While the article considers only that the reference to "charged" is retrospective, it could also be prospective, the sealing being requested in case Assange is later charged. I wouldn't rely overmuch on reading meaning into the lawyers' ability to avoid awkward conjugation.
16 posts • joined 24 Mar 2017
Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed
Your opinions on what should and shouldn't be, regarding gun control legislation in the U.S., disregards the legal context of what is and isn't constitutional there. It also disregards the fact that guns can't be regulated away, any more than illegal drugs. And a call for stricter background checks should start with an analysis of current background checks, which is something I've never seen from advocates of this position.
Do you really want to start a discussion on how two words, "gun control", will or will not solve all the school shootings, and violent deaths? Take a look at the school shootings in Canada, the London murder rate compared to U.S. cities, the lives saved by self-defense with guns, and get back to me.
How about sticking to what you're good at?
“You must ensure that these dark places can be illuminated by the law so that the freedoms you hold dear will not be stripped away by criminals your technologies have made undetectable.”
I don't understand the lack of embarassment that allows the expression of this inherent contradiction.
Turnbull's speech singled out Whatsapp, Telegram and Signal, asking why they should “be able to establish end-to-end encryption in such a way that nobody, not the owners and not the courts, has the ability to find out what is being communicated”?
This seems the argument of a police state, where the question in a free country is rather, "Why should the government be able to eavesdrop on private communications?" Scary.
I think that we can all agree that the defendant's texts, and her treatment of the defendant, were bad things. The defendant's acts were, of course, indefensible, but their legality is quite another question.
Academically, I don't see that this prosecution can produce a sustainable conviction. Massachusetts, strangely unlike other states whose manslaughter crime definitions I've encountered, and unlike model criminal codes I've seen, has no statute defining manslaughter. Instead, from what I've read, it's been left to the courts to define it. The definiton I've seen has a bit of vagueness that seems to have left a gray area that the prosecution is attempting to argue for a conviction. That's difficult in the best of cases.
I think that they'll run into problems with this vagueness, and this case being one of first impression. There was no physical interaction with the victim to cause his death, as has occurred in all the manslaughter cases I've had knowledge of. Also, it's necessary to acknowledge that the victim was a separate individual, complete with free will, who committed the act that caused his death, and did it alone. Further, it's settled law, in general, that a person has to be given notice of what behavior constitutes a crime. In addition to everything else, I think that it will be hard to show that there was sufficient notice for a reasonable person to understand that the crime of manslaughter would be committed, if a suicide ensued.
I have no idea if there are other crimes that could have been charged here, perhaps a conspiracy to commit a crime, if they've got a general conspiracy statute and suicide is illegal there. But I think manslaughter will be a tough sell.
It'll be interesting to see the result at trial, and on appeal. It may even be thrown out of court on the defense motion. We'll see. One thing that may come out of this is the Massachusetts legislature finally defining the crime of manslaughter in a statute.
Re: Needs to be disbarred in each state individually? WTF?
A lawyer can be admitted to practice in a given state by passing the bar exam. Admission to practice can also often be granted by a court, on a motion, based on a license to practice from another state, a clean record, a sponsor, and a specified number of years of practice.
Typically, though the bureaucratic wheels may grind slowly, a suspension or disbarment in one state will be honored by reciprocal suspension or disbarment in other states. You'll note that the reference link (http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/511117834-prenda-law-s-steele-disbarred-six-other-il-lawyers-also-disbarred-nine-suspended-il-supreme-court-says) contained in this Register article states that the subject was disbarred on "consent". I suspect this was based on the Minnesota disbarment, and that he had no grounds to contest an automatic reciprocal disbarment.
If you read further down the web page referenced in the article, you'll see an example of a reciprocal suspension listed.
I've had the same problems with buttons appearing just in time to catch a click, and it's aggravating.
Latest WTF came in with Firefox 52. On several web login pages, the area for username entry shows its usual dropdown list of names, but it's now headed by "Would you like to improve your search experience with suggestions?" and "Yes" and "No" buttons, neither of which work.