Massive theft at Dallas card show, Nearly 2 Million Dollars worth of cards stolen

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What does the SOL accomplish for the thieves? Can someone steal something, sit quietly on it until the Statue of Limitations runs out, then sell the stolen goods with impunity?

I'm wading into the danger zone as an accountant attempting to speak to legal issues, but I think the idea is that the SOL eliminates the possibility of being charged with the crime, and the potential of jail time. Obviously it's a long ways from being home free and the ability to just act with impunity, but at least that one source of potential jeopardy is lifted once the SOL has run.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm wading into the danger zone as an accountant attempting to speak to legal issues, but I think the idea is that the SOL eliminates the possibility of being charged with the crime, and the potential of jail time. Obviously it's a long ways from being home free and the ability to just act with impunity, but at least that one source of potential jeopardy is lifted once the SOL has run.

My thought has been that SOLs are legislatively created and, therefore, risk being legislatively changed. So it would be hard to be supremely comfortable doing anything untoward if you’re relying on a SOL as your only defense. That’s a little different than if you’re been tried and acquitted and then do something untoward because at that point you’d be relying on a constitutional defense of double jeopardy, not just a legislative invention of a SOL.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

My thought has been that SOLs are legislatively created and, therefore, risk being legislatively changed. So it would be hard to be supremely comfortable doing anything untoward if you’re relying on a SOL as your only defense. That’s a little different than if you’re been tried and acquitted and then do something untoward because at that point you’d be relying on a constitutional defense of double jeopardy, not just a legislative invention of a SOL.

Au contraire.
The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law’s change. The Court held that retroactive application would violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Au contraire.
The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Stogner v. California in 2003 that a change of a statute of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to crimes which were committed prior to the law’s change. The Court held that retroactive application would violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws.

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

I'm not engaging with you on this. The Spahn thread where five times you put words in my mouth critical of Spahn was painful enough. I have no doubt, though, that many criminals whose offenses are nearing or past the statute of limitations are very worried. Just admit you had no idea what the law actually was and move on.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not engaging with you on this. The Spahn thread where five times you put words in my mouth critical of Spahn was painful enough. I have no doubt, though, that many criminals whose offenses are nearing or past the statute of limitations are very worried. Just admit you had no idea what the law actually was and move on.

To paraphrase you, what did I say that was wrong?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

To paraphrase you, what did I say that was wrong?

Your Roe v. Wade comment implied there was some significant possibility the case forbidding retroactive application of changes to the statute of limitations would be overturned, and therefore your original thought about criminals not being able to rely on an SOL was valid.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

The court overturning rulings based on things that are not actually in the Constitution at all has nothing to do with a claim the court is or will overturn things that are in the Constitution, which this court has not been doing. Ex post facto is Article 1, Section 9, clause 3.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

The court overturning rulings based on things that are not actually in the Constitution at all has nothing to do with a claim the court is or will overturn things that are in the Constitution, which this court has not been doing. Ex post facto is Article 1, Section 9, clause 3.

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

Prospectively though, no?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I am currently litigating several cases where SOLs have been removed or their dates have been expanded. Sorry.

It's hard to follow your claim on a logical level. Your original claim seemed to be that the Court overturning Roe because that issue is not in the Constitution signals that the Court may overturn things that are actually in the Cosntitution. Now it is that the ex post facto prohibition of the Constitution has been overturned because you have several active cases about it right now? I'd love to see the case where the Supreme Court overturned Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3! That would be news to quite a number of people. If you just didn't know about it, you are welcome to use it for your clients.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

And how is Roe v Wade doing these days, professor?

Polical.commentary?

Shame shame

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Polical.commentary?

Shame shame

No. Commentary that what is once thought of as settled law can change very quickly. Try to keep up.