Talk:Lockyer v. Andrade

message: This case was before the Supreme Court at the same time the Winona Ryder Shoplifting Case was before the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Of course,  Winona's case made all of the papers and was big news and there was very little criticism of the ruling of The Supreme Court in the Andrade case ---because Winona had been found guilty of felonies and somewhat punished for her crimes against the people.          
I do not understand the stringent criteria for reviewing a case in The United States Supreme Court.  The 9th Circuit Court Decision did not ovetturn the California three-strikes sentencing scheme and only gave relief to Andrade because of the nature of the shoplifting offenses that were double counted and that resulted in "uniquely" cruel and unusual punishment of a human being,  a veteran of the Armed Services, I believe, and a United States Citizen,  who was a felon but not as violent felon.  Why did the Andrade  case meet the stringent criteria for review by The United States Supreme Court?          
Why did The Supreme Court agree to hear this case?   What was at stake for California.   Did the Civil Law and practice and the California Statutes and the other State Statutes for Civil Recovery for Shoplifting have any influence on California's decision to appeal the 9th Circuit's ruling to The United States Supreme Court?      
Why was the matter of the California Civil Recovery Statutes and Winona Ryder's  signed agreement to meet the Civil Demands of Saks Fifth Avenue before she was arrested not mentioned during the year-long publicity concerning her felony shoplifting arrest and trial by a jury in the Los Angeles Supreme Court.  Her agreement to pay the Saks 5th Avenue Civil Demands was suppressed in pretrial hearings but did she sign these demands without being read her rights?  Did she sign the Civil Recovery Demands and did the Los Angeles Police then arrest her based on her agreement to pay these demands?  Did she know this was going to happen?            
The DOD implemented policy in March of 2002 from a congressional amendment to treasury law to impose $200 on active duty troops for their offense of shoplifting or the offense of a sponsored dependent,  even a child as young as ten, while ticketing these same offenders on base traffic tickets for "stealing" and sending them to the Federal Magistrate Courts.   There was no codification of the congressional amendment by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Defense and the policy appears to have been implemented by a Press Release from the AAFES authorities that the $200 Civil Recovery Administrative Fee was a "debt" owned to the government retail stores under the terms of the congressional amendment to federal debt collection law. Under State Civil Recovery Laws for Shoplifting,  the States all advise that Civil Recovery is not a debt and therefore is not subject to the federal Debt Collection Protection laws.  The Federal government has no tort law for shoplifting and there is no standard for the debt of civil recovery in federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Shoplifting is the crime of larceny under federal law and the UCMJ.       
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the California Appeal in April of 2002,  a month after the implementation of the $200 Administrative Fee for Shoplifting on active duty troops for their own offense or the offense of a sponsored dependent.    
Did the reversal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2003 inadvertently protect the status quo of all of the case law made since the 1980's that treats apprehended shoplifting as a completed larceny and did this reversal also protect the mixed policy of Civil Recovery Demands under Civil Recovery Statutes by the retailers together with the Criminal Arrest and or Ticketing and Diverting or prosecution of shoplifting suspects for larceny shoplifting by the cities?        
If the Appeals Courts of Montana and Nebraska have ruled that suspects who have actually paid civil demands to retailers under the  State Statutes cannot then be prosecuted for larceny under the Criminal law because of "double jeopardy" concerns,  what does this mean in terms of the policy of the DOD where it is the government getting both the $200 Administrative Fee for the retail government store and another fine for the Federal Magistrate Courts?  What does this mean in terms of equal treatment under the laws and double jeopardy for some but not for others, etc.?  
CJKC -- 23 Jan 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lockyer v. Andrade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203015151/http://www.cjlf.org/pdf/Andrade.pdf to http://www.cjlf.org/pdf/Andrade.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified