[OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd)

[cari machet]

On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Philip Shaw wrote:

> 
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2 years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the shadows
> 
> Do you have a citation for those cases? I’m not doubting you, but the legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I’ve heard of cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.

its the shac7 case

there were convictions on stalking that were not illegal at the time of the incidents - thats my information from one of the defendants anyway and other laws were never utilized in such a way in order to convict activists or anyone  - one law that was over 10 years old was used that had never been utilized in any case and even the name of the law was changed before the case was brought

the problem with these kinds of cases is that they set precedent and no one knows about it AND the defendants rarely have the cash to properly fight the case so the system of law becomes flawed - broken