I'm really looking "forward" to the GNAA's return.
3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
131–138 of 138 posts
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are all members of the tl;dr contingent for most things. In an age of information surplus, it's a survival skill.
By "tl;dr" I refer to the attitude that rejects reading something solely based on its length. That is not a good survival skill, any more than rejecting all but candy is a good survival skill in an age of calorie surplus.
There's a difference in that analogy, though. You don't want to overconsume calories; you do want to consume as much information as possible. If we were trying to maximize calorie intake over time, corn syrup would probably be the winning route.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "tl;dr" I refer to the attitude that rejects reading something solely based on its length. That is not a good survival skill, any more than rejecting all but candy is a good survival skill in an age of calorie surplus.
There's a difference in that analogy, though. You don't want to overconsume calories; you do want to consume as much information as possible. If we were trying to maximize calorie intake over time, corn syrup would probably be the winning route.
That's an interesting observation. I don't agree with it though. You suggest that one should consume information up to one's limits. When then does one create information? Even if that information already exists - quoting Westheimer, 'A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.' - the process of creating the knowledge is good practice for when one needs to create new knowledge, and for evaluating the validity of existing knowledge.
I do think your second sentence is apropos, but in a different way than you intended. Corn syrup, while calorie rich, provides neither protein nor necessary vitamins and minerals. For that matter, reading summaries is often information poor, compared to the underlying material.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think that everyone who ever has a conviction overturned should be compensated for all time lost and costs incurred. Not because the state would be dissuaded from pushing edge-cases but because we, the people, have robbed someone of part of their life. We should make it right.
What about his mistreatment in jail? Just because you are a prisoner doesn't mean they should be able to treat you like shit.
They shouldn't be able to, but they are able to, and it aint' just weev. Yes, we should do something about it, for all prisoners.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about his mistreatment in jail? Just because you are a prisoner doesn't mean they should be able to treat you like shit.
They shouldn't be able to, but they are able to, and it aint' just weev. Yes, we should do something about it, for all prisoners.
Totally agree.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly certain that this would be a clear application of Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment for at least the majority of charges; in short, this is true because whether or not the case had merit, the prosecution definitely screwed up the proceeding. There may have been a case for CFAA violation (right or wrong), but the prosecutors improperly chose New Jersey as the venue of proceedings. This was a calcu…
No, because the judgment was vacated. They didn't grant a judgment of acquittal. So the government is still free to bring the case again. Still, the prosecution is really unlikely to do so.
If they did, and he was convicted again, would his time served on the vacated conviction be discounted off any sentence? It would seem highly unjust if not.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#137Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while. Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?
AT&T isn't a named party and did not bring the suit. Their civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. Wrongful prosecution is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to prove. Because it was overturned on appeal and the determination was not on the merits (ie. what he did isn't actually illegal) but instead on procedural grounds he loses a bunch of options for remedy.
> AT&Ts [...] civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it.
This is the most heartbreaking part of the case.
Re: 3rd Circuit vacates Weev's conviction [pdf]
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that can be it. I'm pretty sure they could apply the relevant New Jersey law even if the trial did not physically occur in NJ. For the purposes of that analysis, it would be enough that some "victims" resided in NJ.
The linked-to court judgement says that there are no applicable NJ laws. The relevant laws don't apply, and that it's not enough that some 4% of the numbers were from people in NJ.
I think you (and apparently several other people) have misunderstood my comment: it is clear from the opinion that for 4% of victims to live in New Jersey is not adequate for venue to be proper. The question I was responding to, though, was why the government would want for venue to be proper in New Jersey. It was hypothesized that the government sought to apply some particular New Jersey law. My point was only that, assuming there is some such law (and it appears from the opinion that there is -- though its applicability is questionable), that would not explain why the government sought to have the trial in New Jersey because they could apply the New Jersey law regardless of whether the trial was held in New Jersey.
The more likely explanation, as others have pointed out, is simply that the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey is the one who wanted to bring the case.