Okay, I'm Prepared To Admit It....

[loCAtek]

Strawman, unless you can provide a quote.

You might have at least tried to be more current since I have commented on the Johannes Mehserle trial. Neither there did I use hyperbole, nor did I call him a murderer. Police work, I don't dramatize.

[Andrew D]

Dear loCAtek:

Please read the following definitions as many times as it takes for you to comprehend them.

From Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) at p. 555: A "felon" is a "[p]erson who commits or has committed a felony".

From Compact Oxford English Dictionary(3d ed. (rev.) 2008) at p. 366: A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony."

From Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934) at p. 931: A "felon" is a "person who has committed a felony."

Even you should be able to grasp that none of those definitions requires that one have been convicted of a felony in order to be a felon. Which makes perfect sense: A person who gets away with committing a felony is still a felon, even though he or she has never been convicted of the crime which he or she committed.

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with murder is not a murderer. (Murder is a felony, so anyone who gets away with murder gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with rape is not a rapist. (Rape is a felony, so anyone who gets away with rape gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with arson is not an arsonist. (Arson is a felony, so anyone who gets away with arson gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Contrary to your assertion -- which, like most of your assertions, is probably based either on sources which you did not bother to read or on nothing at all -- the law does not say that "one must be convicted to be called a felon." The law says that in order to be treated as a convicted felon, one must actually be a convicted felon. Yet another meaningful difference which has sailed over your mostly empty head.

And you have the gall to claim that you are "grant[ing]" me something?!?

Get a clue. When I magnanimously condescend to respond to the ignorant drivel you spew, it is because I hold out some hope that people who might otherwise be persuaded to adopt your point of view will instead be persuaded to adopt a rational, informed point of view.

I have no such hope for you.

(Edited to fix a tag; no substantive change.)

[loCAtek]

Very well AndrewD, I thought you'd stick to your principles of 'letter of the law' and/or proper grammar. However, since you haven't, I stand correct that you're a hypocrite.

BTW the charge of a commission of a felony is decided in court and not before, such as the Mehserle case which was brought down to non-felony involuntary manslaughter at trial. Therefore Mehserle is not a felon; he will not serve time as a felon, nor have his rights reduced to felon-status.

My ex is not a felon, although I know he committed felonious acts of violence on me, but he also got off on a misdemeanor charge. I accept that, since my circle of friends greatly disrespect the false libel of felon, almost as much as the insult of racial slurs. In fact, a real felon will not appreciate being called that, except circumspectly if it's referred to as 'having served time'. Here I thought from the prison thread that you had some compassion for the men who served time, instead you make yourself a hypocrite of that as well.

You're welcome for the education, but frankly I don't care what the likes of you thinks of me.

[Andrew D]

Number of dictionaries, legal and general, quoted by Andrew D which define a felon as a person who has committed a felony, regardless of whether that person has been convicted of a felony: 3.

Number of sources cited by loCAtek which define a felon only as a person who has been convicted of a felony: 0.

Andrew D's common-sense observation:

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with murder is not a murderer. (Murder is a felony, so anyone who gets away with murder gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with rape is not a rapist. (Rape is a felony, so anyone who gets away with rape gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

By your "reasoning," someone who gets away with arson is not an arsonist. (Arson is a felony, so anyone who gets away with arson gets away with a felony and is a felon.)

loCAtek's substantive reponse:

You're welcome for the education ....

I am grateful for the reminder that trying to teach someone who obstinately refuses to learn is a waste of energy.

The facts remain the facts: A felon is anyone who has committed a felony; having been convicted is unnecessary.

[Sean]

Worth pointing out I thought...

My ex is not a felon, although I know he committed felonious acts of violence on me...

How could one commit "felonious acts" yet not be a felon?

The mind boggles...

[Lord Jim]

On the other hand, if one is not convicted of a felony, whether or not one is a "felon" is a subjective judgment, based on that individuals reading of the law and facts....

Not a legal determination...

ie, a personal opinion...

And we all know what opinions are like....

Everybody's got one....

[Jarlaxle]

Worth pointing out I thought...

My ex is not a felon, although I know he committed felonious acts of violence on me...

How could one commit "felonious acts" yet not be a felon?

The mind boggles...

As Loca posted:

My ex is not a felon, although I know he committed felonious acts of violence on me, but he also got off on a misdemeanor charge.

[Sean]

While it is true that context is everything Jarl the addition only proves the point that he is not a convicted felon.

[Andrew D]

Whether one is a felon is always a subjective judgment.

Jurors subjectively decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a felony.

It's a factual determination which has legal consequences.

That is different from a true legal determination. A true legal determination takes the alleged facts as given and renders a legal conclusion.

A person is accused of having done X, Y, and Z. The person is charged with having violated statutes A, B, and C by having done X, Y, and Z.

The factual decision is whether the person actually did X, Y, and Z. The legal decision is whether, by doing X, Y, and Z, the person violated statutes A, B, and C.

That is why anyone is entitled to raise a purely legal question: Even if I did X, Y, and Z, I did not violate statutes A, B, and C.

The factual question is whether someone did what he or she is accused of. That question unavoidably involves subjective judgment -- the personal opinions which everyone knows what are like.

The legal question is whether, assuming that the accused did what he or she is accused of having done, doing that constituted a crime (or a tort or whatever). That question -- except in borderline cases where somone has to decide whether a hitherto unexamined set of facts constitutes a crime -- is not a matter of subjective judgment. It is a matter of objectively determining whether the act is or is not a crime (or a tort or whatever).

I know the difference from personal experience. Not experience as a lawyer; experience as the accused.

I was arrested for doing something which I believed was not a crime. It turned out that I was correct: The thing I had been arrested for doing was, in fact, perfectly legal and not a crime at all.

The subjective determination of whether I had done the thing for which I was arrested made no difference. Whether I had done it or not was irrelevant. What mattered was the objective determination that even if I had done it, it wasn't a crime.

And, as it turned out, even if I had done what I was accused of having done, it wasn't a crime. Which is probably why the prosecuting authority sent me a letter dropping the charge and essentially begging me not to come to court to fight it.

-------------------------

What Reagan did is a subjective determination. But there isn't really any serious doubt about it. All of us -- including his supporters -- know that he was aware of and even encouraged the use of funds available to U.S. agencies to fund the contras. As a supporter even more avid than Lord Jim of "Ronaldus Maximus" observes, Reagan's henchmen "were knowingly breaking the law (end justified the means sort of thing)".

Whether what Reagan did was illegal is an objective determination. The question is whether "funds available to ... any ... agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities [were] obligated or expended for the purpose or which [had] the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua".

And there isn't any serious doubt about that either. We all know that funds available to the U.S. agencies were used to fund the contras. And we all know that the law specifically prohibited "funds available to ... any ... agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities [to] be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua".

The facts remain the facts, much as right-wingers hate them. It was illegal for the government to use any funds available to any agency or entity of the U.S. to fund the contras. Reagan was aware of and encouraged his henchmens' use of funds available to (any agency or entity of) the U.S. to fund the contras.

The facts are the facts: Reagan knew that his henchmen were violating the law, and he encouraged them to violate the law. So much for his oath that he would "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (U.S. Const., Art. II, Secs. 1 and 3).

[loCAtek]

Felony Charges Explained as per Premiere Bail Bonds You will note the term 'felon' is not mentioned once*;

What happens when someone is charged with a felony?



A felony is a serious criminal charge, which is defined in terms of possible punishment. It is defined in the California Penal Code as "any crime that is punishable by death or by imprisonment in state prison." In most cases, a felony prosecution starts with an arrest. Written police reports are presented to the District Attorney's Office, which then decides what charges, if any, should be filed and whether those charges will be felonies or misdemeanors (which are less serious crimes punishable by no more than a year in county jail and/or a possible fine).

Felony charges may also be filed even though there has not been an arrest. For example, the police may conduct an investigation of a crime and identify a suspect. Rather than arresting that person, the police may instead present their investigation to the District Attorney, who may file charges with a court and get an arrest warrant. The District Attorney may also present evidence to the Grand Jury, which has the power to charge a person with a felony. Depending on the severity of the charges will determine the bail amount. Most people charged with a felony will be allowed to post a bail bond at most city and county jails and Police Departments.

The first step in the criminal court process is called an arraignment. Usually, this is the first time the defendant appears in court. He is informed of the charges, and is offered legal representation if he cannot afford to hire a private attorney. The defendant then enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. Most often, this is also the time when the defendant has his first contact with the Public Defender's Office.

The Deputy Public Defender who handles arraignments in that particular court will discuss the case briefly with the defendant. Ordinarily the Deputy Public Defender will then enter a plea of "not guilty" on behalf of the client. (If a case is particularly complex or unusual, a plea might not be entered at the first appearance, but might be entered at a later date in order to allow the Deputy Public Defender time to gather more information about the charges.) If a "not guilty" plea is entered at this first appearance, the case will then be scheduled for a preliminary hearing which is usually set no later than 10 court days after the arraignment.

The preliminary hearing is the court proceeding at which the District Attorney's Office must present enough evidence to convince a judge that there is reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed -- and that the accused is the person who committed the crime.

This hearing is not heard by a jury, and at this point in the criminal process, the prosecution's case does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The primary purpose of the preliminary hearing is to weed out charges that are obviously groundless. At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution may use police officers to present the statements of victims and witnesses to demonstrate to the judge that there is enough evidence to justify sending the case to a court for trial. The vast majority of defendants are "held to answer" after the preliminary hearing.

Understandably, this can be terribly frustrating for a client who wants to "fight" aggressively to win his case now, rather than later. Unfortunately, this is not always possible, nor wise. However, it is always important to remember that delay in a court case does not mean defeat. Effective and thorough legal defense takes time to prepare and that is always worth waiting for.

The case then moves to a trial court where the defendant is once again arraigned; however, this time a trial date is set. Generally speaking, the trial has to occur within 60 days from the date of this new arraignment, although felony cases frequently require more time so that the defense can conduct a complete, independent investigation, interview witnesses, consult with expert witnesses, and sift through all evidence presented by the District Attorney.

The defense attorney may also make various motions in order to get the case dismissed on legal grounds, such as a motion to get certain evidence thrown out of court because the police acted improperly when seizing this evidence, or a motion to dismiss because the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was not strong enough to warrant a trial. The defense might also make motions to force the District Attorney or the police to disclose other pieces of evidence which could prove that the client is not guilty of the charge.

While the case is ongoing, the defendant may decide he or she does not want to go to trial but wants to settle the matter. Just as often, a District Attorney might offer the defendant a case settlement, referred to as a "plea bargain," to plead guilty to a less serious charge or agree to ask for reduced incarceration time at sentencing.

Settlement may occur at any time, from the first court appearance at the initial arraignment up to, and even during, trial. Case settlement usually involves the defendant pleading "guilty" or "no contest" for an agreed sentence or to an agreed-upon charge.

Another kind of "settlement" can be possible in certain felony cases involving non-violent drug offenses. Individuals who have been charged with first-time drug offenses, as well as certain defendants who suffer from the disease of drug addiction may be eligible to attend classes or other rehabilitation programs. If they successfully complete all required programs, they can have their case dismissed in a process which is known as "Deferred Entry of Judgment" -- commonly referred to as DEJ or drug diversion. Still other defendants who commit non-violent drug possession offenses may be eligible for sentencing according to the Proposition 36, which generally favors long-term drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration. DEJ is available only upon a plea of "guilty," whereas Proposition 36 sentencing is available upon conviction -- whether a defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty after a trial.

An adult criminal defendant has the right to a trial by jury. This is where 12 jurors, who are called "the finders of fact," listen to all the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense and decide what is proved and what is not. The judge's job at a jury trial is to make sure that both the prosecution and the defense adhere to all the rules of evidence when presenting their case to the jury.

At trial, the prosecution must try to prove the client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All 12 jurors must agree in order to either convict or acquit. If the jury cannot agree, a "mistrial" will be declared by the court, and the case may be tried again before a different jury, it may be dismissed, or a case settlement may be agreed by the prosecution and the defense.

A defendant can also decide to have a judge hear the case, instead of a jury; this is called a "court trial." For this to happen, the prosecution must also agree. In a court trial, the prosecution still has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but this time, the judge is the "finder of fact" and must decide whether or not the defendant is guilty, while also making certain that both attorneys are abiding by all the rules of evidence.

If a defendant is found guilty, the judge will then impose a sentence. The possible range of sentence, which is set by various laws, may range from no jail and probation, to imprisonment in the state prison. Sentencing can be a very complex process, depending on the severity of the crime for which the defendant has just been convicted.

In the most serious of cases, referred to as special circumstance prosecutions, the defendant faces a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or even the death penalty. If a defendant has been convicted of such an offense, then there is a separate proceeding, called a penalty phase, at which both sides present evidence either in aggravation or mitigation of penalty. The jury determines the appropriate penalty. If the jury determines that the defendant should be executed, the judge still has the power to overrule that determination and to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, if the jury agrees that life imprisonment is the appropriate punishment, the judge does not have the power to impose the death penalty.
Defendants who have been convicted after a trial have the right to appeal their conviction. This process is started by the trial attorney who, upon request of the client, will file a notice of appeal in the trial court within 60 days of the imposition of sentence. A lawyer who specializes in appeals will then be appointed by the Court of Appeal to represent the defendant on appeal.

*'Felon' is not used in court, obviously because it influences the jury to believe the defendant is indeed guilty of a felony, by verbal association. Felon has other definitions that are technically accurate but no longer in common usage, such wicked person or traitor.

The point is this label does not legally apply to President Reagan because it is not in used in prosecution any longer to define a non-convicted possible perpetrator. It's come to the point that to do so could be a form of libel. Note: he was never charged with anything, that's a fact.

Stating that one's subjective opinion is the only valid subjective opinion is a Relativist Fallacy.

[loCAtek]

Worth pointing out I thought...

My ex is not a felon, although I know he committed felonious acts of violence on me...

How could one commit "felonious acts" yet not be a felon?

The mind boggles...

Felonious refers to that which could be charged as a felony. Investigation can reveal that is it a felony or a misdemeanor. Therefore, one can not be called a felon, without due process.

AndrewD commonly uses 'Slippery Slope' to confuse literary definitions, with lawful definitions.
However, Reagan, or anyone, can not be prosecuted by anything but lawful process.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Could we agree to use the terms:
"Accused of a felony"
and
"Convicted of a felony"

somone aquited could still go by the term "accused of a felony". Someone convicted would be called by the obvious.

[loCAtek]

Someone convicted would be called by the obvious.

Exactly, the old use of the word 'felon' harks back to the bad, old, days when the system assumed you were guilty until proven innocent.

[Andrew D]

As loCAtek herself wrote:

You could just try looking at a dictionary ....

Guess what?

From Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) at p. 555: A "felon" is a "[p]erson who commits or has committed a felony".

From Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. (rev.) 2008) at p. 366: A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony."

From Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934) at p. 931: A "felon" is a "person who has committed a felony."

From The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (American ed. 1996) at p. 534: A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony."

Notice the complete absence of any requirement that a person have been convicted of a felony to be a felon.

That is why courts routinely use the phrase "convicted felon"; it distinguishes those felons who have been convicted from those felons who have not been convicted.

A simple WestLaw search reveals that just during 2010, the phrase "convicted felon" has been used in 2096 judicial opinions by courts in the U.S. Moreover, when the issue arises (which is rarely) courts use the phrase "unconvicted felon" (or "unconvicted felons") to distinguish felons who have not been convicted from felons who have been convicted..*

So somebody is wrong. Either

(a) (i) A legal dictionary, (ii) three general dictionaries -- those four being the only dictionaries thus far cited in this thread on this question -- (iii) the courts all across America which have used the phrase "convicted felon" in more than two thousand opinions just this year, and (iv) the courts around the country which have used the phrase "unconvicted felon" are wrong

or

(b) loCAtek is wrong.

Others will have to draw their own conclusions.

Words have meanings, loCAtek's Humpty-Dumpty approach notwithstanding.

-------------------------

* See Commonwealth v. Wardrop, 72 Pa. D. & C.2d 151, 158 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1975); Dameron v. U.S., 488 F.2d 724, 727 n.5 (5th Cir. 1974); Blouin v. Dembitz, 489 F.2d 488, 491 n.6 (2d Cir. 1973); Miller v. Blalock, 411 F.2d 548, 549 (4th Cir. 1969); People v. Coffey, 161 Cal. 433, 438 (Cal. 1911).

[Joe Guy]

As loCAtek herself wrote:

You could just try looking at a dictionary ....

Guess what?

From Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979) at p. 555: A "felon" is a "[p]erson who commits or has committed a felony".

From Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. (rev.) 2008) at p. 366: A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony."

From Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934) at p. 931: A "felon" is a "person who has committed a felony."

From The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (American ed. 1996) at p. 534: A "felon" is "a person who has committed a felony."

Notice the complete absence of any requirement that a person have been convicted of a felony to be a felon.

I missed the part of the definition of 'felony' that indicates that a person is considered to be a felon before it is legally determined that the person has committed a felony.

It appears that you are claiming that a person is a felon based solely on the fact that he was accused of being one.

this argument is based on your definition of an act versus the legal definition of that act.

You and LoCAtek are arguing two separate ideas.

[Andrew D]

It appears that you are claiming that a person is a felon based solely on the fact that he was accused of being one.

That is not at all what I am saying.

A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Whether that person has ever been accused of committing a felony is irrelevant to whether that person is a felon, just as whether a person has ever been convicted of committing a felony is irrelevant to whether that person is a felon.

Consider, for example, a person who murders another person. The murderer successfully makes the death appear to have been accidental. So he or she is never convicted of murder (or any other form of criminal homicide). He or she is never even accused of murder. No one is accused of murder, because the relevant authorities are unaware that a murder has even occurred.

Isn't that person still a murderer?

Doesn't whether that person is a murderer depend entirely on whether that person committed murder, and not at all on whether he or she has been convicted or even accused of murder?

Murder is a felony. If someone who commits murder is a murderer, even if he or she has never been convicted or even accused of murder, then he or she is a felon, even if he or she has never been convicted or even accused of a felony.

A felon is a person who has committed a felony. If I have committed a felony, then I am a felon. If I have committed a felony and been accused but not convicted of that felony, then I am an accused but unconvicted felon. If I have committed a felony and been convicted of that felony, then I am a convicted felon. But even if I have never been convicted or accused of a felony, if I have committed a felony, then I am a felon.

And there is a flipside. If I am convicted of a felony which I did not actually commit, the law will call me a "convicted felon". But in reality, I will not be a "convicted felon," because I will not be a "felon" at all. I will be an innocent person wrongly convicted of a felony.

At bottom, it's about truth, not about process. A person who is innocent of a crime remains, in truth, innocent of that crime, even if he or she is convicted of having committed it. A person who is guilty of a crime remains, in truth, guilty of that crime, even if he or she is not convicted or even accused of having committed it.

And that's what loCAtek is having so much difficulty coming to grips with. A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Some felons are accused felons, because they have committed a felony and been accused of it. Some felons are convicted felons, because they have committed a felony and been convicted of it. But everyone who has committed a felony -- regardless of any accusations or convictions or the lack thereof -- is a felon, because a felon is a person who has committed a felony.

[Miles]

A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Some felons are accused felons, because they have committed a felony and been accused of it. Some felons are convicted felons, because they have committed a felony and been convicted of it. But everyone who has committed a felony -- regardless of any accusations or convictions or the lack thereof -- is a felon, because a felon is a person who has committed a felony.

This sounds pretty much like circular reasoning. In other words if I accuse someone of being a felon without proof that accuation alone is enough to make them a felon?

If on the other hand your saying that the truth of a matter makes the difference then ifa person committs a crime even though no one knows about it they are still a felon I would agree.

However, until it becomes public knowledge how are we to know.........

[Joe Guy]

It appears that you are claiming that a person is a felon based solely on the fact that he was accused of being one.

That is not at all what I am saying.

A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Whether that person has ever been accused of committing a felony is irrelevant to whether that person is a felon, just as whether a person has ever been convicted of committing a felony is irrelevant to whether that person is a felon.

Okay, I misunderstood what you meant as I had skimmed through all of the posts in this thread.

Can your disagreement with Loca be described as follows....?

You are stating that a felon is a felon once he commits the act, not when the court decides.

If I'm understanding correctly, LoCAtek is stating that a person needs to be convicted of felony in order to be considered to be a felon.

If that's the argument, then the truth should be easy to determine.

Andrew is saying that a person is a felon immediately when he commits an act that might eventually be determined to be a felony by court.

Andrew offers the idea that a person who commits murder or arson would not be considered a murderer or arsonist using Loca's reasoning.

I disagree with that analogy. Using Loca's argument (if I understand it correctly) someone who commits murder or arson would not be considered a FELON until convicted of felony murder or felony arson in a court of law.

Using the following definition from Webster would make me lean towards accepting LoCAtek's argument over Andrew's...

Felony : a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed.

[Andrew D]

This sounds pretty much like circular reasoning. In other words if I accuse someone of being a felon without proof that accuation alone is enough to make them a felon?

No. That's why I wrote: "Some felons are accused felons, because they have committed a felony and been accused of it."

If on the other hand your saying that the truth of a matter makes the difference then ifa person committs a crime even though no one knows about it they are still a felon I would agree.

That's part of it, but there's more. Sometimes a person commits a felony, the crime and the perpetrator are publicly known, but the person is never convicted of a felony. This happens fairly commonly in drug cases. The defendant enters into a plea bargain in which he or she admits the felony but reserves the right to challenge the constitutionality of the search which produced the damning evidence. (That usually means that the trial court has already held the evidence admissible, so what the defendant is reserving is the right to appeal that conclusion.) The appellate court holds the evidence inadmissible, and the prosecution cannot make its case without that evidence, so the defendant walks.

The defendant is still a felon: "a person who has committed a felony". But the person is not a convicted felon, because he or she was not convicted -- even though the person's guilt has been established by her or his own admission to having committed the felony.

It also happens in organized-crime cases. A low-level operative is granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against higher-ups. That testimony typically involves the low-level operative's admitting having committed various felonies on the orders of the higher-ups. Again, the low-level operative is still "a person who has committed a felony"; but although he or she is a felon, he or she is not a convicted felon.

It also happens in assisted-suicide cases. The accused admits having administered poison to her or his terminally ill spouse, but the prosecutor concludes that the jury will nullify the law and acquit the accused, so the prosecutor decides not to prosecute. Again, felon but not convicted felon.

Etc.

The law obviously does not treat unconvicted felons the way it treats convicted felons. At least as a general matter, the law treats unconvicted felons the same way that it treats people who have never committed any felonies at all.

But the fact that the law imposes sanctions only on convicted felons does not make unconvicted felons not felons. Indeed, if in order to be a felon, one had to have been convicted of a felony, then the phrase "convicted felon" would be entirely redundant, and the phrase "unconvicted felon" would be babbling nonsense.

And, of course, the law and reality do not always match. If I am convicted of a felony which I did not commit, the law will call me a convicted felon. But in reality, I am not a felon at all; I am an innocent person wrongly convicted of a felony.

[Lord Jim]

Whether one is a felon is always a subjective judgment.

Well, at least Andrew you've finally admitted (sort of) that an opinion you hold is subjective; normally in just about every instance, you insist that your opinions are all objective facts....universally accepted truths....This is a refreshing change; one hopes it might become a trend...

Whether what Reagan did was illegal is an objective determination. The question is whether "funds available to ... any ... agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities [were] obligated or expended for the purpose or which [had] the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua".

And there isn't any serious doubt about that either. We all know that funds available to the U.S. agencies were used to fund the contras. And we all know that the law specifically prohibited "funds available to ... any ... agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities [to] be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua".

I really don't have any interest in discussing this minor, insignificant, historical footnote known as "Iran Contra" which is only of interest to a tiny handful of obsessive die hard Reagan haters, but I will point out that John Poindexter testified under oath that knowledge of the transfer of funds to the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters went no higher than him and that Reagan was never told about it.

I know that you will say you believe Poindexter was lying about it, (actually you'll probably say that his lying about it is a known fact that everyone agrees with, since that's generally the sort of verbiage you employ when expressing a personal opinion)