17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
17.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 25, 2013, 10:35
17.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 25, 2013, 10:35
Mar 25, 2013, 10:35
 
And yet I bet Al Franken's opinion on the 1000+ Mexicans killed as a result of the "Fast and Furious" operation and the coverup by Eric Holder's DOJ is "Nothing to see here. Move alone".

But one guy ? Oh, he's all over that.
16.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 21:55
16.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 21:55
Mar 24, 2013, 21:55
 
Just because it's the law does not automatically make it a just law. With our legislative and legal systems being sold out to the highest bidder we need to pay attention to this sort of thing more than ever.

@killer_roach
The fact that he did commit a crime of one kind or another does not make the absurdity of the punishment any less relevant. One of the reasons they probably held that huge sentence over his head was to squeeze a confession out of him. I also think the DOJ never imagined what he'd do if pressed hard enough, instead of a confession they now have a political shitstorm that goes way beyond what they expected.

This comment was edited on Mar 24, 2013, 22:07.
Avatar 16312
15.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 21:48
15.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 21:48
Mar 24, 2013, 21:48
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 17:24:
Thunderwalker wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 16:50:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

Prof. Kerr's conclusion:

My conclusion, at least based on what we know so far, is that the legal charges against Swartz were pretty much legit. Three of them are pretty strong; one is plausible but we would need to know more facts to be sure. ... I think that what Swartz was alleged to have done fits pretty well with the charges that were brought.


I don't doubt that's true. My contention is the fact that he could be in hock for 30 years for what he did is THE problem. The punishment is way, way out of line with the crime committed. I seem to remember something on "Cruel and unusual punishment" in our highest law somewhere.

The fact that the punishment was out of whack at the top end of the guidelines doesn't change the fact that he did the crimes, though.

Apparently the Department of Justice tried to offer Swartz a plea deal where he'd spend a single year in prison, but he refused it, intending to prove his innocence in court. While I can't fault his thinking, I think he had no idea what he was getting himself into by inviting a federal court case, which likely was what drove him to the breaking point.
14.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 17:25
14.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 17:25
Mar 24, 2013, 17:25
 
Blue wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 15:38:
Thunderwalker wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 13:42:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

You can take dat to da bank!

Blue lives!
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
13.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 17:24
13.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 17:24
Mar 24, 2013, 17:24
 
Thunderwalker wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 16:50:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

Prof. Kerr's conclusion:

My conclusion, at least based on what we know so far, is that the legal charges against Swartz were pretty much legit. Three of them are pretty strong; one is plausible but we would need to know more facts to be sure. ... I think that what Swartz was alleged to have done fits pretty well with the charges that were brought.


I don't doubt that's true. My contention is the fact that he could be in hock for 30 years for what he did is THE problem. The punishment is way, way out of line with the crime committed. I seem to remember something on "Cruel and unusual punishment" in our highest law somewhere.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
12.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 16:50
12.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 16:50
Mar 24, 2013, 16:50
 
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

Prof. Kerr's conclusion:

My conclusion, at least based on what we know so far, is that the legal charges against Swartz were pretty much legit. Three of them are pretty strong; one is plausible but we would need to know more facts to be sure. ... I think that what Swartz was alleged to have done fits pretty well with the charges that were brought.

11.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 15:38
11.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 15:38
Mar 24, 2013, 15:38
 
Thunderwalker wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 13:42:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

You can take dat to da bank!
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life
Avatar 2
10.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 14:12
nin
10.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 14:12
Mar 24, 2013, 14:12
nin
 
Thunderwalker wrote on Mar 24, 2013, 13:42:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

The idea that a file copy is worth 30 years is fucking ludicrous. As is your first post here.

9.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 24, 2013, 13:42
9.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 24, 2013, 13:42
Mar 24, 2013, 13:42
 
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
8.
 
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs
Mar 23, 2013, 20:14
8.
Re: Saturday Legal Briefs Mar 23, 2013, 20:14
Mar 23, 2013, 20:14
 
The problem is that the punishments are way out of whack with the crime in Aaron's case. The victim didn't even press charges but the DA wanted to make an example of him. That he could be threatened into a plea with 30 years in prison for what he did is just abusive.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
7.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 18:35
7.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 18:35
Mar 23, 2013, 18:35
 
LittleMe wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 17:20:
mag wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 16:09:
It allows states to collect taxes from Internet retailers out of state, when made by people in their state.

How much government services is someone using by buying off Amazon, out of state? Not much. The UPS truck needs a road, I guess. But UPS pay for that with their taxes since the UPS truck uses the road, not the customer. The customer isn't using much, if any, government services that I can think of at the moment.

A brick & mortar storefront needs water/sewer, police, fire, etc etc.. I guess this has all been debated many times already.


It uses a lot more than the the road, and no, UPS doesn't pay for the road. It's likely they not only don't pay taxes but get subsidies instead. Regardless, there are a million other things involved than just a UPS truck.
"The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip." - Henny Youngman
6.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 17:20
6.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 17:20
Mar 23, 2013, 17:20
 
mag wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 16:09:
It allows states to collect taxes from Internet retailers out of state, when made by people in their state.

How much government services is someone using by buying off Amazon, out of state? Not much. The UPS truck needs a road, I guess. But UPS pay for that with their taxes since the UPS truck uses the road, not the customer. The customer isn't using much, if any, government services that I can think of at the moment.

A brick & mortar storefront needs water/sewer, police, fire, etc etc.. I guess this has all been debated many times already.

Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
5.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 16:09
mag
5.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 16:09
Mar 23, 2013, 16:09
mag
 
Axis wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 15:21:
And yet his democrat party is going balls to the wall for an internet sales tax. Some republicans too, but democrats back it 49 to 5.

Hypocrites United

Guess that will make every internet company wanna stay in the US...

Oh and see that Cyprus thing? Does it tell people to work hard and save money, or blow what you get on stupid shit and keep suckling the gov't teet?

Ya, a liberal world indeed...

It allows states to collect taxes from Internet retailers out of state, when made by people in their state. In most states, you are already supposed to be paying these taxes anyway, when you file your income tax.

It'll be a pain in the ass for the retailers to keep track of all of the different tax rates, but it's only for those that do more than $1M in sales annually.
4.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 16:04
4.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 16:04
Mar 23, 2013, 16:04
 
UConnBBall wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 14:56:
I really thought I would HATE Al Franken in the Senate but you know what? He gets internet. Is it his staff?

No, he's just actually smart and educated.
"The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip." - Henny Youngman
3.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 15:21
3.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 15:21
Mar 23, 2013, 15:21
 
And yet his democrat party is going balls to the wall for an internet sales tax. Some republicans too, but democrats back it 49 to 5.

Hypocrites United

Guess that will make every internet company wanna stay in the US...

Oh and see that Cyprus thing? Does it tell people to work hard and save money, or blow what you get on stupid shit and keep suckling the gov't teet?

Ya, a liberal world indeed...
Yours truly,

Axis
Avatar 57462
2.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 15:19
nin
2.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 15:19
Mar 23, 2013, 15:19
nin
 

Al seems like a decent guy. Frankly, I'm a little surprised his letter didn't have more teeth...

1.
 
Re: RE: Follow up
Mar 23, 2013, 14:56
1.
Re: RE: Follow up Mar 23, 2013, 14:56
Mar 23, 2013, 14:56
 
I really thought I would HATE Al Franken in the Senate but you know what? He gets internet. Is it his staff?
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older