I'd say there's no way this would work, but with this SCOTUS, who knows? "When you're rich, they let you do it."
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
80 points (94.4% liked)
News
23259 readers
3379 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's based on an ex post facto law, which is expressly forbidden by the constitution. I don't like the results in this case, but it's a stronger argument than most people have when petitioning SCOTUS.
This isn't the typical case for an ex post facto law, though. The PROTECT Act didn't criminalize any conduct that was previously legal. It simply changed the statute of limitations for conducts thatbwere already criminal. Since the basis for rejecting convictions based on ex post facto laws is the fact that nobody can be expected to act according to laws that didn't exist at the time of their actions and posession of child pornography was very much a crime when R. Kelly posessed child porn, and since the expectation that the courts will fail to do their job on time does not enjoy any legal protection, there is nothing inherently wrong with applying the PROTECT Act to R. Kelly's case.
This is my opinion as a lawyer, however I am not licensed to practice law in the USA specifically, so I may be 100% wrong.
So he did it, but he doesn't want to be held accountable for it.
If SCOTUS strikes down the PROTECT Act, it will be a very sad day for the country. It will effectively overturn any conviction that Act was used to secure, though I think his case is probably the most prominent conviction to date. I think he's only seeking reversal on the Chicago one to use as precedent for the New York one. Or to "try again" if that doesn't work. When you're facing 30+ years, can't hurt to try, I guess...
Highly doubt that would happen. If anything, the current court would the project 2025 censorship agenda and support the Protect Act provisions that were already (correctly) struck down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (it was just that time's edition of the overbroad "protect the children!!!" bill that did some good and some bad; most of what remains today and hasn't been struck down is good though). ~~It's also not the law criminalizing CP so that could be where his argument might fail.~~ (nevermind; he's talking about the provision that extends the statute of limitations)
I wonder how those lawyers feel about taking his money to do stuff like this
Everyone has a right to fairness under the law and it's their lawyer's job to ensure that. The lawyers who protect the rights of the people who disgust you are the same lawyers who protect the rights of the people you sympathize with.
Defense lawyers doing all they can is good, I'm really just curious about their personal feelings on this specific case and how much they're charging
Clarence Thomas will vote in favor of overturning. He's a known perv.
This is a tough one, though, because Clarence Thomas doesn't like black people.
R Kelly is too broke from legal fees to afford "on clearance Thomas". That mfer always on sale
If Kelly can afford to buy him an rv or something maybe they can cut a deal
Merits of the request aside (because I really have no clue) how does this possibly help him?
Does he think the entire world is just going to forget he was originally convicted? That we are just going to go "Oh -- there's that guy who wasn't ever found guilty of looking at child porn and doing sex things with kids"?
Do people who are convicted of stuff then acquitted on technicalities really think that the public just forget all their past crimes because a piece of paper says "sorry -- they were prosecuted one day too late"?
It would vacate his conviction and get him out of prison. His life after may not be great, but he still has money.
As for his future career, people tend to forget/ignore all of that anyway. Chris Brown savagely beat Rihanna nearly to death, and he still has no problems booking a tour. But even if it was still a thing, he'd just say (accurately, mind you) that it was all just a plan by his lawyers. It was the most effective way of getting him out of prison, and clearing his record.
They're also a lot of work that is not public faced, producer, composing, writing, that if he still have contacts to work with he can do out of the public eye.
"It would vacate his conviction and get him out of prison. His life after may not be great, but he still has money."
That I can understand -- the getting out of prison part. (Sorry -- I don't pay any attention to most of this and really wasn't aware he was in jail).
I mean, we're seeing it live with Trump and his crimes. He's been pre-forgiven on the basis that his convictions will get overturned on various technicalities despite the fact 12 jurors found he did that shit.
But (and I admit this is where my knowledge of what's going on in the US gets a bit sketchy because I live in the UK and -- okay -- don't care all that much) wasn't Cosby's conviction overturned on a technicality? And as far as I can tell he hasn't regained his former glory and former status as "America's Dad"?
I think that's because R Kelly didn't show a veneer of "Dad" to everyone for decades. Nobody wants to forgive that person, who they respected their whole lives, for making them believe he was awesome while he drugged and raped women.
Cosby will never have that love again.
Do people who are convicted of stuff then acquitted on technicalities really think that the public just forget all their past crimes because a piece of paper says “sorry – they were prosecuted one day too late”?
Most people have their own lives to worry about. Sure some people will cut him off but most don't care. That's way too much effort for a stranger.
Not defending him, but what ?
This isnt about his public opinion. It's about freedom. He'd like to not be in prison.
As I said in another comment I hadn't realised he was in prison. My level of interest in the lives of convicted paedophiles is -- and this may not come as a surprise -- very low, so I just thought he was trying to clear his name.
CTV News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
CTV News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: Canada
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ctv-news/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.