She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.
Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?
Do beliefs have consequences?
What can we infer about a person's future actions based on their stated beliefs?
The owner of Beverly Hills' "Gina's Eyelashes and Skincare," Gina Bisignano,
was arrested after the 1/6 insurrection on charges of "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds" and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds," among others. Two days after the insurrection, she had appeared on Alex Jones' "Infowars" program to share video implicating herself in the events at the Capitol, which helped lead to her apprehension.
Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an appeal,
stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence of
rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinarily unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimately resulted in the judge denying her bail.
She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.
Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?
Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an appeal, stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence of rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinarily unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimately resulted in the judge denying her bail.
She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.
Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?
Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the govern andJesus was born in radical poverty. The Holy Family were refugees.
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?
Look at how they were treated. And after all that was said and done,
look at who forgave us for our sins, and his reason why.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an app stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinaril unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimate resulted in the judge denying her bail.
She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, n credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness strangers to survive.
Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the governmen the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?
Well, first of all, why are they granting her supervised release in *Oklahoma*, which is neither her home nor the jurisdiction of the crime, and where she apparently knows no one? If they are willing to give legal immigrants money and housing somewhere, she should at least be able to
use her credit or debit cards to access her own funds so she can find shelter. This sounds unusually cruel, and maybe even dangerous to others.
And why with no ID? I could see taking away a passport, but *no* ID at all?
Based on the fact that, anymore, there are places in the US that do not even take into account the *actions* of the defendent before low-balling their bail, I would have to say no, they should not be using beliefs at all.
Even if it was not for that, I would say no, they should not unless they could tie those beliefs to whether or not the person is a flight risk. Even then, I would question it in cases where the infraction was not violent. It may have been here. I know what she is charged with, but
not actually what she did.
Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.
Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching
on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.
While imprisoned, she was transferred from a California facility to
an Oklahoma facility. Technically, DC was the scene of the crime, but since she's charged with a felony offense, the entire US would be the jurisdiction of the crime.
Perhaps she would be better off remaining in custody. They didn't just give her supervised release out of the blue; she had to ask for it.
She trespassed in the Capitol with the intent to interrupt Congressional proceedings. That's a federal felony.
Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.
Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, should they be released pending trial?
While imprisoned, she was transferred from a California facility toI wonder why she was transferred?
an Oklahoma facility. Technically, DC was the scene of the crime, but s she's charged with a felony offense, the entire US would be the jurisdi of the crime.
Perhaps she would be better off remaining in custody. They didn't just her supervised release out of the blue; she had to ask for it.Probably, but I wonder if she realized that meant supervised release in Oklahoma.
She trespassed in the Capitol with the intent to interrupt Congressiona proceedings. That's a federal felony.It is indeed but, if all she did was trespass, that is hardly violent.
I would assume the intention to commit murder(s) would be the belief in question there.Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, sho they be released pending trial?
I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their beliefs could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as "ok" for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Jewish, etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting that
you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.
I wonder why she was transferred?
Beats me... You could submit a FOIA request, I suppose, but until that produces results everything else is just conjecture. I would imagine that there are a number of non-conspiratorial reasons why a federal prisoner might be transferred from one state to another.
I would assume the intention to commit murder(s) would be the belief in question there.Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching oIndeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, sh
things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.
they be released pending trial?
One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no limit on what someone could believe.
I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their beliefs could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as "ok" for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Jewish, etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting that you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.
Historically, religion has been extremely violent. Religious violence continues to be committed to this day.
I am not thinking conspiracy, just wondering why you would transfer someone out of their home state into one where they have no relatives (which means few visitors). Even murders are allowed regular visitsI wonder why she was transferred?Beats me... You could submit a FOIA request, I suppose, but until that produces results everything else is just conjecture. I would imagine tha there are a number of non-conspiratorial reasons why a federal prisoner be transferred from one state to another.
from family.
One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no li on what someone could believe.Yes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that
murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would
commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply preventing
the practice of my stated religion.
True. But I would be more worried about one religion deciding it was OK to jail members of other religions and non-believers if we set a bar that makes it OK to jail persons (or extend sentences) based on their "beliefs."I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their belie could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Je etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting th you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.Historically, religion has been extremely violent. Religious violence continues to be committed to this day.
There are other countries where members of other religions are treated as second-class citizens, and religious texts that "require" that additional taxes be collected fron non-believers. I would think we'd want to do
what we can to avoid becoming such a place.
There is a report of her having her purse, with a dog inside, stolen from her car in an unrelated incident prior to 1/6. The dog was recovered; the purse apparently was not, so I guess it's possible that she hadn't replaced them yet. She did go to D.C. on 1/6 and return, so maybe she used a passport? I have no idea.
One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no lYes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply preventing the practice of my stated religion.
on what someone could believe.
So, just to recap, you're saying that if your religion included a belief in ritual sacrifice and "the authorities" believed that you would commit murders,
even if you had not planned or committed any murders yet, "the authorities" could forcibly remove you from society? That's an interesting theory, and borders on "thought police," don't you think?
On the other hand, what Gina Bisignano did was also clearly against the law, and prosecutors convinced a judge that the same beliefs that led her to commit those crimes had a potential to lead her to commit additional crimes.
There is a report of her having her purse, with a dog inside, stolen fro car in an unrelated incident prior to 1/6. The dog was recovered; the pu apparently was not, so I guess it's possible that she hadn't replaced th yet. She did go to D.C. on 1/6 and return, so maybe she used a passport? have no idea.She honestly sounds like the kind of person who puts herself into situations where things like that happen (ID stolen, not replaced before "important" trip).
Not necessarily. You brought up murder. My assumption would be thatSo, just to recap, you're saying that if your religion included a belief ritual sacrifice and "the authorities" believed that you would commit murders,One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's reall lYes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply prevent the practice of my stated religion.
on what someone could believe.
even if you had not planned or committed any murders yet, "the authoriti could forcibly remove you from society? That's an interesting theory, an borders on "thought police," don't you think?
they would not know the person believed in ritual sacrifice unless they (1) were arrested for it, or (2) the person told them so. Granted, a
dumb person might share that, but a smarter person would likely figure
out that bringing that up could be seen as terroristic threatening (a
new crime) and wouldn't do so.
I guess I should have asked "how do the police know this?" first.
I guess I should have asked "how do the police know this?" first.
There are any number of ways. How do the feds know of Gina's beliefs?
There are any number of ways. How do the feds know of Gina's beliefs?In her case, it sounds like she babbled about them a lot. Still if she
is not threatening to kill someone or blow something up or some other action that it is against the law to make threats about, she shouldn't
be charged simply because she has potentially stupid beliefs.
Stupid isn't against the law, by itself.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 157:05:46 |
| Calls: | 9,280 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (1,003K bytes) |
| Messages: | 467,182 |