non retards say yes

what say you xo?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576707)

odds of MN charging him = 98%

odds of MN charges being removed = 99%

odds of federal judge dismissing pretrial = 80%

i could be wrong, of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576724)

Btw I'm on record saying I'd take this Bivens suit, and I'd certainly give myself a 50-50 shot at trying him criminally under 242 (it's far easier to get a 242 conviction than a Bivens judgment).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576799)

This is not a simple-assault or reckless-driving case against a postal worker, where the State actually has the evidence it needs to prosecute (those cases, though, sometimes do thread the needle of being removable under 1442 but not subject to supremacy clause immunity, and I am aware of cases where the USA has allowed the state to prosecute in federal court without intervening). The feds have everything, and the State has no vehicle to force the feds to give it to them (in a normal US v. Citizen criminal case, at *some* point the US effectively does have to accede to a criminal defendant's Touhy subpoena, because even though the judge can't order the testimony/evidence per se, he can dismiss the prosecution if the refusal results in an unfair trial (and the standard is actually slightly defense-friendlier than that). This obviously doesn't work in a 1442 removal where the USA is on the defendant's side and doesn't want the prosecution in the first place.)

In other words, supremacy clause immunity (which I guess I should have defined, but specifically refers to federal-officer immunity from state-law prosecutions) is powerful even when it's being asserted as a personal defense without the USA's approval, although the doctrine is vague as shit and varies from circuit to circuit, not unlike QI. But when the feds are backing the claim, it becomes completely insurmountable, and in fact -- and this has been asserted to me in an official DOJ training on the subject, although it's a categorical statement so who knows if it's exactly true -- there has not been a conviction obtained in a state-law prosecution of a federal officer, where the United States is asserting supremacy clause immunity on his behalf, since Reconstruction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49577263)

I should concede that actual training on this subject focuses 90% on when to bring 242 claims against state popo, and 10% on when to prosecute federal agents--as to whom the bar is in fact conceptually lower, since you don't have comity/federalism concerns about whether the state AG wants, or should appropriately take, the case or what have you. It's basically just asserted, in swinging-dick fashion, that if the feds don't prosecute a federal agent, no one else gets to, and you need to tell the state AG that early on so that they don't get the wrong idea.

It is not actually the subject of any in-depth training what happens if no one is DETERRED from action, but instead makes runs you through the paces until forced by direct court order to stop, as the country descends into Civil War II. (The obama admin was a different time.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49577324)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moriarty

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576757)

libs have scum for brains

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576787)

1. MN waits three years before charging him

2. Trump pardons him on his way out of office

3. MN files state murder charges once new Dem POTUS is sworn in

4. Defendant removes the case to federal court (in which case he’d still be prosecuted under MN state law)

What impact if any does the pardon have on the case that’s now been removed to federal court and any consideration of the immunity issue by the federal judge?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576793)

why would MN wait?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576833)

The answer to the legal hypo overall is that, traditionally, under both political parties, the feds *never* allow a state prosecution of a federal agent for actions taken under color of federal law (he either gets charged federally or not at all). Now maybe President Newsom does something different, but there's no precedent for that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5820030&forum_id=2Vannesa#49576910)