Legal Eagle Question

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16934
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by lunchstealer » 01 Apr 2019, 01:05

Might get him off the hook for punitive damages, I suppose. Nobody's gonna buy that shit tho
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24207
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 01 Apr 2019, 05:02

Yeah, seems hard that anyone would buy going from "I was just playing a character" to "I'm actually crazy" as legit.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15809
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by dhex » 01 Apr 2019, 06:31

Eat your chili, Alex.
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24207
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 03 Apr 2019, 04:12

The interesting thing about Jones' psychosis claim is that he had the performance artist claim when he was fighting for custody and the psychosis one when he may face financial consequences. Obviously, the psychosis defense doesn't work in a custody hearing. It seems pretty apparent that he is perjuring himself in one court.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18439
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 03 Apr 2019, 15:30

Nah. "Your Honor, my client's psychosis is so extensive that he has been laboring under the false belief he is a performance artist."

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 08 May 2019, 17:47

Here's a question about intrastate criminal law: the anti-abortion "heartbeat bill" Georgia's governor signed into law is presumably another piece of Supreme Court bait -- definitely unconstitutional as stands but the supporters or these and similar bills in other states are either passing them just in case Roe v. Wade is overturned, or possibly in hope a challenge will go to the Supreme Court and be decided in favor of legally forced birthing.

But, setting aside the currently unconstitutional rules outlawing certain medical procedures, there's another aspect of the bill whose legality or constitutionality I wonder about (quote from Slate):

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rison.html
Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.
Would any aspect of that law (regarding anything, not just abortion) be constitutional? Specifically: "Activity X is illegal in your U.S. state, but legal in other U.S. states. If you travel to a state where this activity is legal, you can still be prosecuted back home." Have such laws ever successfully passed muster before? Since prostitution is illegal in every state except Nevada, could a state conceivably (sorry) prosecute one of its residents for having legal paid sex in a Nevada brothel? I know that states where marijuana remains illegal will definitely prosecute the fuck out of you if you buy legal weed elsewhere and try smuggling some back home -- but (for example), could I as a Georgia resident be prosecuted for smoking legal weed in California -- but NOT taking any back home with me (excluding the marijuana metabolites which presumably would be in my blood and hair)?

Or: suppose you're 18 and dating a 17-year-old in a different state. In YOUR state the age of consent is 18, with no Romeo-and-Juliet exceptions, but in your SO's state the age of consent is 16. Could your state prosecute you, if you travel to your SO's home and have legal-in-that-state sex?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24207
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 08 May 2019, 17:56

IANAL but I believe if you as an 18 year old, transport your 17 year old girlfriend to another state to have illegal in your state, but legal in that state, sex they can get you for transporting a minor. I would presume the GA bill would operate on the same technicality.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 08 May 2019, 17:58

Mo wrote:
08 May 2019, 17:56
IANAL but I believe if you as an 18 year old, transport your 17 year old girlfriend to another state to have illegal in your state, but legal in that state, sex they can get you for transporting a minor. I would presume the GA bill would operate on the same technicality.
But my hypothetical was the exact opposite: it's the 18-year-old traveling, while the 17-year-old stays home. The 17-year-old ONLY has sex in a state where it is legal at that age, and the 18-year-old also ONLY has sex in that state. No sexual activity occurs in the 18-age-of-consent state.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24207
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Mo » 08 May 2019, 18:02

But in this case the 18 year old (pregnant woman) is transporting the 17 year old (embryo) out of state.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18439
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 08 May 2019, 18:14

The Mann Act is federal, i.e., transporting females across state lines for immoral purposes. (BTW, it also applies to transporting... inside any federal territory so, e.g., from one part of D.C. to another could violate the Mann Act.)

The general principle is that criminal jurisdiction does not apply beyond the state's jurisdiction. However, I can imagine a creative application of the laws of conspiracy being used. I suspect such laws will be struck down once challenged, but that would be the likely approach the state would take. Mind you, all of these new anti-abortion laws are being enacted precisely so that they will be challenged in federal court with, one presumes, the belief among a number of anti-abortion activists that the SC is poised to reconsider some of its landmark decisions.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 08 May 2019, 19:04

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
08 May 2019, 18:14
The general principle is that criminal jurisdiction does not apply beyond the state's jurisdiction. However, I can imagine a creative application of the laws of conspiracy being used. I suspect such laws will be struck down once challenged, but that would be the likely approach the state would take.
Do you know of any historical cases -- successful or otherwise -- of prosecutors attempting to use state law to punish a state resident for any out-of-state activities?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18439
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 08 May 2019, 19:47

Jennifer wrote:
08 May 2019, 19:04
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
08 May 2019, 18:14
The general principle is that criminal jurisdiction does not apply beyond the state's jurisdiction. However, I can imagine a creative application of the laws of conspiracy being used. I suspect such laws will be struck down once challenged, but that would be the likely approach the state would take.
Do you know of any historical cases -- successful or otherwise -- of prosecutors attempting to use state law to punish a state resident for any out-of-state activities?
No. Even in conspiracy cases there would have to be some predicate act committed inside the state even to make a plausible case for personal jurisdiction. I'm sure there's a law review article out there somewhere that has addressed such issues because there's a law review article out there somewhere that has addressed just about everything conceivable, but it's way beyond my offhand knowledge of such things.

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6497
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Dangerman » 08 May 2019, 20:21

I know that as late as 2004, in (NH), if you, a 19 year old man, transport a 16 year old girl across state lives for an overnight party, that my dad will pull you out of the car by your ear and hold your head against the hood so you have to stare at the borrowed shotgun that's over there while he tells you not to ever come near his daughter ever again.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 08 May 2019, 21:12

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
08 May 2019, 19:47
Jennifer wrote:
08 May 2019, 19:04
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
08 May 2019, 18:14
The general principle is that criminal jurisdiction does not apply beyond the state's jurisdiction. However, I can imagine a creative application of the laws of conspiracy being used. I suspect such laws will be struck down once challenged, but that would be the likely approach the state would take.
Do you know of any historical cases -- successful or otherwise -- of prosecutors attempting to use state law to punish a state resident for any out-of-state activities?
No. Even in conspiracy cases there would have to be some predicate act committed inside the state even to make a plausible case for personal jurisdiction.
Now I'm imagining a situation where, say, a bunch of guys living in the Bible belt and planning a bachelor-party weekend in Vegas, including out-of-town trips to wherever the nearest legal brothel is, end up facing the wrath of an overzealous prosecutor when they get home.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 17 Jun 2019, 17:16

Lawyers for Sandy Hook families say Alex Jones sent them child porn

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/La ... 005437.php
BRIDGEPORT - Conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones sent child pornography to the lawyers for the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, their lawyers said.

The law firm representing the families of the 2012 mass shooting, stated in court documents filed Monday they have contacted the FBI after discovering child porn in electronic files Jones recently turned over to the Sandy Hook families as a result of their lawsuit against him for calling the tragedy a hoax.

Jones publicly responded on a broadcast of his show that he is being framed by Chris Mattei, the lawyer for the Sandy Hook families and went on making what Mattei and his law firm, Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder claim are threats against them.

“You’re trying to set me up with child porn, I’ll get your ass,” Jones states on the broadcast. “One million dollars, you little gang members. One million dollars to put your head on a pike.” Jones then pounds a photograph of Mattei and goes into a rant at one point stating, “I’m gonna kill…”

Jones’ lawyer, Norman Pattis, denied his client was threatening Mattei or the Sandy Hook families and urged people to watch the broadcast for themselves....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12103
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 17 Jun 2019, 17:27

That first sentence seems misleading to me. "Sent to" implies (to me, anyway) that he intentionally typed up an email to the lawyers with a child porn video attached. Whereas the second sentence sounds more like he dumped a whole bunch of files onto a flash drive and a child porn video was among them unintentionally.

(I cannot speak to how plausible it is that the porn got there in the first place via a virus or malware, rather than him actual being a child porn sicko.)
"He's just an idiot elected by idiots." - Pham

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 17 Jun 2019, 17:48

Yesterday I did notice that something about A. Jones and child porn was trending on Twitter and other social media, plus Jones' counter-claim that he was "hacked." But that's all I knew about it until seeing that CTPost article on a Connecticut friend's Facebook feed.
That first sentence seems misleading to me. "Sent to" implies (to me, anyway) that he intentionally typed up an email to the lawyers with a child porn video attached. Whereas the second sentence sounds more like he dumped a whole bunch of files onto a flash drive and a child porn video was among them unintentionally.
In context, I'm not sure I see any difference. Like, suppose I offered to mail you some cookbooks of mine which I thought you could use, you accept the offer (also, for some weird reason I need to send these books to your lawyer rather than direct to you), and when the box of books arrives it also contains some gross and highly illegal child porn images, and the resulting news story said this:
Jennifer sent child pornography to Ellie's lawyers, the lawyers said.

Ellie's lawyers stated in court documents filed Monday they have contacted the FBI after discovering child porn in boxes Jennifer recently turned over to Ellie.
Obviously, all I did there was cut-n-paste the original two sentences and make some replacements:
Conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones sent child pornography to the lawyers for the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, their lawyers said.

The law firm representing the families of the 2012 mass shooting, stated in court documents filed Monday they have contacted the FBI after discovering child porn in electronic files Jones recently turned over to the Sandy Hook families as a result of their lawsuit against him for calling the tragedy a hoax.
Jones says he was hacked so, continuing that analogy, I of course insist I sure as HELL did not own or send any child porn -- I maintain someone in the US Postal Service planted it there in an attempt to frame me -- and let's even say that in time, absolute PROOF comes out that I told the truth: the FBI found the mailman's fingerprints on that kiddie porn, and also there is security camera footage showing the mailman opening the box and planting the porn there before re-sealing and delivering it -- that still doesn't make the first two sentences of that original news story contradictory: I did send the box, the box did contain some vile stuff by the time your lawyers got it, and in such instances your lawyers damned well ought to report this to the FBI lest YOU end up getting blamed for it.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13866
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Kolohe » 17 Jun 2019, 17:56



this twitter thread has some context/analysis that basically puts Alex Jones in the category of dipshit, but not child p*** procurer/provider.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18439
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 17 Jun 2019, 17:59

Kolohe wrote:
17 Jun 2019, 17:56


this twitter thread has some context/analysis that basically puts Alex Jones in the category of dipshit, but not child p*** procurer/provider.
Sounds like he has a better case against his own lawyer.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12103
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Ellie » 17 Jun 2019, 18:02

Jennifer wrote:
17 Jun 2019, 17:48
that still doesn't make the first two sentences of that original news story contradictory
Oh, I don't think they're contradictory, just misleading to my brain. When I read the first sentence I immediately picture something deliberate.
"He's just an idiot elected by idiots." - Pham

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23884
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Legal Eagle Question

Post by Jennifer » 17 Jun 2019, 18:12

Ellie wrote:
17 Jun 2019, 18:02
Jennifer wrote:
17 Jun 2019, 17:48
that still doesn't make the first two sentences of that original news story contradictory
Oh, I don't think they're contradictory, just misleading to my brain. When I read the first sentence I immediately picture something deliberate.
Ah. Gotcha.

After reading Kolohe's Twitter thread -- yikes, I'm surprised Pattis (Jones' lawyer) would be that dumb. I actually spoke to Pattis once, a long long time ago -- I Interviewed him for some civil-liberty-themed article at my very first newspaper job, and recall being quite impressed by him (though I can't recall anything beyond that).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests