3 ms·

So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? Sounds like trumped up bullsh

So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? Sounds like trumped up bullshit, actually. According to Wikipedia, this guy was also pursued by the State of New York after being released from jail (since he did nothing wrong) on the same conduct and lost his double jeopardy appeal because a State judge claimed New York was a sovereign entity from the US Federal government and so his constitutional right to not be tried multiple times for the same behavior does not exist. The State of New York also ultimately lost by failing to show actual violation of claimed statute.

rayiner 11y ago
> So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? Goldman was performing commerce: trading securities and commodities. And the software in question was used to perform that commerce. Before it was amended, 18 USC 1832 applied to a "product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce." The issue was what "produced for" meant. Was it enough that the product be "produced for" the purpose of effecting commerce, which the software was, or did the product itself need to be sold in commerce?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Which commerce did the code effect?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Trading securities and commodities.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      So, the court just disagreed?
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        The court distinguished between a product that does commerce and a product for commerce.
        gcb0 11y ago
        which is the one the law at time meant? ... whatever the lobbyist wanted?
rhino369 11y ago
>So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? No, the distinction was that it was a service they used in commerce when the law only said "product." Now the law was amended to say product or service in interstate commerce. >and so his constitutional right to not be tried multiple times for the same behavior does not exist. Double Jeopardy only applies to to the same sovereign entity. If you do something that breaks federal and state law, that is on you. That is how it has always been, it wasn't surprising that the court didn't agree with double jeopardy.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

> So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? Goldman was performing commerce: trading securities and commodities. And the software in question was used to perform that commerce. Before it was amended, 18 USC 1832 applied to a "product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce." The issue was what "produced for" meant. Was it enough that the product be "produced for" the purpose of effecting commerce, which the software was, or did the product itself need to be sold in commerce?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Which commerce did the code effect?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Trading securities and commodities.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    So, the court just disagreed?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      The court distinguished between a product that does commerce and a product for commerce.
      - gcb0 11y ago
        which is the one the law at time meant? ... whatever the lobbyist wanted?

rhino369 11y ago

>So Goldman got Federal prosecutors to prosecute a person for violations of commerce law where Goldman was performing no commerce? No, the distinction was that it was a service they used in commerce when the law only said "product." Now the law was amended to say product or service in interstate commerce. >and so his constitutional right to not be tried multiple times for the same behavior does not exist. Double Jeopardy only applies to to the same sovereign entity. If you do something that breaks federal and state law, that is on you. That is how it has always been, it wasn't surprising that the court didn't agree with double jeopardy.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]