On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, grarpamp wrote:
> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:34:12 -0500
> From: grarpamp <grarp...@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 <me...@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.
