots turned into a couple dimwits instead doesn’t negate the attempt.
The reckless irresponsibility of throwing guns into the mix created the very real possibility that the situation would degenerate to the point someone got shot, even if it would probably have been Huff himself.
In other words, the buffoonish nature of the failed attempt should not distract from the fact that Huff’s conduct inflicted very real costs on society, and led to a situation where there was a substantial possibility of someone getting hurt, even if the “take over Madisonville” scenario is ludicrous on its face and clearly would never have actually happened. There was an actual civil disorder, even if it wasn’t at the grandiose level Huff wanted. Huff traveled interstate with guns to participate in this, hoping for something more. If a jury finds those things, they have to convict.
From The Knox News Sentinel:
[The prosecuter] Theodore countered in his closing that Huff wasn’t being prosecuted because of his beliefs
“It is because of his actions,” Theodore said. “There are so many people who have extreme political beliefs. It is what he did on April 20 and what his intent was on April 20.”
Theodore said just because Huff opted not to storm the courthouse with a dozen militiamen when they saw the 75 to 100 lawmen in town, he still broke the law.
Huff’s feelings have been terribly hurt by the whole experience, by the way, and he all but cried for the jury in court.
Here is Darren outside the court house, dressed in in a snazzy lavender shirt, next to his truck. The motto translates to something like “Come and get them.”
At the time of the crime, the truck bore an Oath Keepers decal. Oath Keepers and the Georgia Militia both disowned him after his arrest, even though he was the militia’s chaplain. When Oath Keepers and Militia run away from you, it says a lot, but Darren’s main trouble is what he has said.
New Yorkers support anti-Wall Street protests: poll
(Reuters) – Anti-Wall Street protests have won broad support among New York City voters, who would overwhelmingly favor tougher regulations on the financial industry, new poll results showed on Monday.
Sixty-seven percent of those who responded to a Quinnipiac University survey said they agreed with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, who are upset that banks were allowed to earn huge profits after being bailed out during the recession, while average Americans remained under financial strain.
An even wider margin, 87 percent, agreed with the protesters’ right to camp out in Lower Manhattan, as long as they obeyed the law. The movement began staging rallies more than a month ago.
Support for the protests was split down party lines, with 81 percent of the Democrats saying they backed them, while only 35 percent of Republicans said so. …
The largest block of voters, 37 percent, blamed former President George W. Bush’s administration for the nation’s economic problems, while 21 percent blamed banks. Seventy-three percent said they would support tougher government regulation.
From Paul Krugman:
Confronting the Malefactors
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people. …
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?
Now, it’s true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans, which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.
Informing Chief Judge Royce Lamberth that there is “an unprecedented level of corruption” in “all three brunches of government,” Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. filed a Reply (see below) to the government’s businesslike Opposition to her Motion for Reconsideration filed on September 13. The FOIA case was Dismissed with prejudice on August 30, when the court Granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
While the United States used to be just worse than the Soviet Union, after the September 23 Opposition, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. was driven to declare on her web site:
This is complete lawlessness, this is worse than the Soviet Union, Libya and Iran taken together. This answer from the Department of Justice de facto tells every American citizen: “You are nothing but a dumb slave, we can do absolutely everything and anything to you”. I hope every American citizen is livid and up in arms in the face of this flagrant injustice and flagrant abdication of the most basic constitutional rights of the US citizens.
Moldova is calling you home, Orly. Please go.
In her Reply to the government’s businesslike Opposition, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., who routinely disgraces the legal profession, indeed the entire nation, with unmitigated gall, refers to her courtroom opponents with a string of childish insults as if she is some low-class, snarky blogger, like me:
- “simply criminal”
- “unprecedented stupidity”
- “collective dyslexia”
- laughable, like “a good sitcom”
When will the State Bar of California disbar Orly Taitz? I only wish I knew.