Judge refuses to Allow Sen Mendez to leave court to vote

[Common]

Federal Prosecutors: Senator Bob Menendez Should Absolutely Not Get a Pass to Vote During Corruption Trial

Democrat Senator Bob Menendez is about to go on trial for corruption in New Jersey and a federal judge has ordered he physically remain in the court room throughout the entire process.

Irritated, Menendez filed a request to the court asking if he could leave for votes in the Senate. Federal prosecutors did not mince words when issuingtheir opposition (https://www.scribd.com/document/357220913/UNITED-STATES-RESPONSE-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT-MENENDEZ-S-REQUEST-FOR-SPECIAL-TREATMENT-BASED-ON-HIS-STATUS-AS-A-SENATOR) to the request and reminded him he isn't above the law simply because he is a U.S. Senator.
"After being indicted twice for depriving the people who elected him of their right to his honest services, defendant Robert Menendez now demands that this Court disrupt his criminal trial so that he can perform his duties as a United States Senator. Defendant Menendez was indicted in 2015 and 2016 for bribery, conspiracy, honest services fraud, false statements, and violating the Travel Act. Those indictments allege a seven-year bribery conspiracy in which he traded the power of his public office for a lavish lifestyle that included private jet rides and vacations in Paris and the Caribbean," they wrote in a response. (https://www.scribd.com/document/357220913/UNITED-STATES-RESPONSE-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT-MENENDEZ-S-REQUEST-FOR-SPECIAL-TREATMENT-BASED-ON-HIS-STATUS-AS-A-SENATOR) "The only reason defendant Menendez’s trial is scheduled for September 2017, almost two-and-a-half years after he was first indicted by a grand jury, is because he has spent that time pursuing a meritless argument that the Constitution immunizes him from prosecution—an argument that has been rejected by every judge to have considered it. Now he seeks to use his status as a United States Senator to pick and choose the dates on which his criminal trial will be conducted."
"This is not the first time defendant Menendez has sought special treatment from this Court. At defendant Menendez’s very first appearance, he asked to be exempted from the routine requirement that defendants surrender their personal passports because of his status as a United States Senator," the response continues. "This case began with defendant Menendez being treated like any other defendant, and it should end that way....only a United States Senator can try to hide behind the very office he corrupted to avoid accountability to the public for his actions."


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/25/democrat-senator-bob-menendez-cannot-vote-during-corruption-trial-n2372802

[stjames1_53]

I wonder if he's got upscale accommodations or bunking with 'Buddy'.............

[NapRover]

Toss him in the klink. Then Gov. Christie will appoint himself Senator.

[Cletus]

I disagree with the Court on this. Menendez has not yet been convicted and he is still a sitting member of the Senate. As such, he has a responsibility to the people of his state to conduct their business. by not allowing him to vote, the court is effectively depriving an entire state of its voice in government.

Let him go vote under escort if need be, but he should not be deprived, or more importantly, his state should not be deprived of his ability to represent it and vote on its behalf. Don't let him do anything else, like travel, but don't keep him from voting in the Senate.

[Peter1469]

Not Constitutional. He can go to Washington to vote and not be molested by any court or law enforcement agent.

[Ethereal]

Mendez is pure scum. I hope they throw him in prison forever.

[Peter1469]

Mendez is pure scum. I hope they throw him in prison forever.

Up until his conviction and removal from office he cannot be impeded in travelling to and from DC. In fact, some say that arresting that one gay guy from Congress who got caught in some airport was unconstitutional because he was returning back to vote.

But many courts don't care about such trivial matters these days.

[Ethereal]

Up until his conviction and removal from office he cannot be impeded in travelling to and from DC. In fact, some say that arresting that one gay guy from Congress who got caught in some airport was unconstitutional because he was returning back to vote.

But many courts don't care about such trivial matters these days.
The political class has already thrown the constitution into the trash, so it's only fitting that it should provide them with no additional protections or privileges.

In other words, scum bags like Mendez made their bed, now they must sleep in it.

[Grokmaster]

Federal Prosecutors: Senator Bob Menendez Should Absolutely Not Get a Pass to Vote During Corruption Trial

Democrat Senator Bob Menendez is about to go on trial for corruption in New Jersey and a federal judge has ordered he physically remain in the court room throughout the entire process.

Irritated, Menendez filed a request to the court asking if he could leave for votes in the Senate. Federal prosecutors did not mince words when issuingtheir opposition (https://www.scribd.com/document/357220913/UNITED-STATES-RESPONSE-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT-MENENDEZ-S-REQUEST-FOR-SPECIAL-TREATMENT-BASED-ON-HIS-STATUS-AS-A-SENATOR) to the request and reminded him he isn't above the law simply because he is a U.S. Senator.
"After being indicted twice for depriving the people who elected him of their right to his honest services, defendant Robert Menendez now demands that this Court disrupt his criminal trial so that he can perform his duties as a United States Senator. Defendant Menendez was indicted in 2015 and 2016 for bribery, conspiracy, honest services fraud, false statements, and violating the Travel Act. Those indictments allege a seven-year bribery conspiracy in which he traded the power of his public office for a lavish lifestyle that included private jet rides and vacations in Paris and the Caribbean," they wrote in a response. (https://www.scribd.com/document/357220913/UNITED-STATES-RESPONSE-IN-OPPOSITION-TO-DEFENDANT-MENENDEZ-S-REQUEST-FOR-SPECIAL-TREATMENT-BASED-ON-HIS-STATUS-AS-A-SENATOR) "The only reason defendant Menendez’s trial is scheduled for September 2017, almost two-and-a-half years after he was first indicted by a grand jury, is because he has spent that time pursuing a meritless argument that the Constitution immunizes him from prosecution—an argument that has been rejected by every judge to have considered it. Now he seeks to use his status as a United States Senator to pick and choose the dates on which his criminal trial will be conducted."
"This is not the first time defendant Menendez has sought special treatment from this Court. At defendant Menendez’s very first appearance, he asked to be exempted from the routine requirement that defendants surrender their personal passports because of his status as a United States Senator," the response continues. "This case began with defendant Menendez being treated like any other defendant, and it should end that way....only a United States Senator can try to hide behind the very office he corrupted to avoid accountability to the public for his actions."


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/25/democrat-senator-bob-menendez-cannot-vote-during-corruption-trial-n2372802
Other people have to miss work when on trial...they just don't still get paid for it, like the Swamp Dwellers do....

[Peter1469]

The political class has already thrown the constitution into the trash, so it's only fitting that it should provide them with no additional protections or privileges.

In other words, scum bags like Mendez made their bed, now they must sleep in it.

He can sleep in his bed in DC until he is charged, found guilty, and removed from office. Like the Constitution requires.

[Hoosier8]

He can sleep in his bed in DC until he is charged, found guilty, and removed from office. Like the Constitution requires.

Unless a judge says otherwise.

[Common]

I posted the article and didnt give an opinion on it because I do not know the law. Those that say its not legal appear to be wrong because the judge did it.

Im asking a question here of the forum lawyers not the forum members who think they are lawyers.

Is it legal to conduct a trial without a defendent present unless the entire trial is done in abstentia.

[Peter1469]

I posted the article and didnt give an opinion on it because I do not know the law. Those that say its not legal appear to be wrong because the judge did it.

Im asking a question here of the forum lawyers not the forum members who think they are lawyers.

Is it legal to conduct a trial without a defendent present unless the entire trial is done in abstentia.
In general no. But there are exceptions.

- defendant waives the right to be at the trial
- defendant is disruptive in court
along with a couple of other minor exceptions.

[Common]

In general no. But there are exceptions.

- defendant waives the right to be at the trial
- defendant is disruptive in court
along with a couple of other minor exceptions.

Ok thanks from my experience prisoners were not allowed to waive being in the courtroom. We actually had to cuff and shackle those that refused to go.

Of course Menedez isnt in jail and Im not a lawyer :) thats why I asked.

[Cletus]

I posted the article and didnt give an opinion on it because I do not know the law. Those that say its not legal appear to be wrong because the judge did it.

Maybe both you and the judge should read the Constitution. One of the great things about that document is that it is written so you don't have to be a lawyer, or even think you are one to understand it.

Section 6
1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 (http://constitutionus.com/#n6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.


Nowhere in there does it say "unless a judge says so".

[DGUtley]

I was reading about how the left is upset b/c the Ds are cringing with the thought that this might impact the balance of power. I recalled the Alaska senate prosecution that gave the D's the filibuster-proof majority (Stevens, I think it was they went after). Eventually, the prosecution was deemed an abuse of process and people were charged b/c of it.

http://www.nj.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/07/judge_denies_co-defendants_req.html

[NapRover]

Maybe both you and the judge should read the Constitution. One of the great things about that document is that it is written so you don't have to be a lawyer, or even think you are one to understand it.

Section 6


1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 (http://constitutionus.com/#n6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.


Nowhere in there does it say "unless a judge says so".
These aren't felonies he's charged with?

[Cletus]

These aren't felonies he's charged with?

In 1908, the Supreme Court decided, as they often have, the Constitution doesn't actually mean what it says and that "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" includes ALL criminal violations and that the only thing the Constitution protected Senators from when they are in session is civil charges.

I suspect that if the Framers read a history of Supreme Court decisions, they would be calling for another revolution. Jefferson should never have allowed them to seize power in 1803 and give themselves more power than Congress and the Executive combined.

[Hoosier8]

Maybe both you and the judge should read the Constitution. One of the great things about that document is that it is written so you don't have to be a lawyer, or even think you are one to understand it.

Section 6


1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.6 (http://constitutionus.com/#n6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.


Nowhere in there does it say "unless a judge says so".

Reread it and you will eventually figure out why a Federal judge made this decision.

[Peter1469]

There are serious Constitutional concerns with putting this issue before judges. Our Framers didn't want our representatives molested by people, courts, or local jurisdictions from getting to DC to fulfill their legislative role.

[MisterVeritis]

Reread it and you will eventually figure out why a Federal judge made this decision.
This is an unhelpful post. You are the smart one here. Why don't you tell us what it means?

[Cletus]

Reread it and you will eventually figure out why a Federal judge made this decision.

Reread what?

The language of the Constitution is quite plain.

[Kalkin]

Maybe it's time to vote again on the obamacare repeal that failed by 1 vote.