shitty wikipedia
after seeing an article on the blagojevich “verdict” i googled <“double jeopardy” mistrial>.
oh wow, it’s the state-worshiping wikipedia “editors” at work again, asserting falsely,
As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not.
obvious rot. double jeopardy clause:
[...] nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; [...]
blagojevich was in jeopardy. a retrial places him jeopardy again. if one wants to argue that he wasn’t in jeopardy “of life or limb” (more ridiculous constitution shit writing we’re supposed to not notice), that’s another matter. same with arguing that the defense could instigate mistrials solely for evasion.
simply another example of blacked-robed charlatans ensuring that what’s followed is not the constitution, but some nth-removed verbiage they hurled while pretending to defer to the constitution. it was done long ago for the immediately following clause:
[...] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, [...]
via “judge” chicanery that became a supposed bar against “self incrimination”, and not much of a bar at that. “self incrimination” is not a synonym for “a witness against himself in any criminal case”, and the term has enabled millions of abuses. the term becomes the constitution, as i argued years ago. also here.
more statist bullshit from wikipedia for recent news:
[...] According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party….” This last “state shall be a party” language does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction merely because a state is a plaintiff or defendant, even if a provision of the U.S. Constitution is at issue; instead, the controversy must be between two or more states, or between a State and citizens of another State, or between a State and foreigners. [...]
here you can watch steffy P cantsellya step on his dick all over that one. the citations given by wikipedia: these tyrants and this jackass (.PDF), whose false assumptions are refuted in my posts against steffy P.