Question for Beryl_Mooncalf

The BBQ Pit
1

In this thread, I asked Beryl_mooncalf a question which he or she dodged and ultimately refused to answer, suggesting that it was a hijack.

Which, I’m prepared to concede, it was, although tangentially relevant to the OP. But, given Beryl_Mooncalf’s admirable fidelity to strict thread subject-sticking, as it were, I am happy to pose the question again here.

As a matter of criminal law, Beryl_Mooncalf, please discuss the appropriate analysis and relevant case law, if any, for the following situation:

I, the legislature, create two crimes: mopery and dopery.

My law reads as follows:

A person is guilty of mopery when, from the hours of 10 PM to 6 AM, creeps in a furtive manner on a public street, wearing substantially dark clothing.

A person is guilty of dopery when he creeps in a furtive manner on a public street, wearing substantially dark clothing.

You are indicted for mopery, tried, and acquitted. You are then re-indicted, based on the same act, for dopery.

  • Rick

I would appreciate it if Beryl_Mooncalf, and no one else, takes a stab at this first.

2

Ooooo! Oooooooo! Mista Kotta!! Mista Kotta!!

3

Put your hand down, Horshack.

4

Thank god for commas.

5

Oh my ghod, thank you for that, Otto. Best laugh I’ve had in a while.

6

Bricker, please provide sufficient facts to allow attention to the individual elements of the offenses provided. Specifically,

  1. What were the facts of the first case?
  2. What were the ground for the acquittal?
  3. What are the facts of the second, specifically, time and location?
  4. Provide the identity of the entity prosecuting in each instant, and whether they are
    independent sovereigns?
    A very weak hypo looking for application or exception to Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. One that could probably be answered by a google of “double jeopardy” or “5th amendment”.

But because you enjoy these games so much, Bricker, here is a more realistic question for you. I’ll entertain motions for extension of time now.

A jurisdiction has codified the common law Rule Against Perpetuities as part of its probate code. It also allows for a single, irrevocable, Living Trust that can provide for the future grandchildren’s education. A party creates such a trust, providing that when any of his three children have issue, the trust will deposit into an interest bearing account, money from the rent of his family’s farm lands (which he has never seen), sufficient to cover the cost of that grandchild’s education. Several children are born, and several education accounts are funded.

The parties end up filing for a divorce. The wife objects to the trust, which she states she never fully understood. She sues, seeking a equitable division of community property assets and claiming a share of all rents, issues, and profits acquired during the course of the marriage.

Discuss
A. The survivability of the trust after the death of the grandfather.
B. The probable ruling of the court with respect to funds already deposited in the education accounts.
C. The argument of one of the children that they are trying to start a family and as of yet have been unsuccessful, but should be any month now, and that they should have such an education account set for their child.
D. The case presented by the wife regarding her ignorance of the trust provisions.
E. The probable results of the divorce in a community property jurisdiction.
F. The probable results of the divorce in a non-community property jurisdiction.
G. List all issues before arguing them.

7

Bricker, please provide sufficient facts to allow attention to the individual elements of the offenses provided. Specifically,

  1. What were the facts of the first case?
  2. What were the ground for the acquittal?
  3. What are the facts of the second, specifically, time and location?
  4. Provide the identity of the entity prosecuting in each instant, and whether they are
    independent sovereigns?
    A very weak hypo looking for application or exception to Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. One that could probably be answered by a google of “double jeopardy” or “5th amendment”.

But because you enjoy these games so much, Bricker, here is a more realistic question for you. I’ll entertain motions for extension of time now.

A jurisdiction has codified the common law Rule Against Perpetuities as part of its probate code. It also allows for a single, irrevocable, Living Trust that can provide for the future grandchildren’s education. A party creates such a trust, providing that when any of his three children have issue, the trust will deposit into an interest bearing account, money from the rent of his family’s farm lands (which he has never seen), sufficient to cover the cost of that grandchild’s education. Several children are born, and several education accounts are funded.

The parties end up filing for a divorce. The wife objects to the trust, which she states she never fully understood. She sues, seeking a equitable division of community property assets and claiming a share of all rents, issues, and profits acquired during the course of the marriage.

Discuss
A. The survivability of the trust after the death of the grandfather.
B. The probable ruling of the court with respect to funds already deposited in the education accounts.
C. The argument of one of the children that they are trying to start a family and as of yet have been unsuccessful, but should be any month now, and that they should have such an education account set for their child.
D. The case presented by the wife regarding her ignorance of the trust provisions.
E. The probable results of the divorce in a community property jurisdiction.
F. The probable results of the divorce in a non-community property jurisdiction.
G. List all issues before arguing them.

8

Damn, that’s nice typesetting.

(I have nothing else to add. It’s nice typesetting, though.)

9

Wow, a can’t find server error, and a double post when I return.
One for home, and one for the office.

10

OK - Beryl_Mooncalf seems to think additional information is necessary before answering my question.

I’ll now open this up to anyone else who would like to answer.

11

Oh! My! G-d!

Way to dodge the question and (attempt to) avoid having to show what a complete moron you are, Beryl. What the hell is the point of that stupid exercise above? You make my brain want to explode. If you’re really an attorney, please tell me the city you “practice” law in so that I might avoid ever hiring you at all costs.

12

I must have missed your response Bricker. BTW, it is material covered in the second semester of the 1st year of law school.

Oh, here is the answer to your question.
I figured the answer would be a google hit, but I didn’t figure it would be a single hit.
ANSWER_HERE

13

I mean, I feel like Beryl just whipped his dick out and said, “Oh yeah?! Well mine’s bigger than yours is, so THERE!”

14

Shayna

The stupid exercise above is to weed out those who could never afford me anyway. Have a nice life.

15

HA HA HA HA HA!

<snort!>

::wipes tears of laughter away::

You really do have delusions of grandeur, don’t you?

You could only dream of having 1/10th as nice a life as I have.

Good luck. You’re gonna need it.

16

Your question to me is extremely extensive. My question to you is answerable in about three sentences.

The principle of a lesser-included offense is something you encounter every week in criminal practice, and the seminal case is so often quoted that anyone practicing criminal law will instantly know it - just as Batson is to racial discrimination in jury selections or Strickland is to ineffective assistance.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of competition, and enforced home confinement in the wake of Isabelle, I’ll hammer out an answer for you. Take me back fifteen or sixteen years. At least you didn’t trot out the Fertile Octagenarian, at least directly.

17

I don’t see how a person could be convicted of “dopery” in a second trial when in the first case, he is not convicted of the less-inclusive crime of “mopery”. Period. If the law is THAT haphazard, I want no part of it.

18

Oh god, don’t forget the unborn widow and the slothful executor. A RAP question? You have got to be kidding. Bwahahahah…excuse me while I delve into my Horn book. Right.

You can’t seriously have been practicing law since '77. I don’t buy it.

Bricker don’t waste your time with this guy.

19

Rhum Runner

Too much for you too? You related to the hypochondriac Shayna

20

Whoo. I’ve never been in active legal practice and I could have given a better answer than Beryl’s.

I agree, don’t waste your time, Bricker. Your chain is being yanked.