Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Steve Lehto" channel.

  1. Who’s a good lawyer? 🐶
    2
  2.  @tcolondovich2996  It might or might not have been upheld, but the point is that the decision would be made in court by a person appointed to make that decision, not by the police acting on a potentially false criminal report. The legitimacy of contracts is NOT within the purview of the police. They do not have the power to render judgement over contractual disputes. The Shasta County Sheriff’s Department really screwed up on this case.
    2
  3.  @tcolondovich2996  you’re arguing facts not in evidence. You’ve exceeding the known facts of the case, trying to stretch it to fit your point of view. Here’s the main fact that you have not been able to overcome: the goat in question was NEVER deemed to be the property of those that reported the theft. Furthermore, the sheriff’s department could have determined that there was a controversy over ownership by ASKING QUESTIONS. The department assigned a detective to the job. Isn’t that part of a detective’s job description, to ask questions. I would be shocked if the Shasta Sheriff’s Department has never encountered a false stolen property report. Do they not have a procedure for determining if a case is legitimate before they start seizing property? I’ll let your other factual errors slide. The main one is egregious enough: you seem to think police have the competence or have the authority to judge ownership issues.
    2
  4. That’s not “win-win”. One side (the company) lost. When you say “win-win”, that means that everyone benefited from the outcome.
    1
  5.  @tstodgell  They didn’t bring in sand and gravel because they were ignorant of the law.
    1
  6. It’s not. The company was notified by the tribal mineral council (co-administrator of the mineral rights) that they needed mining permits to proceed with construction. The company ignored them.
    1
  7. That’s what you get for signing a contract without reading it. That was a really dumb move on your part, wasn’t it.
    1
  8. The Devil made me do it.
    1
  9. Watch the video and find out.
    1
  10. The company had leased the private property, which gave them rights to build on the surface, so I don’t think the company is liable for that. It depends on the leasing agreement.
    1
  11. Cool. You’ll end up giving him the property when he sues you and you might also be incarcerated for assault and battery. Personally, I’d call the police, but you’re free to be as dumb as you want to be.
    1
  12. If the materials saved the company construction costs, how is that materially different from profit?
    1
  13. Watch the video and you’ll learn the answers to your questions. I hope that’s not too hard.
    1
  14. Apparently you also have trouble watching the video, because your opinion seems a huge stretch for someone with the knowledge of the facts and law that you would get from watching it.
    1
  15. I think there is a couple of other arguments that the tribe used or could have used, but this was the most clear cut violation.
    1
  16. No. Did you watch the video before commenting?
    1
  17. Yes, everyone has the right to due process. Accused people “get off” on due process technicalities, but that’s not an indication of a weakness in the system or of unethical defense attorneys. It’s an indication that due process is a bedrock principle of justice and the rule of law. I think the ideal is that defense attorneys serve “in the interest of justice”. Doing their best to defend their client with the rules is “in the interest of justice”.
    1
  18. Watch the video. It answers your question.
    1
  19. Did you even watch the video?
    1
  20. How hard would it be for them to create their own passport with a scrap of paper and a crayon? No, you deport them because they don’t have a valid visa.
    1
  21. No.
    1
  22. Those liberal judges in the People’s Socialist Republic of Wyoming are at it again. Just kidding, obviously. This is clearly a case of woke voters electing a DA that would release criminals onto the streets. Still kidding. But seriously, how much you want to bet she was elected based on the promise to investigate election fraud in other states?
    1
  23. I don’t want to take sides, but from the information that was related to us, the sheriff did nothing wrong. The driver had been ticketed, the police officer’s business was done and he could return to his other duties in his jurisdiction. The sheriff wasn’t interfering with the ticketing nor an arrest. The sheriff was within his rights (and possibly within his responsibility, as you suggest) to talk with the driver. If there was a jurisdictional problem that invalidated the ticket, it could be resolved in court. The police sergeant didn’t need to resolve it there on the highway by arguing or threatening to arrest the sheriff.
    1
  24. One of the limitations on use is 5,000 cubic feet per year. I’m not 100% about depth limit for non-mining purposes (such as building a basement), but if a builder’s proposed basement exceeds the depth limit (if defined) or the volume limit, they request a permit from the mineral council and pay for it. I imagine that the depth required to anchor a wind turbine must be pretty deep in that part of the country. They’d definitely be going into stable subsoil.
    1
  25.  @graceyee9067  Building a slab for a house doesn’t impinge on mineral rights. The court’s decision relied on the definition of mining, but interference with the right to exploit subsurface minerals (which the company did by excavating and pouring the anchoring foundation did do). Basically, the company refused to negotiate for a lease (or permit/permission) with the mineral rights trust. They thought it would be cheaper to fight it in court. I’ll speculate it was because they didn’t hire attorneys with expertise in mineral rights.
    1
  26.  @thomassoderstrom6369  It’s similar to paying for a building permit. Let’s say you’re the builder of tract housing. If building basements impinges on the mineral rights, you pay for the permit and tack on the cost to your house price. There might be a set price or you might need to negotiate for permission to excavate however many basements you want. Have you ever tried to build a house without building permits in a jurisdiction that requires permits? Your construction will be halted and if you continue anyway, your house will get torn down and you’ll likely pay a fine.
    1
  27. Turns out he plays for the Houston Astros.
    1
  28.  @ianbelletti6241  It’s also the contractor’s job to understand the limits of legal construction. Do you mean it’s not the legal responsibility? I’d agree to that.
    1
  29.  @ianbelletti6241  Interesting point. I’ll concede it. 😅
    1
  30.  @shawnsmith9512  You know, you could easily clear up your befuddled understanding by watching the video?
    1
  31. Watch the video.
    1
  32. Imagine hearing a lot of ruckus and people shouting. You go out to look and see a bunch of police who begin shouting commands. You might not realize they’re shouting commands at you. Why should you? You were just at home, watching TV, reading a book, taking a nap, or whatever. But something’s definitely up! Maybe the neighbors? You take out your self phone to record the goings on, and . . . Jesus Christ, that’s scary.
    1
  33. That’s the case in most jurisdictions, but it’s not the issue in this case.
    1
  34. Not applicable to devices that charge off of USB chargers. This has been the standard for a dozen years.
    1
  35. The case of “The Cleveland Bomber” has been solved!
    1
  36.  @johnhouchins3156  Their ability to exploit their mineral rights would also be affected by the deep turbine foundations. This all could have been avoided if the company simply paid for the mining permits. They didn’t understand the law and thought it would be cheaper to fight it in court.
    1
  37. I admire the confidence you have, posting your opinion with no knowledge of the case or law, which you could all learn from watching the video.
    1
  38. Steve already answered that question in the video. You might want to watch it before posting any more comments.
    1
  39. The Pinkerton, eh? Sounds like the YouTuber got railroaded.
    1
  40.  @Eidolon1andOnly  Please name the multitude of crimes. Or just a few of them.
    1
  41.  @christopherparisho5844  Can you cite a specific law that was broken?
    1
  42. Cool story. You left out the part where you go to prison and lose the house.
    1
  43. This could be the plot of a 80s porn movie about a swinging condo building.
    1
  44.  @nozrep  Mercedes builds buses and trucks. You might look into one of those as your starting point.
    1
  45. So if you watch the video, you can avoid getting your crack all sandy and irritated.
    1
  46. Charged with what? Please cite a specific law.
    1
  47.  @markalexander832 if we’re talking about literal pie, that’s sad. I love pie. 🥧
    1
  48. The next sheriff can investigate if he wants. And local press can do their own investigation to make the sheriff want to.
    1
  49. No, you don’t. Watch the video.
    1
  50. I don’t think it was insured or that he filed an insurance claim if it was. The thing they really nailed him on here is that he hired a helicopter transport company to retrieve the wreckage from the crash site without NTSB clearance, perhaps even before he reported the crash. Then he cut up the wreckage into small enough parts that they could be disposed of in nearby dumpsters and trash receptacles. And that’s pretty sus in itself, but he was also disposing of wreckage some distance away from the airport/hangar facility. That’s destroying and concealing evidence, and that’s a serious crime that even outweighs his other crimes. The Feds might have been able to piece together a case from all the circumstantial evidence if there wasn’t an obstruction charge, so I don’t agree that your strategy is a sure fire way to avoid a prosecution. But I would agree that the cover up is worse than the original crime. But in your strategy’s favor, the feds might have decided that the expense and effort wasn’t worth it for the other stuff if they didn’t have the obstruction charge. That’s basically what they did by letting him plead guilty to obstruction. Anyway, I don’t think you’re 100% wrong, either.
    1