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

[Jim Bell]

From: J.A. Terranson <measl at mfn.org>

To: grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> 
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:


>> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500
>> From: grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com>
>> To: cpunks <cypherpunks at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140121/1ce2af33/attachment-0001.txt>