# Question for Beryl\_Mooncalf **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 17, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140 "2003-09-17T14:42:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/161 "2003-09-23T16:23:51Z")
Bricker - I wanna be YOU when I grow up. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/162 "2003-09-23T16:29:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beryl\_Mooncalf \* > \*\* > Cite your “hesheism” please, U.S. Code preferred. > Thanks for trying. BTW, how would you defend a topless female cited in the company of males, who were not cited at the same beach party, yet all were topless? If laws applied evenly he and she because bricker can’t tell the difference.? T > > \*\* In point of fact, it is entirely legal for a woman to walk around topless in New York City, because of that simple fact. There was an amusing case about that a year or so back, something about a glass bus. ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/163 "2003-09-23T16:30:44Z")
Hamlet tries real hard with > [@](#): > > But you asked for a cite, US CODE preferred, so I went out and got the funniest one I could: > > 16 USCA § 773g go home now, you are far too young to be out alone. quoting from 16USCA 773 g, posted by Hamlet the funniest, albeit totally unrelated, f) ‘‘Fishing vessel’’ means - (1) any vessel engaged in catching fish in Convention waters or in processing or transporting fish loaded in Convention waters; (2) any vessel outfitted to engage in any activity described in paragraph (1); or (3) any vessel in normal support of any vessel described in paragraph (1) or (2). (g) ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Commerce. Jesus bricker, can’t you find competent help to hire. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/164 "2003-09-23T16:33:22Z")
\*We replaced this first-year law student’s regular coffee with LSD. Let’s see if she notices!\* Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/165 "2003-09-23T16:36:17Z")
E-Sabbath. “In point of fact, it is entirely legal for a woman to walk around topless in New York City” Damn, I’m jealous. ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/166 "2003-09-23T16:41:51Z")
Niblet Bricker - I wanna be YOU when I grow up. “Practice taking in great quantities of air when you breath, that way it will be easier to get the wind bag certification you’ll need. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/167 "2003-09-23T16:45:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beryl\_Mooncalf \* > 2 elements are present in “creeps in a furtive manner” both elements must exist, and therefore, be identified independently. > What is “creeps” Doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > Want is “furtive” Doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > C)Was there a “creeping”? Doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > D)Was it “Furtive” in manner? Doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because that’s not the question being asked. See if you can follow this clearly. The question is **not** asking about an interpretation of the facts of the case. The points you raise are important ones but they’d be asked to the jury, not here. Why not here? Because the ultimate question Bricker has been asking for the last now four pages is: should this question even come before a jury? Is it permissible to do so. Whether he was creeping or sauntering or ambling or walking on the bodies of decomposing aardvarks makes not a bit of difference to the question being asked. Also, if you haven’t seen it, may I humbly link you [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=212882) Ender, KU law class of 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/168 "2003-09-23T16:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beryl\_Mooncalf \* > \*\*Hamlet tries real hard with > > go home now, you are far too young to be out alone. > > quoting from 16USCA 773 g, posted by Hamlet > the funniest, albeit totally unrelated, > > f) ‘‘Fishing vessel’’ means - (1) any vessel engaged in catching fish in Convention waters or in processing or transporting fish loaded in Convention waters; (2) any vessel outfitted to engage in any activity described in paragraph (1); or (3) any vessel in normal support of any vessel described in paragraph (1) or (2). > (g) ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Commerce. > > Jesus bricker, can’t you find competent help to hire. \*\* [Here](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode16&STEMMER=en&WORDS=commit+offens+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/16/773g.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match) is 773g, asshole. What you quoted is 773, which can be found [here](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode16&STEMMER=en&WORDS=secretari+definit+773+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/16/773.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match). Not that I’m surprised that you fucked that up too. Asshat. ---
**Author:** ![Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9f8e36/32.png) [@Beryl\_Mooncalf\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beryl_Mooncalf_1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/169 "2003-09-23T16:46:00Z")
kwyjibo > [@](#): > > OBJECTION! Speculation! > > The council has no evidence to show that I have a mothership or that my ass has no clue! > > (Gee, this is fun! I wanna be a law talking guy too!) It’s called patent evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/170 "2003-09-23T16:48:45Z")
Hmm… I must admit that this thread has me a bit perplexed. Even _if_ **Beryl** is a lawyer (big if) he isn’t a lawyer I would want ever want to receive legal advice from. I _especially_ wouldn’t want him to represent me considering the debate trouncing I just witnessed and it seems readily apparent that **Beryl** has no support whatsoever in his views. Disregarding for the moment that this is relatively rare what possible reason could **Beryl** have for continuing this charade? It can’t be to ‘win the argument’ since as far as I’m concerned it was handedly won by **Bricker** and co. long ago. Every poster (with the notable exception of **Beryl** ) seems to hold this opinion as well. What does **Beryl** possibly think he could accomplish at this point? ---
**Author:** ![Kwyjibo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/59ef9b/32.png) [@Kwyjibo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kwyjibo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/171 "2003-09-23T16:54:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beryl\_Mooncalf \* > \*\*kwyjibo > It’s called patent evidence. \*\* You can actually see a mothership? [Circles Fnger around temple] Woooooooooooooooo! [/Circles Fnger around temple] (And stop looking at my ass!) ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/172 "2003-09-23T17:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Shodan** _ > > \*We replaced this first-year law student’s regular coffee with LSD. > > Let’s see if she notices!\* 😃 Brilliant! And **Jodi** , you rock! Esprix ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/173 "2003-09-23T17:07:38Z")
I’m sure Beryl would make a fine lawyer, he/she doesn’t give up easily that’s for sure. Ok maybe fine is too strong a word…hmmmm…expensive and perplexing? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/174 "2003-09-23T17:17:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beryl\_Mooncalf \* > \*\*Bricker… > Math error still exists, > Elements of mopery: > A) From the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 AM = > C) Creeps > D) in a furtive manner > E) On a public street > F) Wearing substantially dark clothing. > > 2 elements are present in “creeps in a furtive manner” both elements must exist, and therefore, be identified independently. > What is “creeps” > Want is “furtive” > C)Was there a “creeping”? > D)Was it “Furtive” in manner? > Unless the last two evaluate to “True” there is no offense. An attorney would have seen that. > > Do your math again and post your answer. Bricker, \*\* I’ll give you that. Creeping without furtiveness is not mopery or dopery. Of course, this has nothing to do with my OP - whether one is a lesser-included offense of the other. I agree I was careless - twice in a row - in listing and counting the elements. But since the language for the two was identical, save for a typo and the time requirement, it’s really not relevant if there are twelve elements to one, as long as it’s clear that there are eleven identical elements in the other. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/175 "2003-09-23T17:28:12Z")
> [@](#): > > _Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary_ > \Moon"calf`, n. 1. A monster; a false conception; a mass of fleshy matter, generated in the uterus. > > 1. A dolt; a stupid fellow. --Dryden. Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/176 "2003-09-23T17:54:45Z")
[Joyce’s Virag] _(A DIABOLIC RICTUS OF BLACK LUMINOSITY CONTRACTING HIS VISAGE, CRANES HIS SCRAGGY NECK FORWARD. HE LIFTS A MOONCALF NOZZLE AND HOWLS.) VERFLUCHTE GOIM! He had a father, forty fathers. He never existed. Pig God! He had two left feet. He was Judas Iacchia, a Libyan eunuch, the pope’s bastard. (HE LEANS OUT ON TORTURED FOREPAWS, ELBOWS BENT RIGID, HIS EYE AGONISING IN HIS FLAT SKULLNECK AND YELPS OVER THE MUTE WORLD) A son of a whore. Apocalypse._ [/Joyce’s Virag] ---
**Author:** ![thinksnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thinksnow/32/2849_2.png) [@thinksnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thinksnow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/177 "2003-09-23T17:56:13Z")
I understand, I think, double-jeopardy and what it is supposed to protect one from, but in this instance, it seems to me that if you charge someone with A, B, C, & D, and can only show A, B, & C, and there is a charge for that, you should be able to charge them with that. Is one of the intents of DJ to protect against the prosecution attempting to hammer someone with a more serious and involved charge, then coming back and charging them with a sure slam-dunk lesser charge, having failed to secure a conviction for the greater charge? Also, because I’m curious about the law itself, would it be possible, in the hypo, for the prosecution to first charge dopery, then, failing to convict on that, charge for mopery? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/178 "2003-09-23T18:00:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Steve Wright \* > \*\*Interesting. \*\* [Beryl](http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/beryl/beryl.htm). My favorite was: “Best Field Indicators are crystal (meth) habit, lack of good cleavage, hardness and color.” OK, so maybe I added the (meth), but the rest is there. ---
**Author:** ![Tiburon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tiburon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tiburon)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/179 "2003-09-23T18:05:10Z")
Oh, Jesus, was that painful. I think I’m constipated from just reading it. Of course, I think so much of this could be easily settled - I mean, surely there is some way for Beryl to prove s/he’s an attorney? As for myself, I’d just snap a digital pic of my license and e-mail it to someone. Maybe that can happen and settle at least part of this grumbling. I suppose, though, that if one were determined enough to lie, this would not be a difficult obstacle but I wouldn’t mind seeing the effort. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140/180 "2003-09-23T18:06:42Z")
**thinksnow** , the prosecutor can charge the accused with both mopery and dopery, and let a single jury figure out which, if either, he is guilty of, in a single trial (he can’t be guilty of both, because one is a LIO of the other). What you can’t do is have a whole trial on dopery, and then, when the accused is acquitted, have a new trial on mopery (that’s the double jeopardy issue). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-beryl_mooncalf/202140.md?page=10)