I meant first exception. He can’t mount a defense that denies what he swore to in the factual basis

I don’t know. Doubt it. It differs from district to district but Judges don’t make a habit of rejecting 11(c)(1)(c) deals and as a prosecutor, you should never count on it.

Also, it definitely wouldn’t be 408. It’d be 410 if anything

They basically have one choice now. He has to plead guilty to a plea agreement agreeing with the calculated sentencing guidelines and just an agreement that the parties can argue it higher or lower. And then just say sorry I’m a horrible person 1000 times in a sentencing brief and at the hearing.

PSR apparently identified up to 16 possible women

He admitted to a 7 page factual basis laying out in extreme detail how he drugged a bunch of women before raping them. He cannot contradict any of that if he goes to trial.

No. See my other post on it

You would think so, but no. Read the second exception. That guilty plea was given under oath and as part of the guilty plea, he affirmed the veracity of the factual basis.

This is an incorrect statement of law.

Here’s the rub. As part of his plea of guilty, there was a factual basis that he already agreed to, that probably says something like “Defendant drugged and sexually assaulted 9 women.” He can withdraw his guilty plea but he’s stuck with that factual basis since it is essentially as if he swore under oath that the…

Diving is out of control

Not to be pedantic, but I think it’s Lori Mattix. May want to change it, if nothing else for SEO

Also, to be clear, there are no real health risks associated with flying while pregnant. The only “risk” is that you will give birth mid-flight, and not because flying induces the birth (though flying can be stressful).

Noble or not, I’m pretty sure the turning point was not that his value had cratered (because it clearly hadn’t - dude’s not in jail) but because he refused to go to rehab.

I always remembered his answer regarding his wife made it pretty clear that she got the drugs, but it was her thing, not his.

A well programmed brute force attack should probably do all “obvious” passcodes first before going into others. And that’s the point - if you think 0123456789 is a good passcode because it’s 10 digits, you are out of your mind. Hackers are not that stupid.

I’m not sure how you are screwing up 10^5=100,000

So an IP box tries all 5 digit combinations first, then moves on to all 6 digit combinations? So your passcode could be 0123456789 and an IP box would never get there?

You guys are all missing the point. If there is an unknown number of digits, then people won’t even try. The point is to get past 4 so they don’t know the number of digits.

Only if you have Siri set to operate in the lock screen.