If there is a general feeling of consensus that my reply was a “sham,” I will be happy to explain further. I believe I have explained it clearly, and that you’re about the only person that is reading my response and concluding “sham.”
You read that one parenthetical remark and saw a jingoistic, smug dismissal of Mexico’s sovereignty, all because he said “may have violated Mexican law” instead of “may have committed serious offenses under Mexican law”? That’s one heck of an inkblot.
If I may be so bold as to address something other than the highjack, I was puzzled by this in the report:
If he’d already been sentenced to life, why was capital punishment an issue? Wasn’t the sentence res judicata at this point?
He could have asked for a new trial, and in fact, his original extradition was denied because none was automatically available. But the death penalty argument still seems like a red herring. The death penalty wasn’t even available in PA when he committed his crime.
Well, my objection has ramified. Had Bricker not posted his middle paragraph in his post #14, I wouldn’t have posted again in this thread. I had said my piece about the little part of a fine Staff Report I found jarring and would have moved on.
As I’ve previously said, I’ve come to approach Bricker’s posts with some degree of suspicion. And I’m sensitive about what I see as “winking at vigilantism”, particularly from posters who are more than mere members here.
I don’t think I’m the one dragging this out. I am just being persistent in trying to get a straight answer. And here we go again with another carefully crafted post that sounds like an answer but isn’t:
This is a non-denial denial. I again note that you haven’t attempted to rebut - or even baldly deny - my claim that your response was a sham.
MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS IT IS A SHAM.
MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM.
I trust that is a sufficient denial denial for you.
Yes, I’ll take you at your explicit word. I hope your allcaps improves as time goes by as well.
If you would like to know about the absurdities of English Law, you could get Uncommon Law and More Uncommon Law by A P Herbert.
They may be a bit old now but still very funny and worth looking at.
Another case about American bounty hunters running afoul of Mexican law: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/03/bounty.hunters.ap/index.html
I would suggest immediate ingluviotomy.