Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam Government The Courts News

Virginia Court Overturns Spammer Convictions 433

Posted by samzenpus
from the free-to-spam dept.
EvilStein writes "CNN reports that "A judge dismissed a felony spamming conviction that had been called one of the first of its kind, saying he found no "rational basis" for the verdict and wondering if jurors were confused by technical evidence." Legal groundwork being set? Will other convicted spammers now have grounds for an appeal?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virginia Court Overturns Spammer Convictions

Comments Filter:
  • by Frodo Crockett (861942) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:42PM (#11830519)
    They all willingly subscribed to my penis enlargement newsletter!
  • Confused? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:43PM (#11830532)
    How can you be confused by technical evidence? That made no sense.

    How much ya wanna bet the judge is subscribing to the spammers' services and is being blackmailed...?

    </joke>

    • How much ya wanna bet the judge is subscribing to the spammers' services and is being blackmailed...?

      Nah. He's being bought off with a share of this 150 million dollars which the late General Sanji Abumbo of Nigeria placed in a foreign bank...

    • How can you be confused by technical evidence?

      Let's see. You run the grammar checker in Word. If your writing scores anything above the 3rd grade level, then it is by definition confusing. That means that pretty much all technical information is confusing.

      Mr. Newton, Am I to understand that the apple accelerated at a constant rate but had a variable velocity as it fell from the tree? Well, I might just be a country bumkin. But I find your technical jargon confusing and hard to believe. Case dismissed.

      • Re:Confused? (Score:3, Informative)

        by berzerke (319205)

        ...the judge let the spamming couple off...

        Actually, only the case against the woman (DeGroot) was dismissed. Even then, she only had $7,500 in fines according to the article. She didn't even get any jail time from the jury that convicted her. Apparently, she was only a minor player in the operation.

  • by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:44PM (#11830535) Journal
    The first is that it is a terrible injustice that these spammers won't spend 9 years in jail and have to pay $7,500 for each spam that was received. The second is that this judge is stepping way over the bounds of interpreting and applying the law and is (as it is commonly referred to) "legistlating from the bench" by declaring the punishment to not fit the crime.

    The third way to look at this is that Free Speech has won the day. To this way of thinking, another attempt to squash the little guy with a big mouth has failed.

    I believe it was Voltaire who said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    Of course he was also known to say, "A witty saying proves nothing."
    • by Dimensio (311070) <.moc.uolgi. .ta. .ratskrad.> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:56PM (#11830604)
      The third way to look at this is that Free Speech has won the day.

      Email spamming != Free Speech. Free Speech does not entail the right for you to use my private property to dump your unwanted advertising.

      All email spammers should be put to sleep, as should this idiot judge.
      • My mistake (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dimensio (311070)
        Having RTFA, it looks like a spammer's accomplice was convicted based upon inadmissable evidence, which I must begrudgingly admit is an acceptable ruling.

        I stand by my statement on email spammers, though.
    • The third way to look at this is that Free Speech has won the day. To this way of thinking, another attempt to squash the little guy with a big mouth has failed.

      Are you stupid, a spammer or a sockpuppet???

      Where does in the first amendment is it said "the right of people to force other to read what they say and by having them pay for me transmitting it shall be protected"???

      Spam is not FREA SPEACH. Spam is THEFT. Theft of computer ressources, theft of bandwidth, theft of storage, THEFT OF PEOPLE'S TIME.

      • by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:53AM (#11831795) Homepage
        "Spam is not FREA SPEACH. Spam is THEFT. Theft of computer ressources, theft of bandwidth, theft of storage, THEFT OF PEOPLE'S TIME."

        So is slashdot. No matter...

        But here's my conundrum. I'd like every spammer to die a slow painful death. But, at the end of the day, I get mail like "Hi, I'm a clueless fuckwit and I'm on one of your mailing lists (or read your webpage, whatever) and I'd like you to spend an hour helping me". I can just delete it. I can say "no" or I can choose to help them (rolls eyes, oh boy, again)

        If I get a piece of spam I delete it.

        Now what's the difference? Both are unsolicited. Both use my computing resources, both cost me per-byte bandwidth charges.

        The only difference as I see it is we all agree (hopefully) spam is "bad" and helping people is good, but that doesn't mesh well with the law.

        Ban, say, commercial unsolicted speech and then some guy who might say "Hey, I saw you're looking for a racaltitrant pleby on your webpage, I have an old one in my garage, I don't use it and you can have it for the price of postage, cheers" might fave the same penalty as your average c|@lis haflwit spammer.

        What we want is a "email that pisses me off is bad" law and that's a real slippery slope.

        I'm not sure the law is going to be any use here at all. Some people like/use spam. Bah.

        Now, if there was some way I could say "if you want to send me unsolicited commercial email about killifish or pre-1940's Lemania chronographs that's ok. The rest of you can die" I'd have a good case, I think, for going after the penis pill hawkers, and I'd get what *I want*. Whois seems a likely place to put this.

        (I'm serious about the killifish and watch parts btw, I need 4 Lemania 15TL [vrx.net] column wheels and SJO "Loe" [killi.net])
    • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:05PM (#11830669)
      From the linked article that nobody seems to have read:

      Ruling Tuesday, Judge Thomas D. Horne also said jurors may have gotten "lost" when navigating Virginia's new anti-spam law in the case of Jessica DeGroot. But Horne upheld the conviction of her brother, Jeremy Jaynes, who prosecutors said led the operation from his Raleigh, North Carolina, area home.

      Seems to me we are not given enough information in this article to assess what the issue was in the specific conviction that was overturned. And I'm personally not familiar with the case. Does anyone know what the situation with the sister was? Did she merely live in the same house as a spammer?

      Based on the article, she could have merely been in charge of canceling his magazine subscriptions. The article just indicates that the judge claimed the jury was confused in her case.

      And I found an error in the story submission too:

      Virginia Court Overturns Spammer Conviction s - Why is this last word plural?

      Even the story submitters don't RTFA!

      The linked story indicates no more than one overturned conviction, that of the sister. A third guy seems to have been involved but there is no mention of his being convicted, hence no overturned conviction.
    • His sister (who only got a $7,500 fine) had her conviction overturned -- apparently on a technicality. The primary conviction with the recommended 9 years in jail stood. I find this mostly annoying but acceptable. Given that it was a technicality, it's quite possible that it will be reversed again.
    • This is not a Free Speech violation, nor can I believe that you or anyone else can claim (whilst being disingenuous) that it is, unless you are a simpleton, and then you have my sympathy and my apologies.

      So there are still only "two ways to look at this ruling," at least by your stated reckoning.

      Birsmirching the memory of Voltaire is inexcusable.
  • by Virtual Karma (862416) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:46PM (#11830542) Homepage
    But your honor, they have the option of cliking 'unsubscribe'. That way I know for sure that its a valid email id and i promise never to send another email to that id and also not sell it to my associates who are selling viagra
  • by gvc (167165) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:52PM (#11830582)
    There's a very interesting video on the legal
    aspects of this case available at
    www.spamconference.org [spamconference.org]

    You've Got Jail. Some First Hand Observations from the Jeremy Jaynes Spam Trial
    Jon Praed, Founding Partner, Internet Law Group

    In a nutshell, they convicted Jaynes' accomplice
    based on the money trail and it wasn't all that
    convincing. The evidence ruled inadmissable was
    convincing, but not the evidence used to convict.

  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:53PM (#11830589)
    I know this is /., where not bothering to read before commenting is a badge of honor, but please...

    The person whose conviction was overturned was the 'accomplice', Jessica DeGroot. The judge upheld the conviction of her brother, Jeremy Jaynes, who is said to have led the operation. He will indeed be remaining a guest of the state for the next few years.

    • Yeah, the article text was stupidly alarmist. But, I guess we shouldn't expect any better of Slashdot, though I'd sure like to.

  • by Lead Butthead (321013) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:55PM (#11830597) Journal
    Now we can impose the death penality instead of the meager fine and short jail time.
  • Why can judges... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imemyself (757318) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @10:55PM (#11830602)
    Out of curiosity, how/why can judges overturn convictions? Isn't the whole point of having a jury so that one biased/stupid person doesn't have the ability to single-handedly find guilty/acquit someone?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because judges are rational, juries are not.
    • by hunterx11 (778171)
      Letting someone arbitrary overturn convictions is not nearly the same as letting someone arbitrarily convict people. In cases where juries act egregiously (although that doesn't really seem to be the case here from what I've gleaned) and unfairly punish people, it seems sane to have a check on that power.
    • Re:Why can judges... (Score:3, Informative)

      by plover (150551) *
      First, no court or judge can overturn a verdict of "not guilty". That's the "double indemnity clause". You can't be tried twice for the same crime -- once you're found innocent, that's it.

      An appellate judge has lots of options. They can look at the evidence themselves and decide that a guilty verdict was unfair (as in this case,) or they can look at the evidence and decide that the lower court failed to take it all into account and demand the case be retried. They can also look at the procedures as we

      • Re:Why can judges... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hawk (1151)
        > First, no court or judge can overturn a verdict
        >of "not guilty". That's the "double indemnity clause".

        Err, you mean "double jeapordy." "Double indemnity" refers to double payment on some insurance policies for violent death . . .

        >l say that every time I've been in a courtroom
        >the judges have been universally, absolutely
        >professional. I have never failed to be impressed
        >by a judge's common sense approach.

        I've seen them cross the professionalism line--but with one exception, it was in
      • Re:Why can judges... (Score:3, Informative)

        by whoever57 (658626)
        First, no court or judge can overturn a verdict of "not guilty". That's the "double indemnity clause". You can't be tried twice for the same crime -- once you're found innocent, that's it.

        According to a friend of mine who was studying law, judges can indeed overrule a "not guilty" ruling -- it would be part of the same trial, not an additional trial and hence not additional jeopardy.

        It's just that judges rarely (if ever) actually overrule a not guilty verdict.

    • Out of curiosity, how/why can judges overturn convictions? Isn't the whole point of having a jury so that one biased/stupid person doesn't have the ability to single-handedly find guilty/acquit someone?

      Except for a single biased/stupid person has the ability to single-handedly prevent someone from being found guilty. True, the judge will declare a hung jury and the prosecution can retry the the entire trial but there is a lot of power in each jury member's hands.

      For minor crimes, the prosecution may ev

    • Re:Why can judges... (Score:3, Informative)

      by ari_j (90255)
      The important thing to understand is that courts make two types of findings: those of fact and those of law. The line can get blurry (for instance, courts might rule that 6-year-old kids are not negligent as a matter of law) but, in general, you have a fact-finder and you have a judge. In a bench trial, the judge acts as the fact-finder. In jury trials, the jury plays that role.

      Appellate judges normally only rule on errors of law made by the lower courts. For example, if the trial judge totally botch
  • The case will be overturned when it's revealed that Judge Thomas Horne received promises of several million dollars from an anonymous Nigerian benefactor in exchange for his help clearing a bank account. It's easy for us to look down on this sort of thing, but we need to realize that he needed the money because his wife left him because of he was being emailed by hot college coeds all the time. He tried to make it up to her by increasing the size of his sma1l p3n.i.s with he.rßal v1aggraa, but she left
  • The headline is wrong. Only one conviction was
    overturned.

    Jaynes, the perpetrator, had his appeal denied.

    He's the major actor, and the only one that was
    sentence to hard time in the first place.
  • Lawyers are supposed to be good at spinning up some sort of story or analogy to let people understand complex things.

    Let me help our future Leesburg juror's with an analogy of my own: spammers are the equivalent to military electronic warfare jammers. They try to stop our productivity with enmasse information directly beamed into our communications infrastructure.

    Forgive me fellow slashdotters but in former soviet russia the russian military had a rule that any attack against its communications infrastruc
  • Perhaps (Score:3, Funny)

    by montypics (737391) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:05PM (#11830666) Homepage
    Perhaps the judge doesn't administrate an email server. If he did, he'd surely be advocating the death penalty instead.
  • Oh Gawd (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tuzy2k (523973) <spam&tuzworld,com> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:12PM (#11830711) Homepage
    The poster of this article has it ALL WRONG. I live in virginia and have been following this case closely. The main spammer in question who did all the spamming, setup the spamming business, and was responsible for 100% of it WAS CONVICTED AND SENT TO JAIL. HOWEVER, during this he used his sisters credit card to purchase hardware/broadband for his spamming operation which the prosecutor thought was grounds to convict her as well. The Judge threw out HER CONVICTION ONLY due to the fact that he was convinced she had no part of it and didn't realize what the stuff her brother was buying was to be used to. THE HEAD SPAMMER DIDNT GET OFF, ONLY HIS (possibly) WRONGLY ACCUSED SISTER DID. Good lord, I wish the fuggin slashdot POSTERS would RTFA sometimes....
  • by imaginaryelf (862886) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:15PM (#11830729)

    If you RTFA (yeah right), you know that the main spammer, Jeremy Jaynes, remains convicted.

    It is his sister, Jessica DeGroot, who had her conviction overturned. Unfortunately, TFA is rather short on details.

    Here is a better article: http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=19&n ewsid=10300 [leesburg2day.com]

    It goes on explain why DeGroot's conviction was overturned. The only piece of evidence that the prosecutor presented against her is a credit card statement showing purchases of those domain names used by the spammers. However her lawyers contend that it doesn't prove that she actually made the purchases; her brother or someone else could've used her card to purchase those domain names.

  • "Jaynes' attorney, David A. Oblon, had argued that the spamming was not conducted in Virginia and that there was no evidence that e-mails were unsolicited."

    What kind of evidence would you like, Mr. Attorney? Would you like to look through my Sent box to see if you see any requests for C!al!s or V!4gr4? What, you don't see any, but that doesn't prove anything, for I could have deleted the evidence?

    I also happen to be not walking down the street soliciting strangers to punch me in the face. So if someo

    • not that this really has anything to do with this case..

      but 9 years for spamming is a bit rough(and frigging expensive on the system). who would you like to spend more time in jail.. the guy who blackmailed money from you(or busted your kneecaps and took some dough for future protection) or the guy who sent you some mail you didn't ask for(electronically too, so you didn't carry it from the mailbox).

      if it was just a year or two would make the same effect.. what matters in cutting the spam is not the amou
  • by purduephotog (218304) <.hirsch. .at. .inorbit.com.> on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:33PM (#11830835) Homepage Journal
    The average juror's biggest selling point is their lack of intelligence and their ability to be led.

    The average judge, while more intelligent, enjoys setting precedents.

    Put the two together and you've got the 9th circuit out in California ;_)

    (Yes I just received my jury summons... I don't think I'll make it tho...)
  • IANALIANALIANAL!!!

    So in order to get a conviction, the prosecutors have to prove that the recipients of the emails DIDN'T do something? (Because they're looking for evidence they were unsolicited, and not for evidence that they weren't, so the spammer doesn't have to produce crap)

    I think the law needs to be reworded. The only way a conviction will ever stand up if this this is the case is if someone has a verifiable record of attempts to get the emails to stop. And even then it might be hard to prove t
  • ahh Virginia... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coshx (687751) on Wednesday March 02, 2005 @11:43PM (#11830873)
    ahh Virginia...

    Where drunk driving nets you a slap on the wrist (7 day license suspension, misdemeanor -- Virginia Driver's Manual [state.va.us] [pg. 30]) and spamming sends you to jail.

    I'm glad to see we have our priorities straight, and the dangerous people are being kept away from the rest of us.
    • The stills in the mountains are what keep the Virginian economy going. Well, that and the prostitutes round the navy base.
  • by BobSutan (467781) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:01AM (#11830978)
    Allow me to ask this simple question: why is someone sending unsolicited email to you a crime, but selling your personal information to someone who sends unsolicited email not? Or to be more precise (in regards to ChoicePoint), someone allowing your personal information to be handled by crooks.

    If you ask me, our personal privacy initiatives are more than a bit skewed, and with the estimated 600 man hours it takes a victim of identity theft to recover from said crime, someone needs to be held accountable. Then again, if our privacy laws made sense it'd be illegal to sell a citizen's personal information without their consent. The beneficial side-effect would be the removal of everyone's email addresses from the hands of spammers. After all, where do you think they get their information from? That's right, data warehouses (just like ChoicePoint).
  • by shanen (462549) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:22AM (#11831111) Homepage Journal
    Or did he *REALLY* mean that they were biased against the spammer? You have to admit that it would be pretty hard to find any potential member of the jury who did *NOT* want to hang the spammer by the private parts from the highest tree. It's like they'd have to find 12 people who've never used email in this day and age? Or maybe that's what he meant be "confused by technical evidence"? These jurors were still trying to understand their quill pens?

    In case it isn't obvious, I would be disqualified from any such jury. Heck, I'd be booted for trying to bribe the *OTHER* candidates to disqualify themselves so that I could get in.

    By the way, laws are *NOT* going to solve the problem of spam. It's an economic problem, and it requires an economic solution. As soon as the spammers are forced to pay the actual costs, then the spam will be gone. Can't be done within the pseudo-economic non-model of SMTP, where they pretend email is free and the spammers respond by dividing by zero.

  • Jaynes' attorney, David A. Oblon, had argued that the spamming was not conducted in Virginia and that there was no evidence that e-mails were unsolicited.

    It's trivial to prove the mail solicited, show the confirmations.

    You have to talk to everyone that received the mail (or at least a representative sample) to show that they're not unsolicited.

    So, why not prove it's solicted by showing the confirmation? Oh yeah, it really wasn't solicited was it, Rule #1.
  • okay lets sit back for a second...

    this has gotten *way* out of control. a lot of us are the same people who rail on the courts and police for locking up nonviolent drug offenders so that there will be room for the fuckers who really need to be in jail (baby rapers, murderers, kidnappers, the very at-large terrorist element).

    so why, oh why, are you upset that someone is NOT going to jail for commiting an utterly nonviolent offense? because you get some penis enlargement and get rich quick email? christ, us
    • by McDutchie (151611) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @06:04AM (#11832209) Homepage
      it has really struck me as entirely ludicrous that the most vocal people in the IT world have been calling for throwing these dickheads in jail, when most spam "victims" get themselves into this mess on their own.

      Ah yes, the old "she must have asked for it because she wore sexy clothes"-type argument. That's really getting tired.

      I have my e-mail address in order to be reachable by the public and I have had the same one since July 1996. I refuse to change it or hide it because doing so would make me unreachable by the people I want to be reachable for. If I do that, I might as well give up on e-mail entirely.

      Remember? There was a time when e-mail was used to communicate with the world, not just with intimate friends and family. It was exciting, fun. Spammers have killed that for the most part, and turned the Internet from an open community into a hostile spam sewer.

      Non-violent, you say? Not all violence is physical.

      i get next to ZERO spam, and i really have never seen what the whole fuss is about.

      Maybe you would see it if you'd get a thousand a day like I do. (Yes, I use a good filter, dozens still get through.) Or if you'd be an ISP and have to deal with your mailservers dying under the load of millions of spams a day and having to shell out money to buy dedicated servers to deal with the crap (like my ISP), impacting all their tens of thousands of customers. Still think that's as "non-violent" as using some drugs?

      How about all the viruses spammers keep spreading so they have zombie networks to sell to bounce spam off of? This is where most spam comes from nowadays. How is this not the most criminal form of cracking, tresspass and theft of service?

      [nonsense snipped -- RTFA]
      i'll also add this, for you aol and yahoo users: i work for a company that occasionally (NOT hardly the primary business model) sends out what you would call spam, but really these retards signed up for the special offer emails on their own.

      Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail. If they signed up for it, it's not spam, by definition.

      So which is it? Did they sign up for it, or are you spamming? Of course, since you're trying to confuse the issue by conflating free speech with cramming "speech" down people's throats while making them and others pay for the privilege of being the crammee, my guess is the latter.

      your ISP's; aol, yahoo, earthlink actually BARGAIN with with some ISP relations person at my company about how much and when they will send the users email, and then they make sure it gets through. i'm sure this happens all the time.

      So because it happens "all the time" (?), that makes it right, doesn't it? Some ISP's also keep signing up those hardcore spammers and exempting them from their AUPs with pink contracts. This is a huge part of the problem.

      the only person really responsible for keeping your inbox clean and crap-free is yourself.

      Spoken like a true spammer.

  • by BMcWilliams (621149) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:38AM (#11831205) Homepage
    I blogged something about this today here [oreilly.com]. Seems that prosecutors had plenty of dirt to prove Jessica's involvement, including an incriminating to-do list with her name all over it. Jon Praed presented a copy of these documents at the 2005 MIT Spam Conference, video of which is linked from my blog. Praed explained that, due to a legal technicality that's beyond me, the evidence was not admissible.
  • by DM9290 (797337) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @03:18AM (#11831879) Journal
    A judge may not overturn a conviction simply because he would have personally found the defendant not guilty. He has to find that if the jury was acting fairly, then the conviction could not be possible. i.e. That no jury acting fairly could possibly have reached that guilty verdict.

    I believe this judge was merely speculating why the jury reached the wrong verdict. I dont think there actually needs to be any finding of a specific 'cause' for the juries incorrect verdict. The statement to "confusion" is merely obiter. The court likely concluded the jury was not doing its job, which is to be FAIR and UNBIASED in its deliberation.

    (as usual the media completely fails to report enough information to make sense out of what actually took place in the courtroom.)

    This usually means that was no evidence before the court capable of supporting the juries conclusion, and therefore the jury either misunderstood or was using external evidence to reach its verdict, or was being vindictive and punishing the accused merely because of the victims suffering, or its outrage at the crime, rather than the evidence of guilt.

    If you were tried with murder, and the murder victim was clearly still alive (and especially if the prosecutor admits the victim is alive, and the defense called the victim to the stand to attest to that), then the jury *must* acquit. The evidence can not possibly support a finding of guilt. Even if the accused was covered in the "victims" blood, and the "murder weapon" was found, and motive and opportunity was proved. If the victim is alive, then clearly no murder could possibly have been commited (unless they conclude that someone ELSE was murdered). In this case the jury must have misunderstood the evidence. That is kind of a crazy example, but it is a situation where an appeals court would reverse the jury's verdict.

    Put basically... mere disagreements do not overturn decisions. More is required.
  • by DM9290 (797337) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @03:33AM (#11831915) Journal
    "Will other convicted spammers now have grounds for an appeal?"

    Anyone who is convicted on the basis of evidence which can not possibly cause a reasonable and unbiased person to reach a guilty verdict has always had a grounds for an appeal. This is nothing new. Nor is it restricted to accused spammers.

    The jury has a responsibility, not only the accused, but also to the 'people' to be fair and unbiased in its findings.

    Among other things, this means its findings must be objectively plausible. The jury may not create fictions out of whole cloth.

    If the prosecution (as the CNN article seems to imply) could not find a single person to come forward and claim they received unsolicited email, and if the accused testified and claimed they never sent unsolicited email, then the jury could not arbitrarily decide to conclude the opposite of the only evidence before the court.

    If that was a necessary element of the offence, then guilt can not be proved.

    If they said 'guilty' then either they made a mistake or they were not being fair and unbiased.
  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@@@aol...com> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @07:02AM (#11832315) Journal
    A spammer can be sentenced to 9 years in prison, but a child molestor might.. MIGHT.. get 2 years. Rapists are often out in less than 10 - and let's not forget that double murderers often simply walk just because they are rich and can't wear small gloves.

    I'm not standing up for the spammers here, but FFS, why does someone who sends nuisance email get more time than the drunk driver who last year killed one of my best friends from High School? (30m + 5y probation after plea bargaining down to an assault charge.. bullshit)...
    • Perhaps the worst injustice I heard about was in the Idaho State Penetentary, where an 18 year old kid (therefore, an adult under law) sent in a credit card application for "Micky Mouse" and a bunch of other totally silly stuff that you would normally think of as simply a parody, like $50,000,000/year salary and other rediculous stuff.

      He got convicted for 20 years in jail for putting false and misleading information on a credit card application. Essentially he ruined his life over a simple prank.

      At the s

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...