- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alien Enemies Act does apply to Tren de Aragua
Posted on 3/30/25 at 6:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/30/25 at 6:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You have to file the motion.
See my post above - what statute or rule or where in the constydoes it say a defendant has to file the motion ? I can't find that anywhere?
0
Posted on 3/30/25 at 6:48 am to SammyTiger
Ah yes. The violent gang members that just came here seeking asylum looking for a better life It would be a shame if one of these lovely asylum seekers found their way into your house. 
This post was edited on 3/30/25 at 6:49 am
Posted on 3/30/25 at 7:01 am to SammyTiger
quote:
: Trump admin filed emergency appeal to SCOTUS seeking intervention from lower court rulings
This thread
This post was edited on 3/30/25 at 7:03 am
Posted on 3/30/25 at 7:07 am to SammyTiger
quote:
if it applies he can grab any venezuelan. It applies to nation not groups. It also applies to anyone over 14 from that nation.
What’s the downside?
Posted on 3/30/25 at 8:25 am to dafif
quote:
Can you show me in the constitution, FRCP or a statute that requires a defendant to actually file a motion
Looking and apparently in the feds (I don't do federal work) you don't have to file one (you do in Louisiana, which is probably the frame of reference)
2 things, though:
LINK
quote:
The Accused's Demand for a Speedy Trial: A defendant's actions during the delay are also evaluated. Courts generally expect defendants to assert their right to a speedy trial. Failure to do so may suggest that the defendant is tolerating or even contributing to the delay.
DOJ article on Speedy Trial Act of 1974
quote:
Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act's time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). In Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes "all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is 'reasonably necessary.'" The Act also excludes a reasonable period (up to 30 days) during which a motion is actually "under advisement" by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(J).
As I've posted many times on this subject, THIS is why the vast majority, if not all, cases were delayed so long. This pretrial motion practice is literally "due process" (see a few posts of mine prior in this thread). The Defendants were given lots of due process, and that delayed the trial by their own motions.
As I have said about 1000 times, the J6 situation is a great way to look at how our bail system is broken and punishes defendants, but, for most people who melt about J6, they want even harsher bail laws generally, so that's a "them" problem.
*ETA: most defendants don't actually want speedy trials as it precludes them from developing a defense or fully analyzing the evidence. This decision is just much more palatable if that defendant is out of jail. Just like with other ways the government can press a defendant while incarcerated, the speedy trial (and what you give up to get there) becomes appealing. Again, the problem for the J6 people was the pretrial detention/bail issue, not the speedy motion issue.
This post was edited on 3/30/25 at 8:32 am
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News