Re: More on US trying to force suspect password

Guys, edit your posts, I will be seeing >>>s in my sleep. :)

Anomaly

"Gogarty" <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20080205-163127.259.0@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
> In article <d0864c03cd36421ec8c908f779d27366@remailer.cyberiade.it>,
> anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it says...
>>
>>
>>Gogarty wrote:
>>
>>> In article <89294755e409b2de1e55205e5d4ec6db@aes256.cn>,
>>> nobody@aes256.cn says...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Gogarty wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <918827e0668d75fa0fe13026c9675a36@aes256.cn>,
>>> >> nobody@aes256.cn says...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Gogarty wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> In article <20080203174301.741$82@newsreader.com>,
>>> >> >> xxxxxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com says...
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Actually, it is proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.  And
>>> >> >> >if there is a reasonable doubt then you are to be
considered
>>> >> >> >"not guilty".  That doesn't mean
"innocent", but is does mean
>>> >> >> >that the law has had their chance and they don't get
a second
>>> >> >> >bite at the apple.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> Actually, they do. The double jeopardy clause of the
>>> >> >> Constitution is inoperative. If they want to, the gummint
just
>>> >> >> charges you with the same crime in another jurisdiction
or
>>> >> >> tweaks the chharges so it looks like a different crime.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Cite?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Regrettably this is
>>> >> >> one of the unintended consequences of the civil rights
movement.
>>> >> >> Gummint could not get convictions from local juries so
after
>>> >> >> losing the case at that level they then changed to the
Federal
>>> >> >> level. And got their convictions there. The Supereme
Court, to
>>> >> >> its eternal shame, gave its blessing to this ploy.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Cite?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >You're going to have to supply case law to back all that up. A
>>> >> >single precedent where a defendant was charged with a crime at
the
>>> >> >local level, was acquitted, and then charged with and
convicted of
>>> >> >the same crime at the Federal level should do.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Doesn't even make any sense to suggest such a thing. If you're
>>> >> >charging someone with a "local" crime it's not even
a "federal"
>>> >> >case to begin with. You might find cases where defendants got
off
>>> >> >on say... drug charges at the local or state levels and were
>>> >> >subsequently charged with tax evasion of racketeering at the
>>> >> >federal level and lost, but a turn around and file the same
drug
>>> >> >charges in federal court?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Puuuuulllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeease........
>>> >> >
>>> >> "Although the Court had long accepted in dictum the principle
that
>>> >> prosecution by two governments of the same defendant for the same
>>> >> conduct would not constitute double jeopardy, 51  it was not until
>>> >> United States v. Lanza 52  that the conviction in federal court of
>>> >> a person previously convicted in a state court for performing the
>>> >> same acts was sustained."
>>> >
>>> >Uh, dumbass.... you just cited a case were someone was convicted
>>> >twice to prove they could be found not guilty then tried again for
>>> >tha same crime.
>>> >
>>> >Care to try again?
>>> >
>>> Nah. Do your own research.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting you can't back up anything you say.
>
> If I do enough digging I most certainly can back it up. My contention
> that the double jeopardy defense went the way of the dodo when the USSC
> allowed the same charges to be brought in different jurisdictions until a
> conviction in civil rights cases was obtained is correct.
>
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]