Roy Wilson 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1093) comment rss

  • On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'They're a serious threat to the public... right until they pay'

    You just won't be happy unless you can claim a conspiracy, will you?

    The bail system(s) have been in place for centuries. Well before private prisons.

    It's part of the justice system.

    If you're Charged with a violent crime, the Judge is going to demand Surrender of your Passport, no matter how "rich" you are. And likely deny Bail for serious violent crimes, again, no matter how "rich" or, let's face it, by "rich" you mean "white" you are.

    If $500 bail is too much of a "hardship" for a person, and that's their ONLY defense against Posting, well... Tough.

    And I say the same for the person with a good job having bail set at $50,000.

  • On the post: A Decade's Worth Of Meth Convictions Overturned Due To Drug Lab Employee's Misconduct

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 05:34pm

    There's a bigger problem here...

    A dozen or so I could see. Over 8,000?

    There's no way even the most incompetent Public Defender didn't challenge and have an evidentiary sample re-tested at a different lab.

    Which means the lab was *supplying* tainted samples when one was requested.

    The FBI Lab was caught doing this kind of crap 20-25 years back, the lab techs were asking who the agents wanted the samples to match to.

    As I recall, not much came of it so far as overturning cases or releasing the falsely convicted. The FBI was allowed to "handle it internally".

    The $20 "Test your kids" tests most pharmacies carry are pretty accurate - and they don't test positive for samples of sugar, baby powder, or plaster dust.

  • On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 09:42am

    Re:

    Frankly, because Judges tend to set lower Bail amounts for women and kids if the charges aren't for violent crime.

    This group is going for "number released on Bail", nothing more. So coughing up $250 for a thousand teenagers up on Destruction of Property charges makes them look MUCH better than larger amounts on fewer people.

  • On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 09:36am

    Re: Re: Re: 'They're a serious threat to the public... right until they pay'

    Bail amounts are malleable, but there's a guideline for amounts similar to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

    On Arraignment, Prosecution declares the Charges and asks for a bail amount based on that scale, or for bail to be denied.

    Defense makes their arguments against it.

    The Judge makes the decision on Remand, Bail, and Bail Amount, following those guidelines.

    Violent crimes have higher bail guidelines.

    Just about any Felony charge will require surrender of the accused's Passport (if they have one).

    The INTENT of the Bail system was to insure those charged would show up for Trial.

    Are some Bail requirements excessive? Definitely - but if that's what the guidelines reccomend, and the Defense can't make a good argument against it, that's the number the Judge sets.

    Note WHO is getting bailed out en masse in the article. Women and kids. The amount of Bail set isn't mentioned. So it may be that we're looking at a huge number of Charged with bail set under $1,000, which, I think, you'll find more likely than ten people with bail set at $1,000,000. The Charges those people are in Remand for aren't mentioned either - there's a pile of traffic infractions that can land you there.

    What I have not seen mentioned in any of the articles regarding Bail is how much the system KEEPS after you DO show up for your court date. It's a minimum of 10%, I forget the exact name used for that, but it's basically a "Handling Fee".

    So the guy who puts up his home to make $250,000 Bail loses $25,000 right off the bat. If he's using a Bondsman, it's closer to $50,000.

    Me? I'd sit in County lockup until my trial date before "gifting" that kind of money away.

  • On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 08:03am

    Re: Re: Excessive

    Heh. You got trolled.

    That's the HCI line retargeted on guns - "If it saves just ONE life...." it's worth stomping all over the rights of everyone else.

  • On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 07:13am

    Re: 'They're a serious threat to the public... right until they pay'

    "If someone is an actual danger to the public, why would there be a bail amount set at all? If someone is suspected or assault and/or murder can they walk until trial so long as they have enough money?"

    There is no bail set and the suspect is Remanded to Custody until Trial in such cases.

    Prosecutors just about always ask for Remand in seriously violent cases. A Judge makes that decision.

  • On the post: Wall Street Quietly Warns That 5G Wireless Is Being Aggressively Over-hyped

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2018 @ 07:18am

    It's the new DSL

    You're focusing on the raised charges to users.

    The BIG money is going to be the billions gifted to the carriers to "provide rural service and upgrade existing systems", and they're going to take the money and do..

    NOTHING.

    How's that Verizon DSL working out that we've been paying for the last decade or so? Or even new copper in the streets? It's PAID for...

  • On the post: Warner Media Opposes Trademark Filed By Actual 'Wicked Witch' Over Its Wizard Of Oz Trademarks

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2018 @ 08:52am

    Re: She turned me into a newt!

    If Islam decided to use Mickey Mouse as the iconography of Allah, there might be a case for that.

    And, of course, any nut can proclaim that Buzz Lightyear is the One True God and claim Constitutional Protection.

    Would make for an interesting read, at least.

  • On the post: Warner Media Opposes Trademark Filed By Actual 'Wicked Witch' Over Its Wizard Of Oz Trademarks

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2018 @ 08:49am

    Public Domain

    Have to wonder... Disney has been getting away with it for... well... ever.

    The books that the movie was based on are Public Domain. How did Turner Copyright *not* the story, but elements of it found in a PD writing?

    I can see them getting Copyright on elements that were changed in the movie - the silver slippers becoming ruby slippers, but the character appellations are the same in the books and the movie.

  • On the post: Cool Cool Cool Oversight Office Says It's Incredibly Easy To Hack The Defense Dept.'s Weapons Systems

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2018 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re:

    Worse. If they had a secure system, most of them would put their passwords on a sticky note attached to the monitor.

  • On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: What?

    It isn't? "Clearly"?

    She GAVE them the sign. They didn't seize it.

    My suspicion is that the cops warned her of the trouble it'd cause to her and her family if she left it up.

    Says right in the article that she told them to take it. Which kinda kills the headline of them "seizing" it.

    Maybe YOU don't think it falls under child porn (Graphic depiction of a sexual act on a child). Maybe a court would agree. After costing the woman everything she owns in legal fees fighting it.

  • On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 10:54am

    Re: What?

    Yup.

    And it sounds like the cops handled it well. My local cops would probably have done something similar - "If you leave that up, someone who has had a child molested will likely vandalize your house. Or file a lawsuit. Or force us to arrest you."

  • On the post: Government Moves To Seize All Backpage Assets Prior To Securing Convictions

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 09:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: US Law

    I hadn't realized the Executive branch had more power than the Judicial or Legislative branches.

    ANY President can ASK that, and this is the important part, the Law NOT be followed.

    Obama did it deliberately with illegal aliens.

    Has trump said anything about Civil Forfeiture or RICO? If he has, I've missed it. With the howling going on about how trump is such a thief, tax evader, etc., you'd think trashing those Laws would be at the top of his ToDo list.

    You've fallen into the Benevolent Dictator as President belief. That any President, with a stroke of a pen, can make or unmake the Law of the land.

    YES, they can issue Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives.

    But they have no power over the other two branches of government. If they did, trump could simply issue an EO stating that Democrats will no longer be permitted to hold Congressional or Senate Seats.

    While the Judicial and Legislative branches MAY follow an EO or PDD, they are not required to. They usually do, simply because alienating a full third of the government is going to kill any changes that need a Presidential Signature.

    Do you recall all the cheering every single time obama issued an EO?

    Do you recall the howling every single time trump issued an EO retracting one of obama's?

    The only thing a President can do to change or revoke a Law is to suggest to the SCOTUS that they review it. He can't outright ask them to, but he can give them a word before he attacks that Law in the media asking "why hasn't the Supreme Court overturned this?", shifting the blame to them.

    As I said, we screamed about this half a century ago when Nixon signed RICO into Law - it's a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Which is why Civil Forfeiture Seizures aren't used as evidence, or in any way related to the person they're seized from. They're literally charged as if they were a person. Through various contortions, the last fifty years of SCOTUS has avoided the issue completely.

  • On the post: Government Moves To Seize All Backpage Assets Prior To Securing Convictions

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 07:48am

    Re: Re: US Law

    No, it makes anyone claiming it's Trump's fault look like a partisan hack without a clue.

    You don't like him. We get it. Put him down for Original Sin, he's Shaitan made flesh. Great.

    But no matter how much you don't like a Law, it IS the Law at the moment. Why would law enforcement NOT use every tool at it's disposal?

    You don't agree with this Law. I don't either. But to blame it on Trump? Seriously?

  • On the post: Government Moves To Seize All Backpage Assets Prior To Securing Convictions

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2018 @ 06:10am

    Same old...

    "The money the defendants no longer have access to won't help them find top lawyers willing to take on the government in both criminal and civil actions."

    The above was the sales pitch for the RICO act. We screamed about it in 1970 and it passed into law anyway.

    I'm not kidding - the above quote is practially word for word the "justification" seen constantly in the press for why we "needed" RICO. Criminals were getting away scot-free because they could hire better lawyers.

    One more feather in Nixon's cap.

  • On the post: Huawei Says U.S. Blacklisting Will Only Raise U.S. Networking Hardware Prices And Delay 5G Deployment

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2018 @ 10:30am

    Re:

    "How could they tell between what they are shoveling up vs anyone else doing it?"

    Exactly. Much like they're "proving" the Russians are hacking ... well, everything.

    I'm only on a two-level proxy right now, I think I'm showing up as out of California. I can switch that to pretty much any major city anywhere on the globe EXCEPT Russia (law requires logging, so no VPN will use Russian servers anymore).

    Seriously, what kind of special idiot do you have to be to leave a backtrail that is easily traced?

  • On the post: Thomas Goolnik Gets Google To Forget Our Story About Him Getting Google To Forget Stories About Thomas Goolnik

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2018 @ 10:24am

    "banned" from Google Search

    He's not banned. GS blocks TOR, and I can't access it from a Chrome Incognito Page, I suspect because of the proxy service I use and the Do Not Track setting.

  • On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Moves Forward With His Big Plan To Fix The Web By Bringing Back Its Original Decentralized Promise

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2018 @ 09:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I was commenting on how useless the many schemes for passwords, logins, and other security are the moment you get a human involved...

  • On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Moves Forward With His Big Plan To Fix The Web By Bringing Back Its Original Decentralized Promise

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2018 @ 08:02am

    Re: Re:

    It IS a bit more secure than turning over your keyboard to read them off the sticky-note....

  • On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Moves Forward With His Big Plan To Fix The Web By Bringing Back Its Original Decentralized Promise

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2018 @ 06:47am

    Re:

    That's exactly the impression I got on Solid from the earlier article I mentioned - they were selling it like a password crypt, but for ALL your personal information.

    I don't want a site I log onto ONCE via a link having any clue where my SSN might be hiding. Or which banks I use...

Next >>