@charlesthomas @CaseyReuters @ProfBinkovitz: That's not my reading of the statute. Note the disjunctive "or" before 3123(a)(7).
-
-
Replying to @DavidLat
@DavidLat Leads me to believe he may not have been convicted at all.@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesthomas
@charlesthomas@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz: Go into Lexis or Westlaw. The free online stuff isn't always complete esp. for older stuff.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidLat
@DavidLat All non-expunged records are searchable back to 1996. And it ain't there.@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesthomas
@charlesthomas@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz: The source of the 3:30 update, known to me personally, also told me Arganbright was convicted.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidLat
@DavidLat I don't doubt your sources, but something is amiss.@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesthomas
@charlesthomas@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz: Very strange. If he was never convicted, then Cleary was really wrong to fire him.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidLat
@DavidLat But ordinarily, I can find any conviction from the last 20 years in about 10 seconds.@CaseyReuters@ProfBinkovitz1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlesthomas
@charlesthomas: So not expungement, it sounds like, and nothing to do w/his own fairly young age at the time? I defer to your PA expertise.8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@charlesthomas: Very interesting! That sounds like a likely explanation. If not for the private "registries," he would have been fine.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.