Johnny1 said:
Supposedly a no contest plea (aka "nolo contendere") can assist a defendant when the circumstances would lead not only to criminal charges but to a civil suit afterward. By the defendant's not admitting guilt, the plaintiff would not be able to ride on that admission's coattails and would have to prove up his/her civil case in order to win. But I don't know if it works that way in practice.
That's pretty much the sum of it.
The civil case would be won immediately with a guilty plea/verdict, but a no-contest plea would force the civil prosecutor to prove the case beyond that reasonable doubt thing.
A no-contest plea wouldn't do me any good - as there is no allegation of harm/injury/loss by which a civil case could be filed (no party with standing).
It's funny that a criminal case has lower standards for filing and prosecuting than a civil case.
I still don't believe that's quite right.
My attorney has been going back and forth with me.
There are a couple things I want changed - and he's telling me that isn't up to me - or him... The prosecutor can permit the changes, or deny them, and the 5PM deadline tomorrow stands, requests granted, acknowledged, or not.
I hate being handicapped by a middleman.
It's driving me nuts.
> >> There is no such thing as a demurer in federal court. If you don't sign
> >> the plea agreement the only way for you to preserve your right to challenge
> >> the statute is to go to trial -- which would cost you your acceptance of
> >> responsibility credit and result in substantially more prison time.
> >>
> >> This conditional plea is what you said you wanted. I'm not sure what it is
> >> that is causing you to change your mind. This allows you to challenge the
> >> legality and constitutionality of the statute without going to trial. It is
> >> the only way to do that. You are expressly asserting that you believe the
> >> statute is illegal. By retaining your right to appeal the conviction.
> >>
> > I will not be arguing jury nullification. I'm confused by your desire today
> > to have a jury trial. You previously repeatedly told me you don't want a
> > trial. I can't tell you how much prison time it will cost you to go to
> > trial, but it will not be insubstantial. What I can tell you is that the
> > plea deal gives you what you said you wanted -- the ability to argue the law
> > is unconstitutional.
> You're right.
> I'm just not being reasonable today.
> I'll blame it on stress/nerves.
>
> Let me read through it again.
> I really don't like the statement they have me making/signing. I'd want to
> reword it, if that's possible... not to change the underlying meaning, but
> change the tone a little.
>
> I'm also not 100% comfortable with the waiver of collateral attack. If the
> only thing I can appeal is the dismissal of the indictment, that may not be
> sufficient - as it doesn't argue directly to the laws themselves, only the
> creation of the indictment.
> I'm afraid the appellate court will read that too narrowly precluding any
> substantive motion for appeal.
> I'd like that section expanded a bit - to include any issues raised in my
> motion and responses... not just "to dismiss the indictment"
>
> I also don't like the waiver of any post-conviction attacks on the sentence;
> presuming that the laws are overturned in the future (and I fail in my
> attempt), I don't want that ability to be waived.
>
> Are these small changes possible? The post-conviction attack can be
> stipulated to be predicated by drastic changes in the laws or sentencing
> structures - not just removed completely.
I understand.
Most of the language is standard for the US Attorney's Office. Although the office changes the standard language from time to time (and that happens with the appeal/collateral attack waivers), for most of the terms we do not get to change the language. I can request changes, but if the prosecutor says no, we still have our deadline of 5 pm tomorow.
I don't think it's anything unreasonable. It's supposed to be an agreement... not a, "Sign this or else..."
As for a proposed statement I'd be willing to sign;
I have read this Agreement carefully and in its entirety. I
have had enough time to consider it. I have thoroughly discussed
every part of it with my attorney. I understand and hereby
accept all of the terms of this Agreement.
No promises, inducements, or representations of any kind
have been made to me other than those contained in this
Agreement. No one has threatened or forced me in any way to
enter into this Agreement.
I am agreeing to accept a guilty plea because
I do not contend any of the allegations in the indictment,
not for any other reason.
I have had enough time to talk with my attorney about the
evidence against me. My attorney has advised me of my rights, of
possible defenses, of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, and
of the consequences of entering into this Agreement. I am
satisfied with my attorney's representation of me in this case.
I understand the consequences of pleading guilty. Among
other things, I understand that, if I plead guilty in Court in
accordance with this Agreement, there will be no trial, the
government will be relieved of its burden of proving the facts of this case,
and there will be nothing left for the Court to do but sentence
me. There will be no trial because I will be convicted based on
my own admission of my actions.
It is my understanding that federal prisons are more comfortable, with more amenities than state prisons, due to the fact that they receive more funding (and more scrutiny in the form of internal and external audits). It's still going to suck, I'm sure, if you are indeed facing time. 
