To: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500
>> From: grarpamp <
grarpamp@gmail.com>
>> To: cpunks <
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 <
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