How do you define meaning of legal words?

What is the name of your state? Idaho

What does this mean? (1992)

The Convening Authority will undertake that: 1. No confinement in excess of three years will be approved.


So what is confinement? (From Black’s Law Dictionary sixth edition)

Confinement:
State of being confined; shut in; imprisoned; detention in a penal institution. Confinement may be by either a moral or physical restraint, by threats of violence with a present force, or by physical restraint of a person.

Imprison:
To put in prison; to put in a place of confinement. To confine a person, or restrain his liberty, in any way.

Restrain:
To limit, confine, abridge, narrow down, restrict, obstruct, impede, hinder, stay, destroy. To prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon; to restrict; to hold or press back. To keep in check; to hold back from acting, proceeding, or advancing, either by physical or moral force, or by interposing obstacle; to repress or suppress; to curb. N.L.R.B. v Exchange Parts Co., C.A.5, 304 F.2d 368. 374. To restrict a person’s movements in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty. People v. Daniels, 71 C.2d 1119, 80 Cal.Rptr. 897,909,459 P.2d 225.

The question is, if an agreement was made and is legally binding, would it breach the agreement if a compulsion to do something were put on you after a 3 year sentence was completed?

Thanks for any infomation.

fairfight said:

What is the name of your state? Idaho

What does this mean? (1992)

The Convening Authority will undertake that: 1. No confinement in excess of three years will be approved.


So what is confinement? (From Black’s Law Dictionary sixth edition)

Confinement:
State of being confined; shut in; imprisoned; detention in a penal institution. Confinement may be by either a moral or physical restraint, by threats of violence with a present force, or by physical restraint of a person.

Imprison:
To put in prison; to put in a place of confinement. To confine a person, or restrain his liberty, in any way.

Restrain:
To limit, confine, abridge, narrow down, restrict, obstruct, impede, hinder, stay, destroy. To prohibit from action; to put compulsion upon; to restrict; to hold or press back. To keep in check; to hold back from acting, proceeding, or advancing, either by physical or moral force, or by interposing obstacle; to repress or suppress; to curb. N.L.R.B. v Exchange Parts Co., C.A.5, 304 F.2d 368. 374. To restrict a person’s movements in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty. People v. Daniels, 71 C.2d 1119, 80 Cal.Rptr. 897,909,459 P.2d 225.

The question is, if an agreement was made and is legally binding, would it breach the agreement if a compulsion to do something were put on you after a 3 year sentence was completed?

Thanks for any infomation.

Click to expand...

The problem with people TRYING to sound intelligent is that it never works.

So, what is the REAL question?

If the US government is bound to keep a pretrial agreement that stated that no confinement would be approved over three years, and the person completed a three years sentence and was released with no other obligations to the agreement. Would the agreement be breached if the government then required a registration 5 years later? Or to put it another way, put compulsion upon.

If you are talking about mandatory sex-offender registration, then the simple answer is "no, it does not violate your plea agreement nor is it unconstitutional, etc." The courts have generally answered the question (though there are always complications coming up). As long as registration is modeled as a civil "non-punitive" measure it is not considered a part of a sentence or an 'ex posto facto' punishment, etc. etc.

On another front, if you were in a military court then your agreement/sentence was with the federal government. The odds are that laws requiring registration are from a state. The state didn't have any agreement with you at any rate, even *if* the federal government agreed not to do something. This, for example, is how people who are told "this is not a felony conviction" in the military might still find themselves treated as if they had a felony conviction by a state government.

05 July 06

A: Elegantly!

See other current post by fairfight: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=327242

Betty: don't place referring links to both posts. It makes people think there might be a third post lingering around out there.

badapple40 said:

Betty: don't place referring links to both posts. It makes people think there might be a third post lingering around out there.

Click to expand...

Ok, but why would they think that? I gave the thread #'s (2 threads).

As long as registration is modeled as a civil "non-punitive" measure it is not considered a part of a sentence or an 'ex posto facto' punishment, etc. etc.

Fozzy2

I have heard this, and am aware of the 2003 ruling from the Supreme Court,
But my argument is that there was no requirement in the states when the agreement was made in 1992. I was told I would be free after the time in confinement if I agreed to the pretrial agreement.

Almost 5 years after release from confinement I was forced to comply with this registration or be arrested, and charged with a felony. (Non-punitive?) Where is the freedom promised?

I know one can generally ask for release from the requirement after 10 years, but this requires the services of a lawyer and cost about 10,000 dollars I’m told. Money I don’t have.

The State was able to make this requirement because the Air Force sent them information. Information they did not have. This action in my opinion breached the agreement the Air Force had with me because it forced a mandatory compulsion upon me, which I believe is a confinement.

The states may not be required to uphold anything, but the Air Force was, and broke their trust and obligation.

I know they were following one law or another, but to gain a confession of guilt by a promise, and not keep that promise really voids the promise. It’s like a bait and switch.

One concept I find hard to understand is if an agreement binds the United States, how is it the member states do not have to comply with it but can make their additions to it?

I know the answer is because it is civil law not criminal law but that really doesn’t make it right in any event.

Thanks for the reply, this is a good place to learn a thing or two.

fairfight 07 JULY 06

07 JULY 2006

Fairfight, here is a suggestion which may or may not help. Look at our Uinted States Code under 10 U.S.C. § 869 which is Art. 69 This may be an avenue to explore for you and you can do own your own; or seek out an Attorney who specializes in Military Justice! Again, this is only my suggestion! See what others' here may say about it! Shorty