Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...eme_Associates
The case is against Extreme Associates. When the case first when to trial the defendants successfully argued that since the transactions took place online the right to privacy prevailed here so since a person has the right to own and view these materials the company had the right to sell them. Obviously this is an over simple explanation, but it is the basis of what happened.
The judge sided with Extreme Associates and dropped the charges.
The Federal government appealed the ruling. The appeals court reversed the ruling.
Extreme Associates then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. They denied to hear it and a new trial date was set. The two main people involved ultimately ended up pleading guilty to certain charges in an effort just to end this.
BTW I never said they were found innocent in trial then found guilty on appeal. Those are your words not mine. I simply said that the appeals court overturned the lower courts decision and that kind of thing happens alan l the time. |
you said they won the case not made a successful motion to dismiss
winning the case is being found not guilty
winning a motion to dismiss is arguing that the case should not even start
ok so we are going back to the "i will just totally misrepresent the facts that back up your arguement to make my bogus arguement" again.
they didn't win the case
- they sucessfully made a motion to dismiss based on a constitutional arguement (therefore the trial never happened)
- the government appealed that motion to dismiss and won (therefore the trial was back on
- the supreme court agreeing completely with the appeals court that the laws was constitutionally valid refused to hear the case at all upholding the appeals court reversal
nothing about that case justifies the arguement
Quote:
Because the court felt that there were still other processes that could be handled at a lower court, not because they agreed with the ruling.
|
the trial was allowed to continue because the supreme court agreed with the appeal court ruling that the law in question was in fact constitutionally valid (rightfully so since privacy does not grant right of possession, just right to not have your possessions searched)
which is exactly the point i made orginally