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.
The constitution speaks of ex-post facto LAW, not aquittal law nor indictment law. That aside, I was personally found guilty of breaking a law that was not on the books at the time I was supposed to have committed the "crime", although it *was* on the books by the time I went to trial. Yes, I could have beat it on appeal, but it would have been so costly as to make it unworthy of the effort since I was "sententenced" to an "SIS" - something that may just be a local thing (since I've not heard the term anywhere else), or maybe it was just coming into use at the time (~1985). "SIS" ("Suspended Imposition of Sentence") - pay the fine, and don't get rearrested in the following six months, and the arrest, charge, and "conviction" gets vacated and "expunged"[1]. //Alif [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. -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.