From: J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org>
   To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
   On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:
   >> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500
   >> From: grarpamp <[1]grarpamp@gmail.com>
   >> To: cpunks <[2]cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
   >> Subject: Re: [OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing
   list,
   >>    not a "group". (fwd)
   >>
   >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:17 PM, J.A. Terranson <[3]measl@mfn.org>
   wrote:
   >> >> > FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know
   of a
   >> >> Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but
   the
   >> > Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
   >>
   >> That is effectively retroactive acquittal, not indictment.
   [...]
   >[1] "Expunged" it turns out is not used in the standard English way we
   all
   >assume it is: the incident shows up as a "sealed criminal record",
   which
   >can be (and has on more than one occasion since then) opened during
   any
   >subsequent criminal proceeding and used against you for "showing a
   pattern
   >of criminal behaviour" as well as for sentencing "points". "Expunged"
   my
   >ass!  Had this been explained to me by my so-called lawyer, I would
   have
   >gone ahead with the [outrageously expensive] appeal of my $1,500 fine.
   In prison, there is a joke:    "Suppose you find yourself on an
   elevator with your judge, your prosecutor, and your lawyer, and you
   have a gun with two bullets.  What would you do?  Answer, 'I'd shoot my
   lawyer TWICE to make sure the fucker is dead!!!'"
        Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:grarpamp@gmail.com
   2. mailto:cypherpunks@cpunks.org
   3. mailto:measl@mfn.org