A Lefty Mob Trespassed on Their Property

[jedi]

Missouri Court: Mark McCloskey Pardoned But Still Guilty

There is an interesting ruling in the ongoing litigation of the case of Mark McCloskey. We previously discussed the case, which became a cause célèbre for many on the left and the right after Mark …

jonathanturley.org

Why is he still fighting it?
He got his freedom back, no felony.
Yes it sucks he lost the rifle but buy a new one and move on with life.

The tool (rifle) served its purpose. It saved his life.

Same with a harness for a roofer. Roofer falls and the harness saves his life. Great. It worked. Buy a new one to replace the tool that did its job.

 

[Ingomike]

Why is he still fighting it?
He got his freedom back, no felony.
Yes it sucks he lost the rifle but buy a new one and move on with life.

The tool (rifle) served its purpose. It saved his life.

Same with a harness for a roofer. Roofer falls and the harness saves his life. Great. It worked. Buy a new one to replace the tool that did its job.

I think the bigger news is the fact the court finds that he is still guilty and the pardon does not wipe everything away. The example was the liquor store owner that plead guilty to selling booze illegally on Sunday, they denied his application for another liquor license even though he was pardoned because he “violated liquor laws in the past”.

In this case if it had been a felony he plead to, they could use this to say he was a prohibited person even after a full pardon.

These cases have further ramifications…

 

[KLB]

I think the bigger news is the fact the court finds that he is still guilty and the pardon does not wipe everything away. The example was the liquor store owner that plead guilty to selling booze illegally on Sunday, they denied his application for another liquor license even though he was pardoned because he “violated liquor laws in the past”.

In this case if it had been a felony he plead to, they could use this to say he was a prohibited person even after a full pardon.

These cases have further ramifications…

Looks like the pleading guilty is the issue. They plead to get a more lenient ruling, and it sticks with them beyond what pleading innocent and being found guilty would have.

 

[Ingomike]

Looks like the pleading guilty is the issue. They plead to get a more lenient ruling, and it sticks with them beyond what pleading innocent and being found guilty would have.

Right but pardons are rarely granted be before conviction or a pleading to avoid bankruptcy.

“If upheld, the decision shows the cost of a plea when an individual is also seeking a pardon. Many had long called for a pardon to be issued, but governors will often wait for the legal system to play out to some degree before intervening. The pardon does not mean that you will be treated as innocent or that your property will be returned.”

 

[KLB]

Right but pardons are rarely granted be before conviction or a pleading to avoid bankruptcy.

“If upheld, the decision shows the cost of a plea when an individual is also seeking a pardon. Many had long called for a pardon to be issued, but governors will often wait for the legal system to play out to some degree before intervening. The pardon does not mean that you will be treated as innocent or that your property will be returned.”

How could you pardon someone that hasn't been convicted of anything?

I guess if you think you have a real chance of a pardon, you are better off rolling the dice with the trial.

 

[Ingomike]

How could you pardon someone that hasn't been convicted of anything?

I guess if you think you have a real chance of a pardon, you are better off rolling the dice with the trial.

From the article.

“Under federal law, a president can issue a preemptive pardon. That was done by Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter.” State laws will vary…

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How could you pardon someone that hasn't been convicted of anything?

By signing the pardon executive order.

 

[jamil]

Missouri Court: Mark McCloskey Pardoned But Still Guilty

There is an interesting ruling in the ongoing litigation of the case of Mark McCloskey. We previously discussed the case, which became a cause célèbre for many on the left and the right after Mark …

jonathanturley.org

---

While we agree that the pardon restored all of his rights forfeited by the conviction and removed any legal disqualification, disadvantage, or impediment, Missouri law is unequivocal that a gubernatorial pardon obliterates the fact of the conviction, not the fact of guilt. Thus, McCloskey’s guilty plea, for which he obtained the benefit of the State dismissing a felony charge punishable by jail time, survived the pardon and importantly, with respect to the issue at hand in this replevin action, triggered the guns’ forfeiture. Therefore, since McCloskey’s guilt remains, it follows that he is not entitled to the return of the weapons….

---

This looks to me like this is how you write a legal opinion for an outcome you’ve already arrived at and are just looking for some legal theory to justify it.

If it's true that it's his conviction that was obliterated, but not his guilt, it can at most be guilt of what he was convicted for that remains. So it seems obvious that this ruling makes the logical leap that by taking the plea, he's automatically guilty of the felony. He was never tried for a felony, and never admitted guilt for a felony. He was not pardoned for a felony. He was pardoned for the misdemeanor he admitted to. So any guilt that would remain would be for that.

The ruling admits that any legal disqualifications imposed by the conviction were removed by the pardon of that conviction. So it's not the case that this ruling is based on any restrictions imposed. This is like Nancy Pelosi saying to Trump as if it was her consolation prize for not removing Trump from office, "Neener, neener, you will always be impeached." Okay, so McClosky is guilty of that misdimeanor forever. So the **** what? What use is that if any legal disqualifications were removed by the pardon.

Doesn't matter if you think McCloskey is a fool. That's self-evident. I'd wager that he wants them back so that he can auction them off to the highest bidder. Being a fool doesn't remove his right to own firearms. Give him back his ****ing guns.

 

[jamil]

Why is he still fighting it?
He got his freedom back, no felony.
Yes it sucks he lost the rifle but buy a new one and move on with life.

The tool (rifle) served its purpose. It saved his life.

Same with a harness for a roofer. Roofer falls and the harness saves his life. Great. It worked. Buy a new one to replace the tool that did its job.

Because he can probably auction it and make some money.

 

[jamil]

Looks like the pleading guilty is the issue. They plead to get a more lenient ruling, and it sticks with them beyond what pleading innocent and being found guilty would have.

But the ruling admitted his rights are reinstated. And he was not guilty of the felony. He didn’t admit to that.

 

[KLB]

But the ruling admitted his rights are reinstated. And he was not guilty of the felony. He didn’t admit to that.

The ruling isn't even about his rights, only his property. They say he gave up his guns as part of his deal when he agreed to plea guilty. Since he said he was guilty, he was guilty and therefore the .gov can keep the guns he gave up because he was guilty.

You had it right earlier when you said:

This looks to me like this is how you write a legal opinion for an outcome you’ve already arrived at and are just looking for some legal theory to justify it.

Missouri has some messed up laws. How does someone coerced into pleading guilty ever get that removed?

Are Indiana laws like that?

 

[jamil]

The ruling isn't even about his rights, only his property. They say he gave up his guns as part of his deal when he agreed to plea guilty.

That's not the point of the case cited to justify the ruling. That's not the point made throughout the ruling.

Since he said he was guilty, he was guilty and therefore the .gov can keep the guns he gave up because he was guilty.

Which is bull**** double speak. What he admitted to being guilty of was a misdemeanor. What would the judge have done in this case if there was no plea deal and the governor pardoned him of the felony, for which there was no agreement that McCloskey would give up those guns? Same ruling.

Obviously so, because of the case cited in the ruling. If a pardon obliterates the conviction, especially to the point that the court agrees all rights were restored, this ruling is partisan.

You had it right earlier when you said:

Missouri has some messed up laws. How does someone coerced into pleading guilty ever get that removed?

Are Indiana laws like that?

Yeah. Courts are messed up too.

 

[KLB]

Which is bull**** double speak. What he admitted to being guilty of was a misdemeanor. What would the judge have done in this case if there was no plea deal and the governor pardoned him of the felony, for which there was no agreement that McCloskey would give up those guns? Same ruling.

Obviously so, because of the case cited in the ruling. If a pardon obliterates the conviction, especially to the point that the court agrees all rights were restored, this ruling is partisan.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. The guns were given up as part of the plea deal. Without the deal, he would not have given up the guns and wouldn't have to try to get them back. Thus there would be no ruling to make.

 

[Sigblitz]

I had some comments, but after going back through this old thread, I had to argue with myself.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But the ruling admitted his rights are reinstated. And he was not guilty of the felony. He didn’t admit to that.

Seperate issue.

Think of the plea bargain as just another sort of contract. Remember the judge does *not* have to accept your guilty plea. I've personally seen it happen when the judge thought the defendent didn't understand fully or the plea was just too stupid/unfair for one party or the other.

Fill in the mad libs here: Your honor, if you accept my guilty plea I will do the following things: X, Y, Z.

It has nothing to do with your rights, or even if you're a felon, or not. It's simply what you promise to do in order for your plea to be accepted. A pardon has no effect on that. Imagine if a pardon was retroactive for an agreed upon jail sentence. You plead to 30 years. You do 10 and then get pardoned. The state doesn't owe you the 10 years back like a wrongful conviction, it just wipes away the 20 you have left.

 

[jamil]

Seperate issue.

Think of the plea bargain as just another sort of contract. Remember the judge does *not* have to accept your guilty plea. I've personally seen it happen when the judge thought the defendent didn't understand fully or the plea was just too stupid/unfair for one party or the other.

Fill in the mad libs here: Your honor, if you accept my guilty plea I will do the following things: X, Y, Z.

It has nothing to do with your rights, or even if you're a felon, or not. It's simply what you promise to do in order for your plea to be accepted. A pardon has no effect on that. Imagine if a pardon was retroactive for an agreed upon jail sentence. You plead to 30 years. You do 10 and then get pardoned. The state doesn't owe you the 10 years back like a wrongful conviction, it just wipes away the 20 you have left.

If this ruling was purely about the contract of the plea deal, why did it spend so much time establishing that a pardon doesn’t erase the guilt? The whole “neener neener you’re still guilty” paragraph is unnecessary. They just need to say the pardon does not destroy the agreement.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If this ruling was purely about the contract of the plea deal, why did it spend so much time establishing that a pardon doesn’t erase the guilt? The whole “neener neener you’re still guilty” paragraph is unnecessary. They just need to say the pardon does not destroy the agreement.

Roughly 1/4 of people who have a sentence overturned as wrongful *plead guilty*. Those people are able to then seek to be made whole for the wrongful conviction. It's usually cast as they knew they didn't do it but plead guilty to take a light sentence vs risking the court getting it wrong and a hefty sentence. Sometimes they absolutely did do it, but the rules weren't followed for something or other, but that's irrelevant here.

The court is drawing a delineation between a pardon vs a wrongful conviction. Again, Imagine if a pardon was retroactive for an agreed upon jail sentence. You plead to 30 years. You do 10 and then get pardoned. The state doesn't owe you the 10 years back like a wrongful conviction, it just wipes away the 20 you have left. Compare to you actually weren't guilty and you're entitled to be made whole for those 10 years.

 

[jamil]

Roughly 1/4 of people who have a sentence overturned as wrongful *plead guilty*. Those people are able to then seek to be made whole for the wrongful conviction. It's usually cast as they knew they didn't do it but plead guilty to take a light sentence vs risking the court getting it wrong and a hefty sentence. Sometimes they absolutely did do it, but the rules weren't followed for something or other, but that's irrelevant here.

The court is drawing a delineation between a pardon vs a wrongful conviction. Again, Imagine if a pardon was retroactive for an agreed upon jail sentence. You plead to 30 years. You do 10 and then get pardoned. The state doesn't owe you the 10 years back like a wrongful conviction, it just wipes away the 20 you have left. Compare to you actually weren't guilty and you're entitled to be made whole for those 10 years.

Okay. But a lot of words were spent on not that.

 

[chipbennett]

Missouri Court: Mark McCloskey Pardoned But Still Guilty

There is an interesting ruling in the ongoing litigation of the case of Mark McCloskey. We previously discussed the case, which became a cause célèbre for many on the left and the right after Mark …

jonathanturley.org

Well, that's the stupidest (but least surprising) thing I've read since... well, since earlier this morning, when I read the Maine SOS's "legal decision".

 

[chipbennett]

Looks like the pleading guilty is the issue. They plead to get a more lenient ruling, and it sticks with them beyond what pleading innocent and being found guilty would have.

A pardon removes the conviction and all of the consequences of the conviction. Forfeiture of the firearm is a consequence of conviction.