DOJ Recommends No Jail Time for Trans Catholic Church Vandal

Valletta · Apr 12, 2023

According to filings from early March, reviewed by Fox News, the DOJ charged Nota with misdemeanor destruction of religious property, which carries up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines. However, a week later, the Justice Department recommended no jail time and three years of probation for Nota’s sentencing on June 2, Fox News reported.

DOJ Recommends No Jail Time for Trans Catholic Church Vandal

The Department of Justice recommended zero jail time for a transgender individual who vandalized the St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, Wash.

www.yahoo.com

It's going to get worse and worse as long as the hard left is in control of our government. Don't wait until crime personally effects you to speak out. Do you want your neighborhood to be like Chicago or San Francisco?

Belk · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
According to filings from early March, reviewed by Fox News, the DOJ charged Nota with misdemeanor destruction of religious property, which carries up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines. However, a week later, the Justice Department recommended no jail time and three years of probation for Nota’s sentencing on June 2, Fox News reported.

DOJ Recommends No Jail Time for Trans Catholic Church Vandal

The Department of Justice recommended zero jail time for a transgender individual who vandalized the St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, Wash.

www.yahoo.com

It's going to get worse and worse as long as the hard left is in control of our government. Don't wait until crime personally effects you to speak out. Do you want your neighborhood to be like Chicago or San Francisco?

Are you claiming the "hard left" is in control of the Bellevue government?

Yttrium · Apr 12, 2023

Belk said:
Are you claiming the "hard left" is in control of the Bellevue government?

Well, Bellevue is very liberal. Still, it's a misdemeanor, I wouldn't expect jail time without some prior criminal activity.

Belk · Apr 12, 2023

Yttrium said:
Well, Bellevue is very liberal. Still, it's a misdemeanor, I wouldn't expect jail time without some prior criminal activity.

They vote democrat but I would not call them overly liberal. Certainly not "hard left".

Yttrium · Apr 12, 2023

Belk said:
They vote democrat but I would not call them overly liberal. Certainly not "hard left".

It's hard to find people as "hard left" as Valletta thinks they are. (If there are any at all.)

SimplyMe · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
According to filings from early March, reviewed by Fox News, the DOJ charged Nota with misdemeanor destruction of religious property, which carries up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines. However, a week later, the Justice Department recommended no jail time and three years of probation for Nota’s sentencing on June 2, Fox News reported.

DOJ Recommends No Jail Time for Trans Catholic Church Vandal

The Department of Justice recommended zero jail time for a transgender individual who vandalized the St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, Wash.

www.yahoo.com

It's going to get worse and worse as long as the hard left is in control of our government. Don't wait until crime personally effects you to speak out. Do you want your neighborhood to be like Chicago or San Francisco?

I don't understand this at all, and the only references I can find are on right wing media sites with no links to any statements or comments by the DoJ (or anyone that works for the DoJ). While the OPs article is from Yahoo, they clearly state the story is based on a Fox News article.

As has been pointed out, this case is being prosecuted by Washington State courts, not the Federal government and the crimes were in Washington State. It is also worth noting that hate crime charges were added against Nota by the King County, WA prosecutors (again, not the DoJ). This linked article appears to fake news.

Valletta · Apr 12, 2023

Belk said:
Are you claiming the "hard left" is in control of the Bellevue government?

Why would you think that? The story is about the Justice Department recommendation. Because the hate crime is against Catholics, and the same would go for other Christian religions, there is no prison time recommended. That is outrageous.

"About 85% of defendants convicted of a hate crime were sentenced to prison, with an average term of over 7.5 years."

Federal Hate Crime Prosecutions, 2005-19

bjs.ojp.gov

Now if Garland is going to prosecute him for a federal crime, and he recommends seven plus years, I will withdraw my objection. But if you know the hard left on crime, if you know Garland. . .

SimplyMe · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
Why would you think that? The story is about the Justice Department recommendation. Because the hate crime is against Catholics, and the same would go for other Christian religions, there is no prison time recommended. That is outrageous.

About 85% of defendants convicted of a hate crime were sentenced to prison, with an average term of over 7.5 years.

Federal Hate Crime Prosecutions, 2005-19

bjs.ojp.gov

Why would the DoJ make a recommendation on a case they have no involvement in -- and why would it be in the records of the proceedings? It was the King County DA that brought the case, therefore they are the only ones that can make recommendations to the court on behalf of the prosecution.

But since you want to continue in this fantasy world, please show me the records where the DoJ (not King County prosecutors) made this recommendation?

Yttrium · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
Why would you think that? The story is about the Justice Department recommendation. Because the hate crime is against Catholics, and the same would go for other Christian religions, there is no prison time recommended. That is outrageous.

"About 85% of defendants convicted of a hate crime were sentenced to prison, with an average term of over 7.5 years."

The charge was a misdemeanor. They didn't charge for a hate crime. There's nothing outrageous about not getting prison time for a misdemeanor.

Valletta said:
Now if Garland is going to prosecute him for a federal crime, and he recommends seven plus years, I will withdraw my objection. But if you know the hard left on crime, if you know Garland. . .

There is no way Garland would prosecute something like this. It's a state crime, and a pretty minor one at that.

Valletta · Apr 12, 2023

SimplyMe said:
Why would the DoJ make a recommendation on a case they have no involvement in -- and why would it be in the records of the proceedings? It was the King County DA that brought the case, therefore they are the only ones that can make recommendations to the court on behalf of the prosecution.

But since you want to continue in this fantasy world, please show me the records where the DoJ (not King County prosecutors) made this recommendation?

Give the DOJ a call and ask them if they will let you see a copy of any recommendation or plea agreement. The fact that there is no coverage of this story on left wing media, given the hate crime was by a transgender against Catholics, should come as no surprise to anyone

SimplyMe · Apr 12, 2023

Yttrium said:
The charge was a misdemeanor. They didn't charge for a hate crime. There's nothing outrageous about not getting prison time for a misdemeanor.

There is no way Garland would prosecute something like this. It's a state crime, and a pretty minor one at that.

From the article I linked above, "Another woman, Maeve Jacqueline Nota, was charged June 30 with a hate crime and fourth-degree assault.

"Nota is accused of spray-painting hateful comments on a Bellevue church property and breaking a glass door, according to charging papers. Nota is also accused of spray-painting the side of a man’s face and his shirt after he told her to leave."

SimplyMe · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
Give the DOJ a call and ask them if they will let you see a copy of any recommendation or plea agreement. The fact that there is no coverage of this story on left wing media should come as no surprise.

No, I'm not complaining about that. I'm stating that nowhere do any of the news sources reporting this show what the DoJ said, or who said it. It is just this generic "the DoJ made a recommendation...." It is actually worse than "unnamed sources" reporting.

Why should I believe claims with no sources, particularly when the DoJ is not involved with the case because it is being charged by local prosecutors? Since it is local prosecutors, the DoJ would not be involved with any sentence recommendations or plea agreements -- it is the prosecutor that makes those.

Valletta · Apr 12, 2023

SimplyMe said:
No, I'm not complaining about that. I'm stating that nowhere do any of the news sources reporting this show what the DoJ said, or who said it. It is just this generic "the DoJ made a recommendation...." It is actually worse than "unnamed sources" reporting.

Why should I believe claims with no sources, particularly when the DoJ is not involved with the case because it is being charged by local prosecutors? Since it is local prosecutors, the DoJ would not be involved with any sentence recommendations or plea agreements -- it is the prosecutor that makes those.

Unlike an anonymous source, it's easy to follow up if for some reason you don't believe the story. Simply ask the Justice Department. I've certainly called up federal agencies and asked them questions. Now I've watched the video of Garland testifying, and the fact the he could not find the perpetrators with all of his resources made me wonder how hard he is trying. But now a violent hate crime has been committed, the perpetrator is in custody for Mr. Garland, Garland knows how well this fits the description in federal law of a federal hate crime. Why in the world has Garland not charged him with a federal hate crime?

SimplyMe · Apr 12, 2023

Valletta said:
Unlike an anonymous source, it's easy to follow up if for some reason you don't believe the story. Simply ask the Justice Department. I've certainly called up federal agencies and asked them questions. Now I've watched the video of Garland testifying, and the fact the he could not find the perpetrators with all of his resources made me wonder how hard he is trying. But now a violent hate crime has been committed, the perpetrator is in custody for Mr. Garland, Garland knows how well this fits the description in federal law of a federal hate crime. Why in the world has Garland not charged him with a federal hate crime?

I suspect the answer I'd get from the DoJ is, we have no record of this case. Again, the Federal Government is not making the charges -- and from what I can find, federal Hate Crime laws don't fit the crime. Additionally, the perpetrator is not in custody for Mr. Garland, he is in the custody of the local police, with charges filed by the local DA. Why should AG Garland make hate crime charges, even if there is one that will fit (which it doesn't appear they do) when the local DA filed hate crime charges?

And, again, any comment made by the DoJ would be public record -- in a news reports claiming that these comments were made, there should be links to those comments (or at a minimum quote them). What evidence do you have that AG Garland even knows about this crime and, again given that it was local police on the other side of the country, how should he have found out about it?

Valletta · Apr 12, 2023

SimplyMe said:
I suspect the answer I'd get from the DoJ is, we have no record of this case.

The left wing media has been involved in major hoax after hoax, even a hoax where they colluded with the Democrats in putting out a false narrative that altered the results of a presidential election. This is one individual case and it seems that so many people are in denial of transgender violence and the persecution of Christians by our government and other unethical actions but the left that if the media they rely on doesn't say it it just can't be true. It reminds me of the "mostly peaceful protests" in Minneapolis.

SimplyMe · Apr 13, 2023

Valletta said:
The left wing media has been involved in major hoax after hoax, even a hoax where they colluded with the Democrats in putting out a false narrative that altered the results of a presidential election. This is one individual case and it seems that so many people are in denial of transgender violence and the persecution of Christians by our government and other unethical actions but the left that if the media they rely on doesn't say it it just can't be true. It reminds me of the "mostly peaceful protests" in Minneapolis.

You do realize it was right wing media (specifically the Wall Street Journal and Fox News) that put "out a false narrative that altered the results of a presidential election." I'm saying it is untrue because this is an unsourced "rumor" that is being repeated around right wing news sites. If this were true they'd have an actual quote from the court filing that was allegedly made -- again in a state trial where the DoJ was not a participant in the trial. I am asking for a link because this story doesn't even make sense.

And the right wing media is known for their own hoaxes, several of them are being sued by Dominion voting systems for one of them (with more bad news coming from Fox News about their case almost daily).

Valletta · Apr 13, 2023

SimplyMe said:
You do realize it was right wing media (specifically the Wall Street Journal and Fox News) that put "out a false narrative that altered the results of a presidential election." I'm saying it is untrue because this is an unsourced "rumor" that is being repeated around right wing news sites. If this were true they'd have an actual quote from the court filing that was allegedly made -- again in a state trial where the DoJ was not a participant in the trial. I am asking for a link because this story doesn't even make sense.

And the right wing media is known for their own hoaxes, several of them are being sued by Dominion voting systems for one of them (with more bad news coming from Fox News about their case almost daily).

The Wall Street Journal is hardly right wing. Has the Justice Department issued a denial?

Pommer · Apr 14, 2023

Valletta said:
The Wall Street Journal is hardly right wing. Has the Justice Department issued a denial?

The WSJ is not to the right?
How far right does a publication need to be to be in good stead with you?

USincognito · Apr 14, 2023

Valletta said:
The Wall Street Journal is hardly right wing.

They were more establishment right until Murdoch bought them. Now they are definitely right wing.

Valletta said:
Has the Justice Department issued a denial?

As you've been asked several times now, why would the DOJ have ANYTHING to say about a case in which they're not involved?

USincognito · Apr 14, 2023

Valletta said:
It reminds me of the "mostly peaceful protests" in Minneapolis.

How ironic.
1. CNN isn't left wing media.
2. The reporting was out of Kenosha, Wisconsin.
3. The reality of the reporting doesn't match the right wing version of it. The reporter accurate said that protests during the day had been peaceful, but that rioting had broken out after sundown.

It's Conservisphere that has spread the hoax.

DOJ Recommends No Jail Time for Trans Catholic Church Vandal

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Mad Scientist

Senior Member

Mad Scientist

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Mad Scientist

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads