Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mikesouth
OK here's what i think everyone knows.
The government feared for its case so they offered a plea deal with the nolo, on the flip side if he went through with the not guilty they were going to make sure he spent a pile of money to defend himself, money that they intended to try to confiscate under RICO predicates. RICO forfieture was set up to prevent wealthy mobsters from having the resources to defend themselves. Using it here is an abomination for sure.
The nolo IS a guilty plea no doubt about it, the sentencing is the same, it goes on your record and it counts against you if you are convicted again just you you didnt say you are guilty doesn't mean the court didn't lay that verdict on you, for all practical purposes they do. Should he try to get a security clearance...thats on his record same as a guilty...deal with it.
He didn't plea nolo for anyone but himself, he certainly didn't help us by doing so, his only real chance to help the biz was to go the distance
arguably he didn't hurt us but on the flip side arguably he did. You can bet the state chalked it up as a win and it makes it easier next time around.
dont get me wrong I don't blame him, defending himself would have been a huge expense and the state knew it. They counted on it when they offered the deal...it seems like everyone won but truth is we all lost
he lost because well...he is guilty and paying for his crime
we lost because a good fight on first amendment grounds would likely have won
who won? Larry Walters won...he will chalk this up in his win column...but how can he and the state win...only in a lawyers mind....but he did get paid so thats a win in his P&L.
The prosecutor won, he got a conviction period
So we can safely say the lawyers won
Sadly the constitution lost.
meaning we the people, lost.
|
No, the people lost because of the tax dollars expended to prosecute and investigate. It must have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of bucks. They didn't recoup. It's gotta be answerable at some point.
What was on the site that was considered obscene? What did he do that required a RICO case?
There are millions of people running over the borders and thousands committing violent crimes but the taxpayer dollars were spent to beat down a one guy's website? There's something else going on here.
It was an 'easy pickens' attack and no one won. At least Chris is still free but 5 years probation? He must have had something on his site that justified this.
In the U.S. like in some countries, if you have a nude woman in a creative work people complain. Yet you can show all the images of mayhem til your heart's content. What does that say about the stable mental state of a person or people who would allow that?
What exactly did Chris do that brought this down on him? Showing pictures?