i think foley violated this law http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472 which he help sponsor
Before even going into the meat of this bill, take a look at the bill status. This bill became law on July 27, 2006. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that nothing that Mark Foley is accused of happened after that date. The Democrats and the Republicans both want this guy prosecuted, convicted, and punished. The Republicans want it done now and the Democrats want it drug out until after the 2008 elections. If we are going to prosecute this slimeball, we are going to have to find some crime that he has committed.
If "intellectual rigor" is the qualifying component, then wouldn't integrity be just ducky in the mix? Mr. Spencer, you write: Because you yourself partook of the sideline: Now that was written yesterday... did you listen to the news today? Here's more of what you said yesterday: It's not the computor that looked the other way. Want to piss off a jury? Let them know that the boss "knew about it." You then show an astounding bit of blinders - Dolce Gabbiano's? - with this: That's even assuming you're right to begin with specifically in this case, which is debatable, let alone that you are shaping the words to avoid the premise of my argument, which you yourself invited, that others may nonetheless be held liable. You ask: Thank you again for the invitation (which you later revoke albeit) Okay, so upon that premise I propose that a governmental coverup is ILLEGALand "may have been committed by others..." IRRESPECTIVE of the fact that Foley, whom you aptly referred to as "this dirt-bag" may NOT be held liable. Get it?
DC: I am unable to determine what it is that you are trying to argue. Are you arguing that someone can be held criminally liable for violating a civil law? Corporations have legal liability for various things, but that is a completely different set of laws than criminal law. The question is: What crime can we charge Mark Foley with? Please show me a crime for which we can prosecute Mark Foley. Or, please feel free to go off on the tangent of what you think we will be able to charge anyone else with. Please show us a statute where failing to report a non-criminal-act is in and of itself a crime. Anything -- just please show us the law under which you believe we can prosecute someone, anyone.
The move is a sign that a criminal investigation into the congressman's correspondences with teen pages is imminent, perhaps within days, Justice Department officials said. -Bay News 9 LOL, that ol' black magic, eh? Here's the "law" he may have broken "we are all innocent until proven guilty," but, Mr. Spencer, since you asked: "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years"). Like I been saying all along... Foley is a scumbag... but if there WAS a cover up, then those who covered this up are ALSO liable.
Bay News 9 is wildly off -- the investigation has been going on for some time now. That's what you do before you file charges, you investigate. Umm... you must have missed post 42.
Here's your "post 42" which, understandably, you failed to include in your response: And, again, by your invitation, here is my answer:
Please help me out here, how are we going to prosecute Mark Foley under a law which did not even exist at the time? That is not normally allowed in our legal system.
Newsweek Magazine 10/9 Again, that is what happens in law... it gets tested. What are you so afraid of? You have asked and been answered, you have your statutes... now we will see. Now, perhaps, you can gather the real discussion here... not only that Foley may be liable, but that others may be too. Not that, as you apparently champion, there are no statutes to even consider, for him OR the others.
I'm not sure that you're understanding what I am trying to say. We cannot legally prosecute someone under a law which did not exist at the time of their "offense." We can't "test" a law on events which occured before the law was passed. For example, if we pass a law tomorrow against posting on DP -- we can not charge anyone who posted on DP before that law was passed. Does that make sense?
Foley was caught red handed sending sexually suggestive emails to young boys. He's a damn discrace the sick bastard. If I could leave a negative rep to Will.Spencer for trying to defend this sick fucker I would but I need to spread more rep before I leave him any more. Foley is 52 years old for christs sake, you fail to see anything wrong with anyone don't you Will? I expect that you think the sun shines out of Foleys arse.
Sadly, I think Will is right. Admittedly, I have not combed the Act thoroughly, but at first glance, I am not certain anything this shithead did is covered by the Act. There are a host of internet predator laws that may apply, however, but disentangling the jurisdiction issues may be insurmountable. Secondly, and more to Will's point, one cannot generally be held criminally liable for committing an act which is covered under later law. It is basic to our system - criminal statutes are not generally retroactive. A good article on the problems of meeting the criminal threshold in the Foley case: Foley Criminality. AGS - what part of -led you to your conclusions? Will would likely rather string Foley up for public hanging than anything else. He is speaking to what apparently can and can't be done under law. It doesn't mean his foul ass won't be gone after in civil court, however.
Oh heck, North, we all had old lascivious scumbags hanging around in our day... there's nothing new to this, except that maybe now they ain't the King, and one might expect asylum from his wrath for simply speaking the truth about the old fucking freak, and his old freakish fucking ways. The dick-head got caught with his pants down, you ask was anyone else in the room!? Which room, the "public office room?" It's the de facto, not the de jure, that matters most to me. What did that Chief Justice say? Something to the effect he could not say exactly what pornography was, but he knew it when he saw it... This fuck broke the law... bet me on it.
That bet could take years to collect on. First, we have to find some law that he broke, then we have to charge him, then we take him to trial, and finally we get a conviction. Better, please just show us what we can charge him with. The entire U.S. Code is online. If you are so certain he broke the law, please point to the law to which you are referring. I an not arguing that it doesn't exist. I mean, seriously, we have thousands upon thousands of laws in this country. Our tax code alone is over sixty thousand pages long and we are all expected to understand it well enough to comply at least once a year. I would just like to know which of these laws we can use to prosecute Mr. Foley.
Well said Will, and put into simple terms Thanks I did not have 5 years spare time to read the 60,000 pages
Well, Will, this is quite a bit different from what your original position seemed to be, that, in fact, he had broken no code. Now you will only be satisfied if I, a glorified waiter, for lack of a better term, must find which code - lol. Well, no - I will not. Instead I will rely upon better authority on the subject than I myself could ever claim. So lets recap now. First you ask is there any statute he is in violation of, seemingly suggesting there is not. Now you suggest he may have, and offer me every stautue on record and say find it. Isn't that a bit like stacking the deck? Have you never actually partook of serious debate before? You seem a little stymied by the process. You write: "If you are so certain he broke the law, please point to the law to which you are referring... I am not arguing that it doesn't exist." "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years"). Greater law minds than mine own (that's about everyone) have been pointing to these two statutes. I think the test will be applied, if it is not already, whether or not it is applicable. My bet is yes. What's your bet?
My bet is that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9 states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." An ex post facto law is a law which is passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retroactively changes the legal consequences of the event or action. So, much as it would be nice to use this new statute to prosecute old crimes, I don't think that it's going to happen. At this time, I am 100% confused that no one else in the entire country seems to have considered this point. It feels as if I am living in some slightly alternate dimension. However, there could be state or local laws which we have not uncovered yet. There are no shortage of those!
Now, Mr. Spencer... calm down, you write: "At this time, I am 100% confused that no one else in the entire country seems to have considered this point. It feels as if I am living in some slightly alternate dimension. Yo, lol, ain't this like the first signs of insanity? Like you the genius and nobody else gets you? Mr. Spencer, I have enjoyed your wonderful posts on many occasions - in other threads. In this one you seem slightly off-keel. We all got our failings. You might'a noticed some of mine.
Dead, Will is right. Prohibition against ex post facto jeopardy is the law of the land. There have been laws that reached retroactively, but they have been few and far between, they have been explicitly written to cover only very narrow circumstances (usually, written to "clarify" the reach of an existing law - but cannot be seen to extend the reach of that law), and have been extremely difficult to pass muster at appellate levels and beyond. The Adam Walsh law has no such retroactive provision. A moral wrong and legal jeopardy are not the same thing, and in my opinion, Foley may have just snuck by.