The whole thing is obvious bullshit. But in legalese, it could be bad.
If he was acquitted of the charges, and the lawyer never had the conditions of bail stricken from the record, then technically it is a breach. Again, even if it's bullshit.
How do you know you're 200 meters away from something if you're not actually there for it, but across the street doing something else.
For those out there using imperial measurements, 200 meters is about 650 feet.
Even if the conditions aren't moot because he was acquitted, there's still no mens rea as IIRC he was something like 150-175m (500-575 ft) away so clearly he was trying to abide by the conditions. Normal people can't easily eyeball 200m and the cops were ordered not to give him any leeway and arrest him on the spot- which the judge should have thrown out on that basis too because that's clearly politicized policing.
So there's 2 other reasons the judge should have thrown this case out.
The way I read it he was out on bail when they accuse him of violating the conditions.
In the US, conditions are a common way they keep people in the system. They make conditions that are very difficult at least for some people to abide by (such as not taking drugs). Parole/probation is somehow for-profit so they try to keep people on it.
I don't know the %, but it's very common for people to be in jail on some kind of violation -- or even a failure to pay a "fine"/tax -- rather than the original charge. I met one guy who opted to spend 6 months in jail rather than pay the state of TX 50,000 dollars in reparations or whatever they call it (there was no victim -- it was a weed concentrate charge). For him, that was the most reasonable way to discharge 50k.
The whole thing is obvious bullshit. But in legalese, it could be bad.
If he was acquitted of the charges, and the lawyer never had the conditions of bail stricken from the record, then technically it is a breach. Again, even if it's bullshit.
How do you know you're 200 meters away from something if you're not actually there for it, but across the street doing something else.
For those out there using imperial measurements, 200 meters is about 650 feet.
That's a lot of bananas.
Especially for a Republic...
I shopped there before.
You got a hat and a vote in their parliament
Even if the conditions aren't moot because he was acquitted, there's still no mens rea as IIRC he was something like 150-175m (500-575 ft) away so clearly he was trying to abide by the conditions. Normal people can't easily eyeball 200m and the cops were ordered not to give him any leeway and arrest him on the spot- which the judge should have thrown out on that basis too because that's clearly politicized policing.
So there's 2 other reasons the judge should have thrown this case out.
Exactly. It should not have been allowed to get as far as it did in the courts.
It only has because feelings were hurt for the correct people.
The way I read it he was out on bail when they accuse him of violating the conditions.
In the US, conditions are a common way they keep people in the system. They make conditions that are very difficult at least for some people to abide by (such as not taking drugs). Parole/probation is somehow for-profit so they try to keep people on it.
I don't know the %, but it's very common for people to be in jail on some kind of violation -- or even a failure to pay a "fine"/tax -- rather than the original charge. I met one guy who opted to spend 6 months in jail rather than pay the state of TX 50,000 dollars in reparations or whatever they call it (there was no victim -- it was a weed concentrate charge). For him, that was the most reasonable way to discharge 50k.