[liberationtech] Hammond Banned from using Cryptography

[William G. Gardella]

Bernard,

Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb <ei8fdb at ei8fdb.org> writes:

> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:17, Shava Nerad <shava23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IANAL, but it seems to me that if the judge does not call the
>> lawyers into chambers for consultation, there is no period of
>> commentary on sentencing, or adjustment period.
>
> IAANAL, so you’ll have to explain the significance of what this means? 

Shava is referring here to the distinction between the plea agreement as
worked out by the judge and the revisions to such, which the judge is
allowed to make after the parties decide they have a deal.  Plea
negotiations are often silent about the "collateral consequences" of
sentencing, such as the terms of the defendant's parole, financial
restitution, etc.  So this can be an opportunity for an ill-informed
judge to do something very silly and at times very draconian.

To quote Darth Vader, "I am changing the terms of the deal."

>> If the plea is innocent, then the sentence can be appealed through a
>> trial at a higher court -- however, Hammond opted due to the rather
>> excessively abusive CFAA law which would have put him away for 35
>> years for a guilty plea for ten years.  This means he had to live
>> with the judge’s ruling which had this “side car" of court
>> supervised idiocy tagged on -- which actually made me immediately
>> think that the judge had read up on Kevin Mitnick's trial and was
>> trying to sound like he knew something he didn't.
>
> Wait, if he read up on Mitnick’s trial and thought he understood…no let’s not go there..
>
>> Couldn’t stick with the ten years, had to piss on it, pardon my crudeness.
>
> Don’t follow.

I believe Shava is pointing out that the judge couldn't just let the ten
year term stand, but had to put this cherry of disapproval for
"cybercriminals" on top, not understanding how impossible such a collateral
penalty would be to apply in this case.

--
Best,
WGG