As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly controversial and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants broad immunity to the president’s son, is binding and in
effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/14/23 1:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly controversial
and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants broad immunity to
the president’s son, is binding and in effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

Show me where it says that:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.27.0.pdf

Fourth, the Defendant intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion
Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States, and concurs with the statements the
Government made during the July 26 hearing,1 and which the Government
then acknowledged in its filings agreeing to the public disclosure of
the Plea and Diversion Agreements2—that the parties have a valid and
binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.

1 The Government stated in open court that the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr. 46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I believe that this is a bilateral agreement between the parties that the parties view in their best interest.”); id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a determination [sic], period.”); id. at 41:12–15 (“Your Honor, the United States[’] position is that the agreements stand alone by their own terms ... ”); id. at 89:12–14 (Government: “[T]he statement by counsel is obviously as Your Honor acknowledged a
modification of this provision, and that we believe is binding.”).

2 (D.I. 24 in No. 23-mj-00274-MN); (D.I. 20 in No. 23-cr-00061-MN)
(stating that the Diversion Agreement was a “contract[] between the Government and a defendant” and that Government assented to public
filing because “the Government and the Defendant expressly agreed that
this diversion agreement would be public”).

End quote.

Weren't you saying the Immunity was hidden in the Diversion because the
judge didn't need to see it there?

Hunter's lawyers want the judge to make the Government live up to its agreement.

As for "controversial and unprecedented," how weird can it be if it has
its own government webpage?

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/66_3_5_0.pdf

"Although diversion programs may offer drug treatment, only a small
proportion of diversion cases involve individuals whose major offense is drug-related. Defendants for whom a drug crime is the major offense
accounted for 39 percent of pretrial services cases activated over the five-year period, but made up only 5 percent of the pretrial diversion supervision population. The nature of the charges appears to limit the perceived appropriateness of diversion from prosecution. It is worth
noting, however, that individuals under pretrial diversion supervision
whose primary offense is in a category other than drug offenses may
receive drug treatment during their diversion period as a collateral
condition of their participation in the program."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mINE109 wrote:

Witlessdork puked:

As RedState lied

The key admission.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.27.0.pdf

Weren't you saying the Immunity was hidden in the Diversion because the
judge didn't need to see it there?

Hunter's lawyers want the judge to make the Government live up to its agreement.

But... but... redstate! The word of the MAGA god! You blasphemer!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/14/23 1:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly controversial
and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants broad immunity to
the president’s son, is binding and in effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

Show me where it says that:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.27.0.pdf

Fourth, the Defendant intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States, and concurs with the statements the Government made during the July 26 hearing,1 and which the Government
then acknowledged in its filings agreeing to the public disclosure of
the Plea and Diversion Agreements2—that the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.

1 The Government stated in open court that the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I believe that this is a bilateral agreement between the parties that the parties view in their best interest.”); id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a determination [sic], period.”); id. at 41:12–15 (“Your Honor, the United States[’] position is that the agreements stand alone by their own terms ... ”); id. at 89:12–14 (Government: “[T]he statement by counsel is obviously as Your Honor acknowledged a
modification of this provision, and that we believe is binding.”).

2 (D.I. 24 in No. 23-mj-00274-MN); (D.I. 20 in No. 23-cr-00061-MN)
(stating that the Diversion Agreement was a “contract[] between the Government and a defendant” and that Government assented to public
filing because “the Government and the Defendant expressly agreed that this diversion agreement would be public”).

End quote.

Weren't you saying the Immunity was hidden in the Diversion because the judge didn't need to see it there?

Yup....but she did and brought it up.

Hunter's lawyers want the judge to make the Government live up to its agreement.

Of course they do....that's what I posted.

Do you want the gov't to give Hunter immunity while at the same time the lead gov't counsel
that granted said immunity is in charge as SC of investigating his crimes for prosecution of which he'll be immune?

As for "controversial and unprecedented," how weird can it be if it has
its own government webpage?

About as weird as you can be stupid but not quite.
That's a very high bar.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/14/23 6:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/14/23 1:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a
new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly
controversial and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants
broad immunity to the president’s son, is binding and in effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

Show me where it says that:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.27.0.pdf

Fourth, the Defendant intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion

Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the
Defendant, his counsel, and the United States, and concurs with the
statements the Government made during the July 26 hearing,1 and
which the Government then acknowledged in its filings agreeing to
the public disclosure of the Plea and Diversion Agreements2—that
the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion
Agreement.

1 The Government stated in open court that the Diversion Agreement
was a “bilateral agreement between the parties” that “stand[s]
alone” from the Plea Agreement, and that it was “in effect” and
“binding.” (Hr’g Tr. 46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I believe >> that this is a bilateral agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”); id. at 91:6–8 (Government:
“Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a contract between the
parties so it’s in effect until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”); id. at 41:12–15 (“Your Honor, the
United States[’] position is that the agreements stand alone by
their own terms ... ”); id. at 89:12–14 (Government: “[T]he
statement by counsel is obviously as Your Honor acknowledged a
modification of this provision, and that we believe is binding.”).

2 (D.I. 24 in No. 23-mj-00274-MN); (D.I. 20 in No. 23-cr-00061-MN)
(stating that the Diversion Agreement was a “contract[] between
the Government and a defendant” and that Government assented to
public filing because “the Government and the Defendant expressly
agreed that this diversion agreement would be public”).

End quote.

Weren't you saying the Immunity was hidden in the Diversion because
the judge didn't need to see it there?

Yup....but she did and brought it up.

So was it hidden or was it overt? The prosecution brought the deal the
Hunter.

Hunter's lawyers want the judge to make the Government live up to
its agreement.

Of course they do....that's what I posted.

No, you said they think the agreement needed a "judge's ok." It "stands
alone" as a separate agreement. They wanted it enforced.

Do you want the gov't to give Hunter immunity while at the same time
the lead gov't counsel that granted said immunity is in charge as SC
of investigating his crimes for prosecution of which he'll be
immune?

If he's immune the investigation's over, as it should have been years ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:42:21 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/14/23 1:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly controversial
and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants broad immunity to
the president’s son, is binding and in effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

Show me where it says that:

In the new court filing, Biden lawyer Christopher Clark wrote that his client “intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States,” adding: “The
parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.”

Washington Post




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/15/23 5:13 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 2:42:21 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/14/23 1:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

As RedState reported, Hunter Biden’s legal team has settled on a
new tactic. Namely, they are suggesting that the incredibly
controversial and unprecedented diversion agreement, which grants
broad immunity to the president’s son, is binding and in effect.

Who needs a judge's ok? Not the Bidens.

Show me where it says that:

In the new court filing, Biden lawyer Christopher Clark wrote that
his client “intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement
that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his
counsel, and the United States,” adding: “The parties have a valid
and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement.”

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU ARE ONE FUCKING IGNORAMUS.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Sacktard explodes!

Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

hahahaha. Quite ironic for a simpleton like you to say "Duh!!!" I can imagine you
bonking your noggin with a soda bottle just to hear the hollow clunk.

YOU ARE ONE FUCKING IGNORAMUS.

Angry, are we? I wonder why nothing Fatboy Dumpster says sets you off.
(BTW, you are avoiding or missing most of the meaning implicit in Stephen's statement. That's your par for the course once your fuse gets lit.)

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Here's a little review for you...

"I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute
the office of President of the United States, and will to the best
of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."

How would you say Filthy Lying Dumpy Shitbag did in hewing to that vow?
No whatabouts, if you please.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a
plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/17/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge, >>>
YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a
plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that >>>> Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and >>>> didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge. >> Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a >> plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/17/23 12:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that >>>>>> Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and >>>>>> didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge. >>>> Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a >>>> plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

Good answer! The filing:

1 The Government stated in open court
that the Diversion Agreement was a
“bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in
effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I
believe that this is a bilateral
agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”);
id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor,
the Diversion Agreement is a contract
between the parties so it’s in effect
until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”)...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 12:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that >>>>>> Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and >>>>>> didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything >>>> you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a
plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

Good answer! The filing:
1 The Government stated in open court
that the Diversion Agreement was a
“bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in
effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I
believe that this is a bilateral
agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”);
id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor,
the Diversion Agreement is a contract
between the parties so it’s in effect
until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”)...

So the judge has no say in the matter of immunity buried in the diversion agreement.
How convenient for the Biden crime syndicate and after all this blah blah... Stephen has circled back to my original post.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/17/23 4:11 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 12:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

Good answer! The filing:
1 The Government stated in open court
that the Diversion Agreement was a
“bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in
effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I
believe that this is a bilateral
agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”);
id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor,
the Diversion Agreement is a contract
between the parties so it’s in effect
until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”)...

So the judge has no say in the matter of immunity buried in the diversion agreement.

A judge can't force a prosecutor to prosecute.

How convenient for the Biden crime syndicate and after all this blah blah...
Stephen has circled back to my original post.

Which you worded in such a way ("Who needs a judge's ok? Not the
Bidens") that you could have claimed either side of the point: that it's
true a judge's okay isn't needed; or sarcastically that the Biden team
is wrong to claim an okay isn't needed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

"Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and
defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by
his or her obligation in the plea deal. If a prosecutor reneges on plea bargains, defendants may seek relief from the judge. The judge might let
the defendant withdraw the guilty pleas, may force the prosecutor to
follow the plea bargain, or may apply some other remedy."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:26:44 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 4:11 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:13:48 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 12:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

Good answer! The filing:
1 The Government stated in open court
that the Diversion Agreement was a
“bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in
effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I
believe that this is a bilateral
agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”);
id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor,
the Diversion Agreement is a contract
between the parties so it’s in effect
until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”)...

So the judge has no say in the matter of immunity buried in the diversion agreement.

A judge can't force a prosecutor to prosecute.

How convenient for the Biden crime syndicate and after all this blah blah...
Stephen has circled back to my original post.

Which you worded in such a way ("Who needs a judge's ok? Not the
Bidens") that you could have claimed either side of the point: that it's true a judge's okay isn't needed; or sarcastically that the Biden team
is wrong to claim an okay isn't needed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

"Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and
defendants. A defendant breaking a plea bargain is akin to a breach of contract, which will result in the prosecutor no longer being bound by
his or her obligation in the plea deal. If a prosecutor reneges on plea bargains, defendants may seek relief from the judge. The judge might let
the defendant withdraw the guilty pleas, may force the prosecutor to
follow the plea bargain, or may apply some other remedy."

Plea bargains or immunity or diversion....Stephen can't decide which one to bounce off the wall from one post to the next.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:04:03 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Have you totally lost your mind?
There is no diversion agreement without a plea deal.
There is nothing to divert without a plea deal, and subsequent sentencing by a judge.
The diversion agreement does not sit outside a plea deal.
No plea deal, no sentence.
No sentence, no diversion agreement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 12:54 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/17/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:04:03 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that >>>>>> Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and >>>>>> didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge,

YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything >>>> you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a
plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Stephen doesn't understand, Judges can't file charges.

Who mentioned charges?

You were your teacher's worst nightmare.

Good answer! The filing:
1 The Government stated in open court
that the Diversion Agreement was a
“bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the
Plea Agreement, and that it was “in
effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr.
46:9–14) (Government: “Your Honor, I
believe that this is a bilateral
agreement between the parties that the
parties view in their best interest.”);
id. at 91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor,
the Diversion Agreement is a contract
between the parties so it’s in effect
until it’s either breached or a
determination [sic], period.”)...

a diversion from WHAT?
from a stronger sentence upon conviction.
Setencg happens after a pleas deal is accepted by the judge, and
sentencing is pronounced.
A diversion agreement is part of sentencing.

Many agreements and contracts are subject to other things happeneng
first. either by contract stipulation
or by causes of law.

one such example would be prenuptials.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"

Plea bargains or immunity or diversion....Stephen can't decide which one to bounce off the wall from one post to the next.

ScottW

He pulled that one out of his pot of half cooked spaghetti

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/18/23 11:22 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:04:03 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/16/23 11:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

Thank you, I already quoted the original document. This confirms that
Biden's lawyers claim the agreement was made with the prosecution and
didn't involve the judge.

Duh!!!! That's the normal course of business.

that is typically how it us.
JUDGES DO NOT NEGOTIATE PLEA DEALS.
They are negotiated between prosecution and defense attorneys.
BUT, they are subject to the eventual acceptance or rejection ut the judge, >>>
YOU

You wouldn't go wrong if you made it a practice to edit out anything
you've typed in all-caps.

A plea deal not is NOT a binding contract, if NOT accepted by the judge.

Hunter's lawyers are saying they have a valid diversion agreement, not a
plea deal, which does not require a judge's approval.

Have you totally lost your mind?

No, I have not.

There is no diversion agreement without a plea deal.

It's not a plea deal, it's a separate agreement that stands alone.

There is nothing to divert without a plea deal, and subsequent sentencing by a judge.

I already cited a official diversion page but here it is again:

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/66_3_5_0.pdf

"The offender who is selected for pretrial diversion enters into a
contract with the U.S. attorney’s office, pledging to meet certain
conditions and to refrain from criminal activity for a specified period
of time. Because participation is voluntary, persons may decline to
enter the program and instead exercise their right to proceed with a
trial on the charges against them."

The diversion agreement does not sit outside a plea deal.
No plea deal, no sentence.
No sentence, no diversion agreement.

The diversion program is pretrial, so by definition it doesn't get to a
judge or require a sentence.

The problem for Hunter is the diversion agreement included immunity for
other charges. His plea deal was for other charges and the plea process revealed the discrepancy between what he was agreeing to and what he
thought he was agreeing to.

Speculation is Weiss was trying to trick him into testifying on matters
that could be prosecuted on other charges.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/18/23 11:30 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

The filing: 1 The Government stated in open court that
the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the Plea Agreement, and that it
was “in effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr. 46:9–14) (Government: >> “Your Honor, I believe that this is a bilateral agreement between
the parties that the parties view in their best interest.”); id. at
91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a
contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either
breached or a determination [sic], period.”)...

a diversion from WHAT?

A trial.

from a stronger sentence upon conviction.

It's pretrial.

Setencg happens after a pleas deal is accepted by the judge, and
sentencing is pronounced. A diversion agreement is part of
sentencing.

Pretrial diversion doesn't get to that stage.

Many agreements and contracts are subject to other things happeneng
first. either by contract stipulation or by causes of law.

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

You got it!
A prenup does its work during a divorce.
A diversion agreement does its work during a plea adjudication.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/18/23 11:30 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

The filing: 1 The Government stated in open court that
the Diversion Agreement was a “bilateral agreement between the
parties” that “stand[s] alone” from the Plea Agreement, and that it >> was “in effect” and “binding.” (Hr’g Tr. 46:9–14) (Government:
“Your Honor, I believe that this is a bilateral agreement between
the parties that the parties view in their best interest.”); id. at
91:6–8 (Government: “Your Honor, the Diversion Agreement is a
contract between the parties so it’s in effect until it’s either
breached or a determination [sic], period.”)...

a diversion from WHAT?

A trial.

from a stronger sentence upon conviction.

It's pretrial.

Setencg happens after a pleas deal is accepted by the judge, and sentencing is pronounced. A diversion agreement is part of
sentencing.

Pretrial diversion doesn't get to that stage.

Many agreements and contracts are subject to other things happeneng
first. either by contract stipulation or by causes of law.

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

A prenup is not binding unless and until the marriage takes place.
No marriage, useless prenup.
And it can be revoked before marriage.

A diversion agreement is not binding unless and until the plea deal is adjudicated.
No pleas deal, useless diversion agreement.
And it can be revoked by the judge as part of processing the plea deal.
If the judge refuses to process the plea deal, the diversion is moot and invalid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/19/23 4:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

You got it!
A prenup does its work during a divorce.

After the agreement is made before the marriage.

A diversion agreement does its work during a plea adjudication.

No, if there is a diversion, there is no plea adjudication.

I can't believe I have to cite the first sentence at the link, but:

"PRETRIAL DIVERSION is a voluntary program that provides an alternative
to prosecution for an individual selected for placement in a program of supervision administered by a pretrial services or probation office."

No prosecution, no plea, no judge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:33:01 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/19/23 4:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

You got it!
A prenup does its work during a divorce.

After the agreement is made before the marriage.

A diversion agreement does its work during a plea adjudication.

No, if there is a diversion, there is no plea adjudication.

I can't believe I have to cite the first sentence at the link, but:

"PRETRIAL DIVERSION is a voluntary program that provides an alternative
to prosecution for an individual selected for placement in a program of supervision administered by a pretrial services or probation office."

No prosecution, no plea, no judge.

The diversion agreement included a LOT MORE than that.
It granted immunity for other crimes.

And it was definitely tied to the plea agreement. And included improper proffers.

And even if it were otherwise valid, there was no meeting of the minds.
No meeting of the minds, no contractual obligation.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/hunter-bidens-diversion-agreement-was-much-broader-than-judge-expected

"That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually much broader than just the gun charge," Scharf shared in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. "If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented the DOJ
from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere."

The point at which Noreika saw the breakdown of the original plea agreement came when she asked attorneys whether the government can "bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act" in regard to Hunter Biden's activity with foreign companies.

Prosecutor Leo Wise answered, "Yes."

Noreika said she was trying to find out if there is a "meeting of the minds here" and that she wasn't sure if the provision of the diversion agreement "isn't part of the plea agreement and so that's why I'm asking."

Biden's attorney Chris Clark then said: "As stated by the government just now, I don't agree with what the government said."

"Then there is no deal," Wise responded.

and.........

Noreika gave the parties 30 days to come up with a new agreement, also underscoring that the previous terms that made her a "gatekeeper" of future charges against Biden must be restructured so that prosecutors can take action if the first son were to
violate any terms of the plea agreement.

"I'm concerned that that provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge," Noreika said

The bottom line, not a valid agreement, not a valid contract

Not any better of a contract if we signed an agreement that I would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you for $500,000,000 dollars
You don't own the bridge and I don't have $500 million dollars.

The prosecutor was giving away things he had no right to give.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:11:53 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:33:01 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/19/23 4:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a marriage
license and you agree to a one before getting married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

You got it!
A prenup does its work during a divorce.

After the agreement is made before the marriage.

A diversion agreement does its work during a plea adjudication.

No, if there is a diversion, there is no plea adjudication.

I can't believe I have to cite the first sentence at the link, but:

"PRETRIAL DIVERSION is a voluntary program that provides an alternative
to prosecution for an individual selected for placement in a program of supervision administered by a pretrial services or probation office."

No prosecution, no plea, no judge.

The diversion agreement included a LOT MORE than that.
It granted immunity for other crimes.

And it was definitely tied to the plea agreement. And included improper proffers.

And even if it were otherwise valid, there was no meeting of the minds.
No meeting of the minds, no contractual obligation.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/hunter-bidens-diversion-agreement-was-much-broader-than-judge-expected

"That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually much broader than just the gun charge," Scharf shared in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. "If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented the

DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere."

The point at which Noreika saw the breakdown of the original plea agreement came when she asked attorneys whether the government can "bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act" in regard to Hunter Biden's activity with foreign companies.

Prosecutor Leo Wise answered, "Yes."

Noreika said she was trying to find out if there is a "meeting of the minds here" and that she wasn't sure if the provision of the diversion agreement "isn't part of the plea agreement and so that's why I'm asking."

Biden's attorney Chris Clark then said: "As stated by the government just now, I don't agree with what the government said."

"Then there is no deal," Wise responded.

and.........

Noreika gave the parties 30 days to come up with a new agreement, also underscoring that the previous terms that made her a "gatekeeper" of future charges against Biden must be restructured so that prosecutors can take action if the first son were to

violate any terms of the plea agreement.

"I'm concerned that that provision makes me a gatekeeper to criminal charges and puts me in the middle of a decision as to whether to bring a charge," Noreika said

The bottom line, not a valid agreement, not a valid contract

Not any better of a contract if we signed an agreement that I would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you for $500,000,000 dollars
You don't own the bridge and I don't have $500 million dollars.

The prosecutor was giving away things he had no right to give.

I refer you to the original post.....for context.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/19/23 11:11 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:33:01 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/19/23 4:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

one such example would be prenuptials.

Which come before the nuptials. A prenup doesn't require a
marriage license and you agree to a one before getting
married.

In your analogy, a prenup would require a completed divorce.

You got it! A prenup does its work during a divorce.

After the agreement is made before the marriage.

A diversion agreement does its work during a plea adjudication.

No, if there is a diversion, there is no plea adjudication.

I can't believe I have to cite the first sentence at the link,
but:

"PRETRIAL DIVERSION is a voluntary program that provides an
alternative to prosecution for an individual selected for placement
in a program of supervision administered by a pretrial services or
probation office."

No prosecution, no plea, no judge.

The diversion agreement included a LOT MORE than that. It granted
immunity for other crimes.

Which the prosecutor is allowed to do without a word from a judge.

And it was definitely tied to the plea agreement. And included
improper proffers.

The selective prosecution was improper from the beginning.

And even if it were otherwise valid, there was no meeting of the
minds. No meeting of the minds, no contractual obligation.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/hunter-bidens-diversion-agreement-was-much-broader-than-judge-expected

<snip

of stuff I've already seen>

The bottom line, not a valid agreement, not a valid contract

Remains to be seen.

Not any better of a contract if we signed an agreement that I would
buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you for $500,000,000 dollars You don't
own the bridge and I don't have $500 million dollars.

In this case, Hunter has the ability to enter the gun diversion program
and the prosecutor has the ability to grant immunity.

The prosecutor was giving away things he had no right to give.

Prosecutors grant immunity all the time.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/20/23 12:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

I refer you to the original post.....for context.

The context is becoming clearer: Weiss is in all kinds of trouble. The
original prosecution of Hunter may have been improperly selective (NYT
says Weiss said, “the average American would not be prosecuted for
similar offenses"); it may have been instigated under political pressure
from Barr and the White House; and, the gun charges may have been added
as face-saving after the IRS agent leak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:09:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/20/23 12:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

I refer you to the original post.....for context.

The context is becoming clearer: Weiss is in all kinds of trouble. The original prosecution of Hunter may have been improperly selective (NYT
says Weiss said, “the average American would not be prosecuted for
similar offenses")

That is a BS lie.



; it may have been instigated under political pressure

from Barr and the White House; and, the gun charges may have been added
as face-saving after the IRS agent leak.

Hunter's now the one getting politically persecuted?

ROTFLMAO.....

You're insane. Just certifiably nuts.
Further discussion is pointless.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/21/23 12:32 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:09:04 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 8/20/23 12:44 PM, ScottW wrote:

I refer you to the original post.....for context.

The context is becoming clearer: Weiss is in all kinds of trouble. The
original prosecution of Hunter may have been improperly selective (NYT
says Weiss said, “the average American would not be prosecuted for
similar offenses")

That is a BS lie.

I only report on what the NYT reported. An anonymous source denies it,
raising speculation Weiss is breaking his duty to not comment in public.

However, while he's not an average American, Roger Stone was not
prosecuted for similar offenses.

; it may have been instigated under political pressure

from Barr and the White House; and, the gun charges may have been added
as face-saving after the IRS agent leak.

Hunter's now the one getting politically persecuted?

Since 2018 at least.

ROTFLMAO.....

You're insane. Just certifiably nuts.
Further discussion is pointless.

Yes, declare something off-limits when you're demonstrably wrong. The
gun situation was known since 2018 but not charged until much later
following a leak to the WaPo.

And plenty of pressure in public:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/521827-trump-demands-barr-investigate-hunter-biden/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/16/politics/donald-trump-special-counsel-hunter-biden-russia/index.html

Trump declared his progeny off-limits, IIRC, eldest fail-sons excluded.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)