Paul, your initial post made it sound like she was sent to prison for five years for voter fraud due to the color of her skin. That's how I read it and was like holy sh@t.
Printable View
Paul, your initial post made it sound like she was sent to prison for five years for voter fraud due to the color of her skin. That's how I read it and was like holy sh@t.
When you follow some of the history of sentencing in the South, there often seems to be disparity in what is given to white vs black defendants.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADXSTER
I have no idea why this woman didn't take probation on her voter situation, because she was fairly adamant that she wouldn't have risked prison just to vote after getting out after 5 years for the earlier crime.
Sounds like she honestly believed she made an error after her mother encouraged her to vote, and didn't know she wasn't supposed to.
Ignorance is not a defense, so she's paying for it, for whatever reason.
Curiously, a legal point is in play now. Since she cast a provisional, that was never allowed to be counted, she didn't really "vote" in the election...and that is some basis for the current appeal.
What's interesting is that in the literally one is a million votes cast that turn out to be actual fraud, it seems most often that it is a Republican doing the cheating. Sort of contra to the rhetoric we hear so often these days.
Your last paragraph was meant to be a joke tight?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
And that is exactly what he was trying to do...and those screaming for “Equity” and not Equality do all the time. It’s false and divisive.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADXSTER
What the hell else are you supposed to glean from “Two different Justice Systems in America”?
And old history in the South has zero to do with today so stop dredging it up.
Yes Paul, that's what happens when you are a convicted felon and violate the terms of your probation. The fact that you are trying to make the connection between this woman's case and the other case as some sort proof of a racially biased application of the law, makes zero sense. Maybe you don't understand how the law is applied to felons versus non-felons. Or maybe you're just stirring shit up to further divide people..Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Hmm, newly released drone footage from Charlottesville is interesting. Whole lot of Soviet flags in that alt-left mob...
Yeah, Ms Mason isn’t exactly the poster person I would use for the two sides of justice argument or black voter suppression like other articles I’ve read like to paint it. Like MOR said she literally turned down probation and went to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smails
The judge found beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that she knew she was not eligible to vote and voted anyway. So now we’re supposed to believe a convicted felon over a judge? Also, guess we’re supposed to think the act of voting only counts if the vote did? Yeah, I stole the food but I didn’t eat it. Interesting times.
Actually no, she both did not know that a condition of her supervised release was that she could not vote and a probation official actually testified in court that he did not tell her she was not eligible to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by noteggs
Ignorance is not a defense unless you are Tom Delay. Part of the Texas Court of Appeals decision in 2013 in his case was that Delay needed to be aware he was breaking elections law and it was on the prosecution to prove that.
So the judge and State appellate court who upheld the courts ruling are wrong? The judge ruled that she knew without a reasonable doubt she couldn’t vote. Does it really matter what the probation officer said in court? Understand it’s still in court, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaXUGrad
I am reading the appeal as I cannot find the original trial judge's ruling. Part of it maintains that she received a notice of cancellation of voter registration at her home address while she was serving her sentence for fraudulently completing tax returns. She served 60 months, how was she supposed to sift through five years of mail.
And, it's right in the opinion. Texas only needs to prove that the defendant voted knowing of the condition that precluded them from voting only and not that the condition itself made it illegal to vote. They basically removed intent as part of this and left it merely the action.
I would like to read the original judge's ruling. I also find it interesting that you can remove requiring the prosecution to prove intent for something like this.