Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
oag.ca.gov
Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#2The extortion charge could be reasonable, but the California Penal Code sections 530.5 and 653m charges are ludicrous: 530.5 deals with identity theft for taking out loans and such and 653m deals with telephone harassment, this is neither.
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#3I wonder if mugshot sites (which this guy will ironically have to pay to get removed from) will suffer the same fate.
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#4The extortion charge could be reasonable, but the California Penal Code sections 530.5 and 653m charges are ludicrous: 530.5 deals with identity theft for taking out loans and such and 653m deals with telephone harassment, this is neither.
If you want to see another example of prosecutorial overreach, you should read up on Bond v. United States, which was recently argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Bond was charged with violating chemical weapons treaties for using chemicals to kill her husband's mistress' lawn (amongst other things).
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#5I wonder if mugshot sites (which this guy will ironically have to pay to get removed from) will suffer the same fate.
Slim chance. No DA is going to take on that cause as it doesn't further their agenda
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#6The extortion charge could be reasonable, but the California Penal Code sections 530.5 and 653m charges are ludicrous: 530.5 deals with identity theft for taking out loans and such and 653m deals with telephone harassment, this is neither.
If you want to see another example of prosecutorial overreach, you should read up on Bond v. United States, which was recently argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Bond was charged with violating chemical weapons treaties for using chemicals to kill her husband's mistress' lawn (amongst other things).
>Bond was charged with violating chemical weapons treaties for using chemicals to kill her husband's mistress' lawn (amongst other things).
This is a little misleading. The NY Times reports that Bond placed poison on Haynes's car, mailbox, and doorknob.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19bar.html?_r=0
I don't mean to take a position on whether the federal government can use the Chemical Weapons Conventions to prosecute someone for trying to poison another, but there's a big difference between trying to poison another person, and trying to poison their lawn.
Re: Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to see another example of prosecutorial overreach, you should read up on Bond v. United States, which was recently argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Bond was charged with violating chemical weapons treaties for using chemicals to kill her husband's mistress' lawn (amongst other things).
>Bond was charged with violating chemical weapons treaties for using chemicals to kill her husband's mistress' lawn (amongst other things). This is a little misleading. The NY Times reports that Bond placed poison on Haynes's car, mailbox, and doorknob. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19bar.html?_r=0 I don't mean to take a position on whether the federal government can use the Chemical Weapons Conventions to pro…
Your last point speaks to Bond's intent, which makes this an interesting narrative, but she was not charged with attempted murder.
Bond was charged with possessing, transporting, and spreading the chemicals, which have been classified as toxic (along with vinegar and chocolate). This is because the state police and prosecutor exercised prosecutorial discretion by not charging Bond, and the federal government has no jurisdiction over one person "trying to poison another".
edit: though intent is unimportant, it has been alleged that Mrs. Bond caused a rash on the victim, which is relevant, because this would be evidence of "harmful effects on plants or animals".