In this latest Call-of-Shame installment, we fall deeper into the rabbit-hole with more circular logic.
Two prosecutors from Montana fail to see past their circular logic that “the code applies to all individuals who commit a crime in Montana” in response to the question of “what facts and evidence they rely on to prove the code is applicable?”
Enter “Zen and the Art of Objecting to Non-responsiveness”. The difficulty is keeping them responsive to the question you are asking, so when they answer with a vague blanket statement that doesn’t address the issue(s) in question, kindly remind them that “the code applies to everyone” does not answer whether or not they are basing the applicability of their code on facts and evidence to meet their advertised burden-of-proof.
In a strike of irony, the first prosecutor says Marc is “conflating legal arguments with factual assertions” after giving the circular line; “the code is applicable because the code is applicable.”
The second prosecutor states that the facts and evidence she relied on to prove that the code was applicable was the “reports that the officer submitted” and “the code itself”. Not made up, check the transcript. In attempt to escape a double-bind, she dismissively accuses Marc and his client of being “probably entrenched in other things” while leaving questions of fact and evidence unanswered.
Dismissing questions of basic fact and evidence in pretrial proceedings is usually not a strong position to take before a judge. What would make these bureaucrats so confident despite their seemingly careless behavior and their neglect to support their case with the required factual standards? I wonder, what makes them so confident…