While this posting is from last year, I am stunned at the incorrect information contained herein.

Ex post facto laws have nothing to do with cases like this. Ex post facto laws generally deal with a defendant being charged with a crime that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed. And, when new laws are passed making a particular action a crime, it is unlawful to come back to the defendant after his trial and add more charges against him for something that wasn't a crime at the time his actions were committed.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. What does that have to do with the fact he violated the terms of his plea bargain and a warrant was issued for that violation?

He isn't being arrested for charges he pled down, a case that had been settled out of court. The TERMS of this type of plea are that if he violates the agreement, the original charges are brought against him. HE violated the terms of the agreement and the warrant is for doing so---and in turn, he faces the original charges---NOT because the courts changed their mind, or added information/charges to him, but because the POSTER changed the terms of the agreement by failing to keep his end of the plea.

There is no 'super lateness'---the warrant is as a result of HIS actions AFTER the case was settled. Also, an attorney cannot ask for a warrant to be 'set aside', especially when it is for contempt ( failure to follow a court order). Also, the defendant is going to have a hard time proving extenuating circumstances ( job loss, 'I'm doing the best I can, Judge") when he admits he "didn't take care of ANY of it"--which demonstrates to the court a frivolous view of what he has done--hence, the resulting charges.


Nice (albeit incorrect) usage of Latin words and misapplication of the law, though, dude.