Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (2107)	1/17/2005 7:05:56 PM
From: Buckey	Respond to of 5425

Agreed on priors but it does become admissable for sentencing purposes I beleive - and that is only if he is found guilty - of course. IE the jury will not know - mayeb they do sometimes if it speaks to past behaviour - I dont know - never been in court and dont like lawyers LOL so Legal stuff - TV is the extent of my exposure

To: Janice Shell who wrote (2107)	1/17/2005 7:51:53 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

Thought I read something about him having to report or not having to report something to his probation officer. I thought the jury heard that. Otherwise, you are right. It's a reason why someone doesn't testify. If he testified, they can bring in priors to impeach his credibility.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (2107)	1/17/2005 8:07:29 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5425

And far as I know, no charges have been brought in connection with his little escapade at the airport. And what charges could be brought? There is no evidence of identity theft, so what law was broken? According to this lawsuit filed by the EFF, no law applies: Q. Why are you challenging the ID requirement? People in the US have a right to travel and associate without being monitored or stopped by their government, unless they are actually suspected or convicted of a crime, and unless that suspicion is reasonable. Clearly it is not reasonable to suspect every American of being a criminal bent on hijacking an airplane. There is no evidence against the vast majority of Americans, and a multitude of evidence that most people harbor no desire or intent to hijack airplanes. Yet they are being identified, tracked, and searched nevertheless. This policy violates decades and centuries of court decisions about the rights of innocent Americans. The mere demand for an ID is a search, which the Fourth Amendment protects us from. Also, the ID requirement is not part of any law passed by Congress, or any regulation published by the Executive Branch. Yet somehow it is being imposed on every traveler. The USSR was full of "secret" laws and directives, which abrogated the fundamental rights that had been written in the published laws and constitution. I believe that a law which the government is unwilling to publish cannot be enforced, and there are many lawyers who agree with me. cryptome.org - Jeff