 pwrtopplC-C-C-Combo Breaker
join:2008-11-21
Broomfield, CO | reply to SSX4life
Re: How did it slip by?... easy... said by SSX4life:They saved it in their back pocket like Wolfy said. Smart move imho. thats exactly what they did...by letting it "slip" by, they cant replace the judge now and the mistrail will prevent a double jep on the founders part...they get a free pass, and the trial becomes a joke example of how to play poker the correct way
props to them
and TPB rules! |
|
| Double jeopardy is a US litigation principle. This trial is in Sweden and as such will follow Swedish law. Unless you can point to a similar entanglement in Swedish law that is as immovable as the US version I would suggest watching and learning about a foreign legal system. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| said by rahvin112:Double jeopardy is a US litigation principle. This trial is in Sweden and as such will follow Swedish law. Unless you can point to a similar entanglement in Swedish law that is as immovable as the US version I would suggest watching and learning about a foreign legal system. Double jeopardy is protected against by the European Convention of Human Rights Seventh Protocol, Article Four which states "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State." All EU members have signed it, which includes Sweden. |
|
jacourPremium
join:2001-12-11
Matthews, NC | reply to pwrtoppl
Not that easy. If it is ruled a mistrial, then it is deemed to have been no trial at all and there is no double jeopardy. At least that is how it works in the US, Sweden may be different. Cases get retried in the US all the time. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to pwrtoppl
LMAO - Check and Mate folks! |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| reply to pwrtoppl
said by pwrtoppl:the mistrail will prevent a double jep on the founders part...they get a free pass, and the trial becomes a joke example of how to play poker the correct way A mistrial does not usually result in a double jeopardy issue as no judgment was issued in the original. In cases like this were a mistrial could be declared after a judgment was issued, the original verdict is invalidated so it then is treated as if it never had been issued in the first place. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to jacour
said by jacour:Not that easy. If it is ruled a mistrial, then it is deemed to have been no trial at all and there is no double jeopardy. At least that is how it works in the US, Sweden may be different. Cases get retried in the US all the time. That's what I was thinking too. This is not a "he was innocent but we have new evidence" situation. They will simply be retried and unfortunately for them, the prosecution should be MUCH more thoroughly prepared. This is actually bad for The Pirate Bay. They had technical knowledge and the arrogance of the prosecution on their side the first time. That won't happen again. |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | reply to pwrtoppl
said by pwrtoppl:said by SSX4life:They saved it in their back pocket like Wolfy said. Smart move imho. thats exactly what they did...by letting it "slip" by, they cant replace the judge now and the mistrail will prevent a double jep on the founders part...they get a free pass, and the trial becomes a joke example of how to play poker the correct way props to them and TPB rules! Mistrials do not invoke double jeopardy. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Matt
Yeah, but chances are they'll have a impartial judge the second time... one who would rule them not guilty. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
| reply to brandon
said by brandon:said by pwrtoppl:said by SSX4life:They saved it in their back pocket like Wolfy said. Smart move imho. thats exactly what they did...by letting it "slip" by, they cant replace the judge now and the mistrail will prevent a double jep on the founders part...they get a free pass, and the trial becomes a joke example of how to play poker the correct way props to them and TPB rules! Mistrials do not invoke double jeopardy. They were guilty until proven innocent
It isn't even a trial
It was a setup, a kangaroo court paid by and funded by the lobbyist..we need a fair judge who get paid good money whether who win. Yes this judge was corrupt, he is well paid for making an unfair judgement. either he was blackmailed or was bribed in private. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to KrK
said by KrK:Yeah, but chances are they'll have a impartial judge the second time... one who would rule them not guilty. Impartiality has nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. The current judge ruled the right decision. no one questioned it until the news was released that he wasn't impartial.
I personally think they'll still be found guilty. Because they are. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Matt
If you really believe that no one questioned it you must not be paying much attention.
I also think that guilt or innocence will not enter into the equation. It is purely a matter of who the politicians will give in to. The **aa applying pressure or the changing political situation in their own country. Having the fourth largest party in the country grow by 15% in less than one day is not a laughing matter. |
|
| reply to cdru
Erm... If this were declared a mistrial, double jeopardy wouldn't apply here. In such cases, the trial is considered to have been improperly conducted (thus "mis"-trial). If granted, the trial never happened, and as such, the defendants were never technically acquitted nor convicted. A mistrial isn't the same as overturning a judgment. It's just grounds for a new trial, assuming it's worth the expenditure.
A tonne of money used to waste everybody's time, and even more money tossed into the furnace if the state decides to give it another go. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:Matt If you really believe that no one questioned it you must not be paying much attention. Or perhaps I just have a different opinion than the frothing at the mouth thieves who feel they are entitled to everything for free? I actually read several law professors and students of the law who all predicted a guilty verdict, well before any of this mess about the corrupt judge came out. I like to research a subject before forming my opinion on the matter and in this case, I read a lot from both sides. They are breaking the law, pure and simple.
Just Google a bit and you'll find all the information you need. Of course, if you limit yourself to pro-thievery sites, it will seem like everyone believes they are innocent and that the ruling was wrong. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Matt
There is a HUGE difference between what you just said in this last post and saying that NO ONE questioned the verdict. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Lazlow:Matt There is a HUGE difference between what you just said in this last post and saying that NO ONE questioned the verdict. Only if you think in terms of everything being black and white. Most people can infer meaning. I can't possible account for how everyone will read what I type. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | "no one questioned it until the news was released that he wasn't impartial."
How can this be viewed as anything but a black and white statement? Take at look around the net at posts from the date that the PB verdict was released, there were tons of people questioning what was with the judge. This was well before the judge's association with **aa was news. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:Impartiality has nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. You're right. They aren't guilty.The current judge ruled the right decision. No, it wasn't "right", it was the "correct" verdict his handlers expected... no one questioned it until the news was released that he wasn't impartial. Uh, beg pardon? A lot of people were seriously questioning that ruling right from the second it was announced.
I personally think they'll still be found guilty. Because they are. Nope, they aren't. Of course if they may try and get a ruling of guilty under the new crimes of "aiding", on the grounds that their tracker was useful in "aiding" someone to commit copyright infringement, but it's a weak argument with lots of legal problems, because such a legal standard would make everything liable for "aiding" someone who breaks a law or rule. Example: A gun manufacturer isn't a criminal, but by making firearms, they "aided" a bank robbery, etc etc
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:There is a HUGE difference between what you just said in this last post and saying that NO ONE questioned the verdict. It's called "backpedaling" usually, usually done to support a weak or unpopular position and make it seem different or to say more then originally stated.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Impartiality has nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. What the hell are you smoking? By your reasoning, one of the accused could act as their own judge and the ruling would be completely valid despite them not being impartial.
Impartiality has EVERYTHING to do with the validity of any ruling. |
|
