Me too. My parents would tell me " sorry kiddo, you made your bed now you lay in it ". Unless it was for certain self defense! My parents are old school, they don't mess around with law stuff. And I am VERY glad.
Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #7 *Arrest*
- Thread starter eekasaur
- Start date
- Status
Me too. My parents would tell me " sorry kiddo, you made your bed now you lay in it ". Unless it was for certain self defense! My parents are old school, they don't mess around with law stuff. And I am VERY glad.
PetDetective
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 716
- Reaction score
- 2,996
I knew you were asking for verification, sorry, I should have worded it differently
I wasnt saying you were wrong, the statement you were questioning was. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PetDetective
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 716
- Reaction score
- 2,996
Ahhh you are correct, I wasnt thinking clearly. So in order for them to get the money back, they would have to put up the full 5 million.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mamabear05
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2018
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 5
My thoughts exactly.
MsFacetious
What a Kerfuffle...
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 21,624
- Reaction score
- 33,035
Absolutely NOT. It would be a waste of money. It's going to cost them a few hundred dollars a month to pay for phone/commissary etc. Then there is the money for an attorney. Likely at least $100k a MONTH for years.
Then there is the risk that your house gets torched if he's out on bail.
Or that someone decides to make up a claim to put him back in jail.
Then there's the risk that they find evidence for special circumstances and his bail is revoked. You do not get the $500k back if that happens! Even if it is like a week after you pay it.
The ONLY reason bailing him out makes any sense is if they intend to ship him out of the country or he intends to commit suicide immediately. Otherwise there is no justifiable reason to do it that outweighs the negatives.
This IS true. More access to the lawyer allows you to communicate better with the attorney. However, I still think in this particular case the risks outweigh even that benefit of getting out on bail.
If they want to come up with the full 5 million and they still have another several million for his defense... I guess that's their choice. However if they use a bail bondsmen and put up $500k they will NEVER see again? There is zero logical reason to do that. Period.
Whiteorchids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 6,953
- Reaction score
- 18,746
I knew you were asking for verification, sorry, I should have worded it differently
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No worries. I understood what you meant. [emoji4]
Whiteorchids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 6,953
- Reaction score
- 18,746
Mom took their priest to the first hearing Im not sure if he was there for the arraignment today. Local news said Mom was mouthing words to SW in the cage and perhaps she was praying. MSM had reported they were devout Catholics and went to church almost everyday. I could see the church raising money and donating for SW defense and bail. Ugh.
PetDetective
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 716
- Reaction score
- 2,996
If their church raised 5 million dollars for his bail, I think people would flip out. At least I certainly hope so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Niner
Long time Websleuther
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 86,722
- Reaction score
- 291,987
Hey!
First - I'd liked to THANK everyone that posted what was going on at arraignment yesterday! You ALL did a GOOD job!! :clap:
But one thing that wasn't mentioned in the tweets or any of the articles mentioned was WHAT TIME is his next hearing? TIA!
Nope! This is the message I get using FireFox:
The connection has timed out
The server at ocapps.occourts.org is taking too long to respond.
*The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
*If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.
*If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. Try Again!
and using my IE - I get this message:
This page can’t be displayed
•Make sure the web address https://ocapps.occourts.org is correct.
•Look for the page with your search engine.
•Refresh the page in a few minutes.
:dunno: maybe it's cause I'm in Europe and there are quite a few court dockets that I can't get into....
But :tyou: for trying to find me a link! :wave:
and thank you for this link - I've bookmarked for any further hearing dates!
Just copy & paste the url at the bottom of what you posted about the tweet. Like this:
from link: https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSmichelegile?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
5 or 5:30 ?? not that it really matters, but wanted to get the correct info!
First - I'd liked to THANK everyone that posted what was going on at arraignment yesterday! You ALL did a GOOD job!! :clap:
But one thing that wasn't mentioned in the tweets or any of the articles mentioned was WHAT TIME is his next hearing? TIA!
Mica said:
Nope! This is the message I get using FireFox:
The connection has timed out
The server at ocapps.occourts.org is taking too long to respond.
*The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
*If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.
*If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. Try Again!
and using my IE - I get this message:
This page can’t be displayed
•Make sure the web address https://ocapps.occourts.org is correct.
•Look for the page with your search engine.
•Refresh the page in a few minutes.
:dunno: maybe it's cause I'm in Europe and there are quite a few court dockets that I can't get into....
But :tyou: for trying to find me a link! :wave:
Mica said:
and thank you for this link - I've bookmarked for any further hearing dates!
Milenalee said:
Just copy & paste the url at the bottom of what you posted about the tweet. Like this:
from link: https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSmichelegile?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Catonahottinroof said:
Milenalee said:
5 or 5:30 ?? not that it really matters, but wanted to get the correct info!
At the first hearing a couple of weeks ago, no plea was entered, and the defense attorney Munoz complained that he hadn't seen any evidence.
At this point - Feb 3rd - how much would he have seen? Would any forensics, photographs (of Blaze, surveillance, you name it) have been made available to the defense?
At this point - Feb 3rd - how much would he have seen? Would any forensics, photographs (of Blaze, surveillance, you name it) have been made available to the defense?
Mica
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,059
- Reaction score
- 12,440
On the court site it shows a plea of “DENIED” was entered yesterday after the charge of - ENH-Personally using deadly weapon; additional term of 1 year.
I assume it’s just a formality to go along with the plea of NOT GUILTY on the murder charge.
I assume it’s just a formality to go along with the plea of NOT GUILTY on the murder charge.
D
Deleted member 158085
Guest
No, no, no. That won't happen with the Catholic Church. Trust me. Donations are too highly regulated because every church answers to the diocese and ultimately they all answer to Rome.
The only way "the church" could do something like that is if you mean the parishioners themselves doing it, completely disconnected from the church. And I doubt that. Most of the Catholics I know are pretty hard-nosed about personal responsibility. I can't see a large portion of any Catholic congregation thinking that raising money for bail in a situation like this is a good idea.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I bet his attorney is pro bono, or a straight not too high fee. He will get so much publicity from this. Maybe he's heading into politics or just wants to raise his profile. I think if they were paying for the whole deal they would have got a competent but not superstar attorney. MOO
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mica
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,059
- Reaction score
- 12,440
With the possibility of SW being involved with neo-nazi groups, wondering if federal law could apply if a hate crime is suspected? Since CA law doesn't include a special circumstance for sexual orientation or gender identity, maybe the DA should turn the case over to the FBI to investigate and assume jurisdiction. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 may apply. This federal Act includes hate crimes associated with sexual orientation and gender identity unlike the CA law.
Snip
Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
Department of Justice - Hate Crime Laws
Snip
Before the Civil Rights Division prosecutes a hate crime, the Attorney General or someone the Attorney General designates must certify, in writing, that (1) the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) the state has requested that the federal government assume jurisdiction; (3) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges did not demonstratively vindicate the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (4) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. In the seven years since the passage of the Shepard-Byrd Act, the Justice Department has charged 72 defendants and convicted 45 defendants under this statute. In total, as of July 15, 2016, the department has charged 258 defendants for hate crimes under multiple statutes over the last seven years.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws
Snip
Traditionally, FBI investigations of hate crimes were limited to crimes in which the perpetrators acted based on a bias against the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, investigations were restricted to those wherein the victim was engaged in a federally protected activity. With the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, the Bureau became authorized to investigate these crimes without this prohibition. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of the FBI to allow for the investigation of hate crimes committed against those based on biases of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
Department of Justice - Hate Crime Laws
Snip
Before the Civil Rights Division prosecutes a hate crime, the Attorney General or someone the Attorney General designates must certify, in writing, that (1) the state does not have jurisdiction; (2) the state has requested that the federal government assume jurisdiction; (3) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to state charges did not demonstratively vindicate the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or (4) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. In the seven years since the passage of the Shepard-Byrd Act, the Justice Department has charged 72 defendants and convicted 45 defendants under this statute. In total, as of July 15, 2016, the department has charged 258 defendants for hate crimes under multiple statutes over the last seven years.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws
Mica
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,059
- Reaction score
- 12,440
Because there was no "special circumstance" involved.
Legally they had to if they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a hate crime or other special circumstances. They could have set it for higher though.
Here's a good article. Includes some statements from Sam's lawyer.
https://mynewsla.com/orange-county/...nies-murdering-upenn-student-blaze-bernstein/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think they could. Maybe that's why people have reported that the FBI was assisting local LE (though that was during the search phase if I'm remembering correctly). They must need their help to learn all about the atom waffens.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Mica
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,059
- Reaction score
- 12,440
Eventually SW can still be charged with a hate crime in CA if there is evidence to prove it. It just can't be included for special circumstance to hold him without bail.
From the link...
snip
If prosecutors determine that Bernstein was killed because of his sexual orientation, they could still file a hate crime allegation against Woodward, opening him to a longer prison term if convicted. Because Bernstein was stabbed to death, Woodward already faces 26 years to life in prison if found guilty.
- Status