katydid23
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 67,701
- Reaction score
- 237,198
Yes I'm sure.
As the article you cited states, it was SA who went to court (not the state), but it centered on what the state CAN do, if they wish, and the court bailed. The court gave the instruction that the state's path was to charge him with whatever crime and then they could all argue/adjudicate in that context whether there was a valid immunity agreement or not. And the state said they would do that, and it was about to happen right now, in a few, imminent, and so on - except they did nothing whatsoever.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether they took action and had intent to void his agreement. It looks to me like they argued for just that in court---which is action and intent---but no ruling was given, and there was a stalemate.
I will agree, that after the non-action of the court, they had not yet taken it up again. But they had already made it clear and public that they wanted to void the immunity deal.