Bricker. You are not being attacked in this threat for being a Conservative, you’re being attacked for doing your usual douchebag lawyer ‘put up the smokescreens to defend my side’ douchebaggery.
Oh, but what property was he holding for another?
I think it’s for survey purposes.
I appreciate where you’re coming from. The Aids-Lying, the Mafia money laundering, the child abuse, the long history of supporting murderous South American dicatatorships, the helping Nazi war criminals flee there in the first place. Everything has to scream to any vaguely educated Catholic that this is not an organisation in any way related to Jesus.
It is an evil organisation, filled with evil men, bent on evil. You cannot support it with your money or your devotion without being complicit.
If necessary, create a new church to claim the name and the lineage and be a vehicle for your good works. But do something or this collectively evil organisation will continue doing evil.
Think, ‘what would Jesus do?’ The Jesus of any of the four Gospels would come down on the Vatican so hard it’d make the Money Lenders in The Temple scene look like a Quaker Wedding.
I think the church needs to be relevant to the times and go with a rusty chainsaw up the butt.
So, even priests thought you were a repulsive little shit?
Perhaps an analogy would help brickshit comprehend his assholery.
It’s the days before televised replays were available to basketball officials. Acme College is hosting its arch-rival, Ajax College. One of the Acme players rebounds an Ajax shot and lobs it to a teammate racing down the court. While the referees are watching the play toward the Acme basket, underneath the Ajax basket, an Ajax player knees an Acme player in the groin. The Acme crowd goes wild, screaming at the Ajax player’s flagrant foul. In the stands, a nerdy little fan stands up to lecture the crowd: "Sorry, but there was no foul. The rulebook, section 2, subsection J, paragraph 3, subparagraph ii plainly states “A FOUL may be called or not called at the sole discretion of the referee(s) based on their observation alone.” “Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! It CAN’T be a foul because the referees didn’t observe it. I’m not defending the Ajax player, but it’s my job to fight ignorance among ignorant rubes like you.” This further incenses the crowd.
“Fuck off, you little four-eyed weasel. It was a foul and we all saw it.”
“No, you are incorrect and should not use that word “foul”. Can you not read the rulebook? Do the letters not make sense to you?”
“Jesus Christ, he kneed the guy in the balls! If that ain’t a foul, what is?”
“I can’t believe you are unable to understand the rulebook. It can’t possibly be a foul if the referee doesn’t see it. And by using the word “foul”, you are spreading ignorance and it is my life’s ambition to belittle anyone who doesn’t see every life situation through the wonders of legalese. Since the ref didn’t see it, it’s leeeeeeeeeeegal.”
“You stupid fuck! He kneed him in the fucking balls!”
“And you’re just upset because I’m an Ajax fan. You Acme fans just don’t think logically, do you? Here I am, trying to educate your ignorant lot and this is the thanks I get? I know that anything I do, short of becoming an Acme fan, is going to piss you off.”
“No, you dickshit. Even if you were an Acme fan, you’d STILL be an asshole.”
“You’re just jealous because I’m a smart lawyer. The rulebook is on my side, that’s all that matters. I’m awesome, I’m awesome, I’m awesome!”
At this point, someone grabs the little twerp and tosses him out of the balcony and gets a standing ovation.
Damn it. I came in here to heap scorn on a perv who let thinks it’s OK to rape boys but not OK to call out those rapists. What I find is a three page technical discussion on the many nuances of the the word “crime.” I’m going to have to parse the thread titles more carefully.
I agree it’s not a moderator-enforceable line, or I would have reported the post.
Forget it Jake. It’s Brickertown.
You’ve been brickrolled.
Excuse me, but I’m calling bullshit on the ‘some’ part. I’m betting this one goes back to pre-Revolution English common law. Of course you can be collared for knowingly helping to cover a criminal’s tracks.
You know what? This game of yours has gone on way too long. You could do the same thing for murder, for Pete’s sake. “What statute? What statute?” I could train a parrot to do Bricker.
Well, asshole, we know that killing someone deliberately is against the law. We don’t need a specific statute number from a specific state criminal code to know that for sure.
And the same thing is true when you know someone’s committed a crime, and you deliberately commit acts designed to make it harder for those crimes to come to light. It’s illegal. Aiding and abetting? Obstructing justice? Accessory after the fact? Fuck if I know. There’s a shitload of long-standing statutes that every state has, that make various aspects of aiding criminals criminal in themselves. This isn’t anything new; the waterfront was surely covered long ago. Pretty much the only recent addition is the creation, applicable to certain circumstances, of affirmative obligations to report possible crimes you’re aware of.
So take your bullshit act and stick it where the sun don’t shine. You claim to be fighting ignorance, but you’re actually just playing head games rather than adding to the community’s knowledge.
First, his name is not Jake, it is “shiftless”. Secondly, it’s not likely that he will completely “forget” it. Forget is defined in Merriam v. Webster as “to lose the remembrance of : be unable to think of or recall”, which, unless shiftless suffers from both short and long term memory loss, is very unlikely to occur. Third, what is the “it” that shiftless is supposed to forget? The crime? The parsing? Without a specific definition, you’re just wasting everyone’s time. Fourth, there is no such place named Brickertown in the US. You need to define which jurisdiction you’re referring to, because Brickertown, CA may have a different set of laws In Re forgetting, than Brickertown, PA or Brickertown, VA. Finally, are you sure it’s a town, and not a city, village, or borough, because then there are municipal codes to consider.
It could be a hamlet.
You’re clearly correct and any Catholic priests reading this should keep dickering their way through their ‘flock’. There can be no retribution while ‘Legal-Semantics Man’ still has one finger left to type with.
I figured there was a name for it.
And he’s never gonna give, never gonna give, never gonna give it up…
Actually, RICO was a very significant addition to this realm of inchoate offenses, and is relatively modern - 1970. I actually think it might be applicable to some of the Catholic sex scandals.
However, its very existence demonstartes that things like obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and similar charges aren’t always broad enough to include items that we may like them to.
No, that’s not always true. It depends on the jurisdiction, and what state of mind you have when you take whatever actions you take.
Look, ask Hamlet. He clearly hates my guts. He’s also a former prosecutor. He’s perfectly situated to answer this question accurately and without the slightest inclination to help me out.
So I guess the answer to this question
would be no.
Just to be clear, I don’t hate your guts. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.