Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial. As F. Lee Bailey once said, the major flaw in the American justice system is that appeals focus only on procedural errors, and ones guilt or innocence is never again an issue after the original trial, even if that trial reached the wrong result. Having concluded that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed in the screwing of Mr. Dalton by the state of Ohio, justice proceeds merrily onward. ----- COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A man sentenced to prison for writing fantasies in his personal journal about torturing and molesting children cannot change his guilty plea, a judge ruled Tuesday. Franklin County Judge Nodine Miller said Brian Dalton did not demonstrate a "manifest injustice" had taken place. Dalton, 22, had asked to withdraw his guilty plea, saying it was not made knowingly or intelligently, and that he was expecting to be sentenced to treatment, not 10 years in prison. The case alarmed experts in First Amendment and obscenity law, who believe Dalton is the first person in the country successfully prosecuted for simply writing what was judged to be child pornography. "Definitely this is a matter of grave constitutional concerns," said attorney Benson Wolman, a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Ohio chapter. He said he will ask the court to set aside Dalton's conviction, or file a delayed appeal. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that thought==action in today's "court". How can anyone see this case, and not conclude otherwise? This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for a *pure Thought Crime*. Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:01:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> Reply-To: cypherpunks@ssz.com To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: CDR: Naughty Journal Author Denied Plea Change
Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.
As F. Lee Bailey once said, the major flaw in the American justice system is that appeals focus only on procedural errors, and ones guilt or innocence is never again an issue after the original trial, even if that trial reached the wrong result.
Having concluded that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed in the screwing of Mr. Dalton by the state of Ohio, justice proceeds merrily onward.
-----
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A man sentenced to prison for writing fantasies in his personal journal about torturing and molesting children cannot change his guilty plea, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Franklin County Judge Nodine Miller said Brian Dalton did not demonstrate a "manifest injustice" had taken place.
Dalton, 22, had asked to withdraw his guilty plea, saying it was not made knowingly or intelligently, and that he was expecting to be sentenced to treatment, not 10 years in prison.
The case alarmed experts in First Amendment and obscenity law, who believe Dalton is the first person in the country successfully prosecuted for simply writing what was judged to be child pornography. "Definitely this is a matter of grave constitutional concerns," said attorney Benson Wolman, a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Ohio chapter. He said he will ask the court to set aside Dalton's conviction, or file a delayed appeal.
...
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:00:58AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that thought==action in today's "court". How can anyone see this case, and not conclude otherwise? This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for a *pure Thought Crime*.
What's new here? *Possession* of child porn has been illegal for at least a decade. Obscenity prosecutions for writing what people find objectionable have a long history: Joyce, Miller, etc. Take a longer view. -Declan
Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except him and the cop who discovered it. It was the Man who published, converted private scribblings into illegal material, not the man. Neat trick, the drooling officials building private collections, like the story today of the Soviets amassing a huge stock of erotica, now and then visited by officials who, the porno librarian claims, always expressed shock and outrage, then purloined a few samples for private use. "What could I do about the stealing," the librarian is quoted, "they were officials." If officials possess gobs of kiddie porn, as many confessedly brag, and claim to be shocked, shocked, and eagerly exhibit the stuff to judges and juries and court attendants who are shocked, shocked, what is wrong with that? Thank Buddha the FBI is working closely with the Red Chinese, reported in the WSJ yesterday, in US-Chineses criminal investigations to balance the US promoting anonymizers to bypass Chinese clampdown on the Internet. What is Carnivore called in the PRC? There will be no peepholes in anonymizers trusted by the citizen users. A bit of loose code, hardly noticeable, but thankfully no moral code, why that would be consumer/ customer/voter/dissident/reputation/gosh my editor, my boss did it, I couldn't have known, I'm only human, the pressure was incredible/here are my private scribblings trust me betrayal.
At 09:49 AM 9/5/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except him and the cop who discovered it.
Wasn't it his *parents* who read his journal and turned him in, hoping for 'treatment' instead of jail? Shades of David & Ted Kaczynski...
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 10:51 am, David Honig wrote:
At 09:49 AM 9/5/01 -0700, John Young wrote:
Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except him and the cop who discovered it.
Wasn't it his *parents* who read his journal and turned him in, hoping for 'treatment' instead of jail? Shades of David & Ted Kaczynski...
Indeed. From press accounts, his mother turned him in. (That's how Fedgov got his diary/notebook from what I understand.) The appelate decision that was recently in the news is that he pled guilty thinking he would get probation/treatment. The judge, in effect said, "I don't know why the hell you would have thought that. Lock him up!" I'm concerned that Fedgov has been able to successfully prosecute this thoughtcrime using his own private writings. It could very well be possible that writing his evil thoughts down kept him from acting on them. I know that sometimes when I have a good rant building up, I have to just write it to get it out of my system. This case could well have unintended consequences if people finally understand that Fedgov doesn't give a rat's ass about any alleged 'right to privacy'. Americans allegedly have right to 'keep and bear arms' as well, spelled out on paper (currently being used as toilet paper in government offices across the land), but there are thousands of laws regulating against same. -- TANSTAAFL, amp@pobox.com http://www.zeugma.nu/ Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:49:12AM -0700, John Young wrote:
Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except him and the cop who discovered it. It was the Man who published, converted private scribblings into illegal material, not the man.
No, this isn't new. You didn't read my earlier message carefully. Mere possession (not creation) of visual depictions of child pornography has been a federal felony for at least a decade. Someone who's a "collector" who did not publish the material would be a felon. Note I'm not defending the law, and there are plenty of problems with the Ohio prosecution, but it is not something that folks here should be particularly surprised about. -Declan
Declan, you condescending prig, I did read your message and was trying to askance your clubfingeredness about "possession," which isn't as monolithic as you vaunt and which smacked overmuch of LEAs' agressive erasure of distinctions. Hector me not, for the failure to look behind heavy-handed law enforcement, dementia, concerning kiddie porn can be interpreted as complicity, or worse, distancing from the obligation to relook, rethink, and re-examine one's own proclivities to avoid the worst dispute in the country. The pathology of kiddie porn is probably the vilest plague upon the land, and that is due to bravehearts running scared of the infected nuts who may, if they have their way, beat out abortion and guns and vile government as pointless no-brainers. Come back, Smokey, tell me something new about what's wrong with "possession" in this particular case, not what is in the read the fucking manual before I waste my time wasting mine. Coda: I'm trying a new pseudo-comprehensible writing style, so fuck off. No vanity sig just yet but it will come.
John, my ill-mannered, surly, and lovable friend, you may have read it, but you sure didn't understand it. My point, such as it is, is that the Ohio case is a natural expansion and mild evolution of "child porn" laws in the U.S. If y'all are going to get upset about the Ohio statute and prosecution, then you should be looking critically at state and federal obscenity laws and child porn laws as well. John, to his credit, seems to be doing that. -Declan On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:22:41PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Declan, you condescending prig, I did read your message and was trying to askance your clubfingeredness about "possession," which isn't as monolithic as you vaunt and which smacked overmuch of LEAs' agressive erasure of distinctions.
Hector me not, for the failure to look behind heavy-handed law enforcement, dementia, concerning kiddie porn can be interpreted as complicity, or worse, distancing from the obligation to relook, rethink, and re-examine one's own proclivities to avoid the worst dispute in the country.
The pathology of kiddie porn is probably the vilest plague upon the land, and that is due to bravehearts running scared of the infected nuts who may, if they have their way, beat out abortion and guns and vile government as pointless no-brainers.
Come back, Smokey, tell me something new about what's wrong with "possession" in this particular case, not what is in the read the fucking manual before I waste my time wasting mine.
Coda:
I'm trying a new pseudo-comprehensible writing style, so fuck off. No vanity sig just yet but it will come.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Mere possession (not creation) of visual depictions of child pornography has been a federal felony for at least a decade. Someone who's a "collector" who did not publish the material would be a felon.
We are not talking about "visual depictions" (cute Fedz euphemism for photographs or photograph like imagery) here, we are talking about *written words*. The anti-imaging laws are justified on the grounds that producing the stuff requires, by definition, a child, and therefore, outlawing the stuff "Saves Children". As I understand this story, the guy had a diary which contained written descriptions of things he would *like* to do, not a photo album of kids bent over a table... Big difference. A a "journalist", I'm sure you can see where this not so subtle difference lies... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 03:31:11AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
As I understand this story, the guy had a diary which contained written descriptions of things he would *like* to do, not a photo album of kids bent over a table...
Your snotty message notwithstanding (I now regret taking you seriously in the past, and I'll try not to make that mistake again), my point was not to defend the law, as I made clear in the portion of my post you conveniently neglected to include. (In fact, since 1996 and the "morphed child porn" law in effect, Photoshop- created fantasies have been illegal to possess, and people have been convicted under that law, and their convictions (mostly) upheld.) My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws, and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework. -Declan
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws, and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework.
Then your point is invalid. Simply because the application or extension of something is harmful or undesirable doesn't map to the entire framework being bad. It's a common failing of C-A-C-L based theologies. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 09:38:46AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws, and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework.
Then your point is invalid. Simply because the application or extension of something is harmful or undesirable doesn't map to the entire framework being bad.
It's a common failing of C-A-C-L based theologies.
You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Jim, I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps you can quote the relevant section of the U.S. Constitution you're talking about, and follow it up with some Slashdot URLs? Some week-old wire service articles would be a big help too. Your fan, Declan
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim, I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps you can quote the relevant section of the U.S. Constitution you're talking about, and follow it up with some Slashdot URLs? Some week-old wire service articles would be a big help too.
Your fan, Declan
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Your snotty message notwithstanding (I now regret taking you seriously in the past, and I'll try not to make that mistake again)
So what we have here, Ladies and Gentleman, is a hypocrite. Snotty messages from Declan are handed down from on high, whereas snotty messages from the rest of the world will render the originator of the missive as one who is 'not worth being taken seriously'. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:35:13AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
Snotty messages from Declan are handed down from on high, whereas snotty messages from the rest of the world will render the originator of the missive as one who is 'not worth being taken seriously'.
Hahahahahaha. Choate is a special case. -Declan
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:35:13AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
Snotty messages from Declan are handed down from on high, whereas snotty messages from the rest of the world will render the originator of the missive as one who is 'not worth being taken seriously'.
Hahahahahaha. Choate is a special case.
-Declan
Why? Because it's Politcally Correct [in the Cpunk] world to blast him? P.C. is just as sickening here as anywhere else, and your plea of "special case" has no foundation - it is merely an attempt to dodge the bullet. The above excerpts are defacto proof of your hypocrisy. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:14 AM 9/9/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
Why? Because it's Politcally Correct [in the Cpunk] world to blast him? P.C. is just as sickening here as anywhere else, and your plea of "special case" has no foundation - it is merely an attempt to dodge the bullet. The above excerpts are defacto proof of your hypocrisy.
I have no interest what you call "politically correct" or not. But Choate has shown over a period of many years that he's not willing to engage in serious discussions here, and therefore is not worthy of serious replies. You, my friend, seem to be intent on following the same path, albeit a bit more snottily and quickly. -Declan
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
You, my friend,
Let's get something *perfectly* straight: I am NOT your "friend".
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 03:31:11AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
As I understand this story, the guy had a diary which contained written descriptions of things he would *like* to do, not a photo album of kids bent over a table...
Your snotty message notwithstanding (I now regret taking you seriously in the past, and I'll try not to make that mistake again), my point was not to defend the law,
It did not appear [to me] that you were attempting to defend the law.
as I made clear in the portion of my post you conveniently neglected to include.
I did not elide this snippet below. That said, I came in from an 18++ hour day at work, and skimmed through my 700++ emails for the day, focusing primarily on those threads of interest. As there were an unusually large number of them today, I did stay closest to the most recent as a kind of "digest" attempt - if the below paragraph was somewhere in the original thread, it was gone by the time I responded. That said, I will respond to this now.
(In fact, since 1996 and the "morphed child porn" law in effect, Photoshop- created fantasies have been illegal to possess, and people have been convicted under that law, and their convictions (mostly) upheld.)
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws,
An outgrowth would imply that it is along a continuum that has the same basic "footing". All of your above examples, from the traditional "kiddie porn" to the Feinswine dirty pixel laws deal with visual imagery of the photographic "kind". What we have here is distinctly different: no pictures of *any* kind, real or constructed, *unless*, we are no prosecuting the imagery that we are assuming is present in the mind of the author. He is using *words*, not *imagery*.
and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework.
I *am* upset at the entire framework. Regardless of which (or both) of these footings are argued as somehow "morally valid/justified/whatever", what it boils down to is the outlawing of *information*. The outlawing of DATA is a Pure Thought Crime. If we wanted to "Protect The Children" we would make the *act* of engaging a minor in an *act* of nude photography/sex/dope smoking/whatever a serious crime, and we would then enforce it to the teeth. That we do not speaks volumes about who we are "protecting". The "drug war" is the perfect analogy here: it is the posession, which is inherently victimless, which is the greater evil under the "judgement" of our "society". Posession of *anything* is a victimless "crime", and should NEVER be prosecutable.
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On 8 Sep 2001, at 11:53, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 03:31:11AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
(In fact, since 1996 and the "morphed child porn" law in effect, Photoshop- created fantasies have been illegal to possess, and people have been convicted under that law, and their convictions (mostly) upheld.)
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws,
An outgrowth would imply that it is along a continuum that has the same basic "footing". All of your above examples, from the traditional "kiddie porn" to the Feinswine dirty pixel laws deal with visual imagery of the photographic "kind". What we have here is distinctly different: no pictures of *any* kind, real or constructed, *unless*, we are no prosecuting the imagery that we are assuming is present in the mind of the author. He is using *words*, not *imagery*.
And why do you think that is significant? Once morphed pictures can be considered child pornography, the "real victim" argument no longer applies. Why should text be considered fundamentally different from drawn pictures? George
Declan wrote:
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws, and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework.
Right. The big mistake was to criminalize "obscenity" in and of itself, to define what obscenity was by something as subjective as local community standards, and to make such criminalization independent of its willful dissemination to people who are offended by it. This creates the absurd situation that private ownership of material, deemed "prurient" by a majority of ones neighbors, makes one a criminal even if it is never shown to anyone. All the rest of the censorship nonsense, including that related to the sexual depictions of minors, follows sequentially from this fundamental idiocy. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Is there a point to this discussion? If either one of you knew anything about the law you'd be dangerous. MacN On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 03:31:11AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
As I understand this story, the guy had a diary which contained written descriptions of things he would *like* to do, not a photo album of kids bent over a table...
Your snotty message notwithstanding (I now regret taking you seriously in the past, and I'll try not to make that mistake again), my point was not to defend the law, as I made clear in the portion of my post you conveniently neglected to include.
(In fact, since 1996 and the "morphed child porn" law in effect, Photoshop- created fantasies have been illegal to possess, and people have been convicted under that law, and their convictions (mostly) upheld.)
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws, and if you're upset at this, you should naturally be upset at the entire framework.
-Declan
Declan writes:
What's new here? *Possession* of child porn has been illegal for at least a decade. Obscenity prosecutions for writing what people find objectionable have a long history: Joyce, Miller, etc.
The legal basis for criminalizing non-obscene erotic depictions of minors is Ferber, which clearly states that such criminalization is Constitutional only when it is necessary to prevent actual persons under the age of 18 from experiencing the harmful workplace environment associated with porn production. Laws which criminalize synthetic visual depictions of the sexuality of minors, as well as written material, which do not depict actual living persons, are clearly unconstitutional under the standard created by Ferber. It is the hope of the Child Sex Hysterics, whose goal is not to protect minors, but to purge from the continuum all counterexamples to their religiously inspired doctrine on the asexuality of persons under 18, that the Sheeple have now been sufficiently programed to react with horror to all depictions of youthful sexuality. This will place the Supreme Court in the position where fabricating from whole cloth a legal justification for criminalizing all such material will be the only alternative to mass rioting in the streets the next time such a case appears before them. I'd rather just shoot the rioters, and raise the average intelligence in the sheep bin by epsilon. If you can criminalize dirty stories, which depict non-obscene sexuality on the part of fictional characters, then you can criminalize just about anything else, including chemistry and cryptography textbooks, and Tom Clancy novels. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 measl@mfn.org wrote:
This is the case I had in mind when I made my recent assertion that thought==action in today's "court". How can anyone see this case, and not conclude otherwise? This dude is going to spend a long time in stir, for a *pure Thought Crime*.
Yours,
J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org
To which the mentally retarded twit plead guilty. If you plead guilty (like Michael Milken or Jim Bell 1) you don't get to challange the prosecution. People who plead guilty in political cases like these get more time (on average) than those who contest them. Kipling had some advice for these sorts of cases: Dane-Geld A.D. 980-1016 It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation To call upon a neighbour and to say:-- "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight, Unless you pay us cash to go away." And that is called asking for Dane-geld, And the people who ask it explain That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld And then you'll get rid of the Dane! It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say:-- "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away." And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane. It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say:-- "We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that pays it is lost!" DCF
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
Not unsurprisingly, the judge has refused to permit a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for textual depictions of child sex in a private journal to withdraw his guilty plea and get a trial.
As F. Lee Bailey once said, the major flaw in the American justice system is that appeals focus only on procedural errors, and ones guilt or innocence is never again an issue after the original trial, even if that trial reached the wrong result.
I hear the flapping of angels wings... Only the jury can decide what is right/wrong. Only 'the poeple' have that right in this country under the Constitution. All criminal proceedings should be jury trials. Period, no exceptions. The moral obligations outweigh the increased cost of operations (lack of moral recognition is another lack of C-A-C-L theory). Once the jury decides then it should be final. Note the first sentence in Amendment 7...'preserved'... Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (11)
-
amp -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
emc＠artifact.psychedelic.net -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Mac Norton -
measl＠mfn.org