11-26-2024, 01:49 PM
(11-26-2024, 12:37 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: Here is the letter the article is based on https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conten...letter.pdf
And the opposition letter which is new from yesterday: https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/475089/di...letter.pdf
and a hint that you can get by the paywalls sometimes by going to archive dot ph and pasting the url and searching for saved snapshots to find links like this: https://archive.ph/svkYk
okay i will go read the new letter now.
ETA: And a quick response today from the defense, who really want him out bail: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...5.90.0.pdf and a pointer to where i found that
Wow... and thank you.
I noticed the date as being September 18th. Which would mean the press held back on reporting about it until the 'counter' letter was submitted (November 25th,) I suppose.
Perhaps a biased (prejudicial) editorial approach, perhaps ("journalism?") balanced.
However, it seems that if this new kerfuffle is actually about restricting Coombs from communicating with his family, and assuming that were the case, that would constitute "a form of civil punishment" before a verdict. I never heard any judge proclaim him "incommunicado."
His bail appeals are another matter entirely. Courts have already determined that the nature of the charges are so egregious, that they can not pursue justice without fully investigating the entire web-work of the conspiracies and offenses that prosecutors are still analyzing. Until such a time as that task is completed, Coombs remains detained by the state. No "bail."
Claims of "racism" should be henceforth interpreted as a theatrical "anything and everything" strategy... essentially, a surrender.
His lawyers are literally his mouthpiece, I find it reasonable to presume Coombs would characterize events this way.
(Perhaps it's a "call" for echoes from whomever he thinks of as 'supporters.' Such thoughts are drama fuel, I apologize.)
