You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Didn't Andrew Weissman get slapped down by an appeals court for excessively expansive use of conspiracy offence allegations rather then sticking to explicit laws on the offence?
I'm not sure what you're referencing. In any case, you surely can read how the stuff charged is actually more conservative than how it has been used in the past.
against Weissman's grandiose "conspiracy", 5th Circuit referred to "repeated exhortation against expanding federal criminal jurisdiction beyond specific federal statutes to the defining of common-law crimes" http://blog.kir.com/?p=2224 http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-20319-CR0.wpd.pdf … http://blog.kir.com/?p=3287 pic.twitter.com/gVjtI8klGa
Supreme Court decision is http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-368P.ZO …, discussed http://blog.kir.com/?p=1999
Weissman's major convictions were overturned, but not before he'd ruined innocent people through prosecutorial misconduct. See @sidneypowell1
Hard to convince me that he's not doing it again.
Sorry. You said you had a precedent related to conspiracy. Do you have one?
what I linked to: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-20319-CR0.wpd.pdf … Weissman's conspiracy counts were overturned. in Russian troll example, Weissman charged conspiracy rather than FEC offences, paying no attention to exhortation from 5th Circuit overturning earlier Weissman charges.
You're saying Enron was prosecuted for election fraud? And in DC?
for someone smart, you're going out of your way to miss point. There are thousands of specific offences in criminal code. Weissman, who has history of being overturned, likes to use conspiracy charges rather than specific offences. 5th Circ exhorted him not to. He still does it.
No. I'm discussing the law. You're treating the law like it's a tea society. The 5th Circuit does not "exhort." It writes opinions, that one of which is not relevant here. You can ignore the larger history of conspiracy in the US, or you can discuss law as it actually exists.
Your obstinance on this point is especially absurd that I address the specific legal context in which ConFraudUs works WRT the known crimes in front of us.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
