undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek1y ago0 comments

No, conspiracy liability makes Assange liable for for whatever the charged conspiracy, which included Manning, did. The "overt acts" are those things the prosecution can prove Assange himself did. They're the glue that connects Assange to the conspiracy.

"Title 18" is almost the entire federal criminal code. Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...".

As I just said: the murder-for-hire scheme --- which I believe was in fact part of Ulbricht's sentencing --- was an "overt act" in Ulbricht's conspiracy charge.

0 comments

boomboomsubban1y ago

>Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...

I had referenced the specific clause, 793(g), in my previous post to you. It is also referenced in the plea. I didn't think I needed to do so again. I can quote the section

>If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

tptacekOP1y ago

No. 18 USC 793(g) is the conspiracy charge. One of the elements of a conspiracy charge --- any conspiracy charge --- is one or more "overt acts" that demonstrate the accused was not merely associated with other members of the criminal group, but also actively participated in it. That's what the "any act" in your quote refers to --- those are the "overt acts". None are listed in this plea stipulation.

Here: a Ken White article that is almost entirely about how "overt acts" work in conspiracy charges, along with their historical purpose:

https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts...

boomboomsubban1y ago

So basically, the overt acts are evidence of the crimes he plead to, which again, was receiving and publishing classified documents. The violations of 793 a, b, and c mentioned in the plea, though you're right, those aren't overt acts.

I still don't see how the plea is about anything else. That if this charge went to trial they may have brought up his supposed violations of the CFAA as some kind of evidence of his conspiracy doesn't really change things.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstptacek1y ago0 comments

"Title 18" is almost the entire federal criminal code. Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...".

As I just said: the murder-for-hire scheme --- which I believe was in fact part of Ulbricht's sentencing --- was an "overt act" in Ulbricht's conspiracy charge.

0 comments

boomboomsubban1y ago

>Saying "a specific clause in title 18" is like saying "somewhere, in the entire US federal criminal code, it says...

I had referenced the specific clause, 793(g), in my previous post to you. It is also referenced in the plea. I didn't think I needed to do so again. I can quote the section

tptacekOP1y ago

Here: a Ken White article that is almost entirely about how "overt acts" work in conspiracy charges, along with their historical purpose:

https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts...

boomboomsubban1y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse