smacks forehead
Preview! PREVIEW!
vbcode != html
I plead guilty to reckless abuse of coding.
Why “the legislature” is wrong, and why the correct answer to its hypo is “Yes, the charges are proper”. Although bricker isn’t as cooperative as a person, without an agenda, might be. I think he has been pinned down sufficiently to allow the following stipulation to be made with respect to his mopery and dopery statute. See infra, it is quoted in a plethora of places.
For this discussion, the stipulated elements common to both acts are
- creeping
- furtive
- clothing
- public street.
There are elements within the two statutes stipulated to by the parties. A review or previous postings can verify this. We are left with two possible elements, one pertaining to each statute. (unique element) For Mopery, (M herein) there is the unique time element, a window during which the crime can be committed. For Dopery, (D herein) there is an element of gender, albeit an issue within itself, it will be addressed shortly.
General interpretation of legislative purpose and intent.
It is presumed that a legislature creates a law for a valid purpose, and using language that can be interpreted by the normal and ordinary meaning of the words. It is also presumed that the reason for creating the statute is valid, and necessary, even if not readily apparent.
The courts have faced issues where conflicting interpretations where of the legislation resulted in different applications or results. There is an underlying policy to approach these problems by looking for a reasonable way to interpret the language so as to give validity to the legislation instead of nullifying it. This is a general principle, not a mandate, and the interpretation must be supported by the clear and normal interpretation of the statute. This is such a matter.
Returning to the two remaining elements to be looked at, beginning with the time window in M.
M and the time window.
If M requires a time window in which it is effective, then D does not as that is not an element of D. Therefore, if M was not effective, D would be. There is no time window in D, therefore D would apply anytime the other elements were proven, and would always apply effectively result in conviction. Here is the result. If M occurs within a 9 hour window, if could be successful, however, D would also be successful within that same 9 hour window, as well as the other 18 hours , or 24 ours a day. Seems M is unnecessary unless there is something that may be found in D.
D and the Gender issue.
Whether or not intended, “he” exists in the language of the statute. We requested this matter be clarified in our second post, and the legislature refused to do so, opening the matter to discussion. We find that this a valid element at this time. Had we known it was a typo, we could have been more specific than asking to clarify the matter, but it is a little late to claim error in construction to support an erroneous application.
D contains the possible additional element requiring a gender specific application or the term “he” to mean male. This is interpretation we will choose after explaining why the general tendency to interpret references to gender so as to include all persons.
If we interpret “he” as inclusive of she, we are faced with the problem we found in the concluding comments of “M and the time window” That is, that the legislature has enacted legislation that has no valid purpose in that it can not be distinguished from D, other then it occurs within a time window also included within D. We have no evidence that M is necessary, as D in inclusive, therefore, in practice, there would be no value in alleging M against an individual as there would be on situation where it would prevail and D now.
However, if the court applied a gender specific interpretation of D, so that D applied to all male persons 24 hours a day, and M applied to All persons 9 hours a day during the defined window of time, we have the following reasonable int4rpretion, that allows both statutes to stand as independent law, presumably the way the legislature intended. Assuming all elements regarding creeping, furtive, clothing also proven, then
Gender/ male or female. Time / A=(all times, excluding W times) W=(windowed times) result /conv=conviction ? =(probable acquittal)
APPLICATION
GENDER SPECIFIC APPLICATION
Gender,…Time,… result
Male,…W,…Convict M/D
Male,…A,…Convict M
Female,…W…Convict D
Female,…A…?
GENDER INCLUSIVE APPLICATION
Gender,…Time,… result
Male,…W,…Convict M/D
Male,…A,…Convict M
Female,…W…Convict D/M
Female,…A…Convict M
CONCLUSION
Applying the logic of the “gender specific” application, We see that the possibility
of a person escaping the application of the statute exists. Additionally, females can only
be convicted of D.
Applying the logic of the “gender inclusive” application, We see that the possibility of a person being convicted of M regardless of time window application. Therefore, the Gender Inclusive interpretation would, in effect, eliminates the need for the time window considerations. thusly avoiding the legislative intent in its creation.
Applying the Gender specific interpretation is valid, and is the favored approach as it provides validity to each statute, as well as allowing for the intent of the legislature.
If the legislature abandons its agenda, I’m sure it will agree. We decided to fore go citations, as without doubt, within 10 minutes there will be 1000’s provided. Otherwise, silence is golden. (Issue, Interpret of statutory language so as to give validity to an otherwise invalid or unnecessary statute.)
beryl,
Please be advised that, whomsoever QED, on the premises of the entity of the “Straight Dope Message Board” (hereinafter quid pro quo SDMB summa cum laude), with malicious intent habeus corpus delecti unto the party of the third part, utilizing, abusing, spewing, fulminating, or otherwise producing in an typewritten fashion copious and pernicious verbiage (hereinafter to be referred to, if it please the court, e pluribus unum, as shithouse ratspeak, ipse dixit salve Regina) is insufficient at this time under these conditions in this universe Roe vs. Wade to establish your “identity” whatsoever as a lawyer, barrister, counselor, or advisor. Furthermore, on the matter of your sanity, vis-a-vis lorem ipsum dolor, this esteemed Court of Public Opinion finds that you (to be henceforth referred to sine qua non as "the individual entity known on the entity of the ‘SDMB’ as ‘fucking loony t- uh, I mean beryl_mooncalf’) have become completely unhinged (without stipulation that "the individual entity known on the entity of the ‘SDMB’ as ‘fucking loony t- uh, I mean beryl_mooncalf’ was ever at any time in the history of the universe hinged) et al. You are hereby ordered, ex post facto, to summarily remove your person from the premises of the “SDMB” with all due haste, drosophila melanogaster, and cease forthwith all raving, posting of incoherent rants, random utilization of color codes, or claiming to be a lawyer, orangutan, space shuttle, or any entity other than “the individual known et cetera et cetera.” Your compliance in this matter is in vino veritas greatly appreciated.
OK, let’s have a little fun, and see if we can’t budge the moonpie off the whole gender thing.
Let us posit that some lunatic judge has accepted Moonpie’s argument as originating from within the realm of human consciousness. Let us posit that rather than a conviction, charges were dropped by the prosecutor. Let us posit that in response to Moonpie’s stunning victory over the forces of injustice, the legislature introduces a bill, passed unanimously ans signed by the appropriate head of state with full honors, a color guard and multiple pens which are then distibuted as souveniers, to amend the Mopery statute so that the word “he” is added in the appropriate place. Let us further posit that, as a rider to the He Bill, the distinguished gentleman from the honorable district rises to great acclaim to amend the laws of the jurisdiction to specify in no uncertain terms that references in the law to “he” also include to the fullest extent of the law persons of the male sex, the female sex, the intersexed, the transsexual, the transgendered, the eunuchs and all other humans within the jurisdiction regardless of chromosomal structure, primary or secondary sexual characteristics or traits.
In other words, let us posit that we now have a Mopery and a Dopery statute which are word for word identical with the sole exception that the Mopery statute includes the timeframe language.
Dear Moonpie, on your head’s next revolution frontwards, will you now answer the question? Does an acquittal for Mopery bar a charge of Dopery?
Beryl:
Please let the he/she thing go.
I see your point on the time. Like your earlier points, it doesn’t affect the answer to the OP - one crime is still a lesser-included offense of the other.
I’ll admit that if I had been more careful in my hypo, we could have avoided this mess – I would have included ‘he’ in both mopery and dopery, and perhaps noticed that the seemingly lesser offense actually included the greater offense because of the element of time.
Neither of these points are relevant to the OP - one is clearly an included of the other, and Blockburger is the relevant case law, even though only one jurisdiction is involved.
I don’t know why I keep repeating this, except in some vain hope that understanding will percolate through.
In short words: all of the point’s you’ve raised (mispellings, typing errors, my incorrect count of the elements and even which offense is included in which) are not relevant to the point of the hypo. Had you answered the hypo and then detailed all the problems with it in addition to the answer, I feel sure you’d be regarded as the modern-day incarnation of Oliver Wendell Holmes hereabouts. But when you focus myopically on the nitpicks and fail to comprehend the overall issue and answer, it doesn’t speak well of your training or analytical ability.
- Rick
There is no such word as ‘ans,’ thus invalidating your entire premise.
- Rick
(Hey, just trying to move things along.)
WhatIsRecklassAbuseOfCoding?
(alt-f8, not long at all)
Come on, it’s end game for you bricker, your rejection of the last post, did it. Did that look like my postings?
You have only a little way to go, get more help.
Bricker
Man(woman)(Brickers) requires a set of principles for his(her) survival and happiness. One such principle involves truthfulness. Telling the truth is necessary for your long term happiness while lying is a threat, a cancer. **The liar puts himself in a war that can’t be won. That was is a war with reality. Even the best liars eventually become exposed, and finally, their peers no longer believe anything he says. You’ll see.
Bricker, I should have done things differently this time.
- I should have kept you focused on the real issues
- I should have ignored your right and left turns, and referred to rule 1.
- I should have researched and seen what I now know as your e-mail campaigns and need for help when you are under pressure.
- I should have done a better job at exposing your puffiness and ego
- If I had followed these points, you would have been history as soon as you had a cronie claim “typo” so you could avoid the embarassment of doing it yourself.
- I should have expected you to wiggle and “typo” your way out of facts that contradicted you, by claiming error.
- I hope you don’t do that again, given that you have a history of it, and now, a “citations” where you did just that.
- I can now anticipate your grandstanding. You do that when faced with a question that you want to ignore, you turn and mock it. Soon this will be recognized as your trademark “I have no answer” or “I’m wrong” approach.
- Anticipate the e-mail game earlier, and see the list of participants herein for the leaders.
bricker, as they say, the jig is up, you’re exposed, and others who may initially
reject this, will change their mind as these things will become apparent over time.
Your jig is up. I’m just a dumb old 5’ 15 3/4" 265 pound country boy. But let a city slicker come along, and he’ll see your game, and work it back against you. Is the cat out of the bag. I think so. It’s end game though. And there is at least one more chance to expose you coming soon enough.
Well, you got me good, Beryl. I can only hope for your mercy now. Please, please, don’t expose me and my frauds to the rest of the world, I beg you. It’s all I have, this sad, sheltered, pretend life of mine. Don’t take it away from me.
Or something along those lines.
typo mna
wow momma, going without your panties affects your brain some doesn’t it. get 'em back on your head, you might have a seizure otherwise.
typo mna
wow momma, going without your panties affects your brain some doesn’t it. get 'em back on your head, you might have a seizure otherwise.
crap I double posted
Oh, by the way - what e-mail campaigns are you talking about?
(As though I expect that this question, as opposed to the others, will recieve a rational answer. Indeed, I am hopeless).
Better put your money where your keyboard is.
As above.
Put it in writing. Or are you just gonna stand there with your pants around your ankles singing the ole grey mare she ain’t what she used to be…
BTW: I am 6’5". BTW: WGAF?
My god, I have it.
Beryl_Mooncalf is an unfrozen caveman lawyer, scared and confused by this strange intarweb machine. Are there little demons inside that convey his screed to the rest of us? He doesn’t know!
But what he does know, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is that when backed into a corner by the quality legal minds of the SDMB, he is entitled to no less than two million dollars of punitive damages and two million dollars of compensatory damages.
I haven’t understood ONE. FUCKING. WORD. of this thread, but Bricker said someone was crazier than a shithouse rat, so I stuck with it.
Fantastic.
“That guy stole my bit!” - Krusty the Klown
Esprix
<lurk off>
I must say this it better than Digital Cable!
<lurk on>
Just checking in to see if Beryl is still:
- avoiding my question… check
- refusing to elaberate on his accusatin of lying… check
OK. All set here. Carry on.
Waverly, I am afraid that you haven’t complied with my last set of e-mailed directives. Please refer to E-mail #93-026A, and especially paragraphs 4-6(a).
Thank you. It is only through strict compliance with my e-mail campaign that our illusion of unity can be maintained. Please keep this in mind.
Beryl is a girl’s name. Sissy.
Oh, Bricker, fyi - E-mail #36DD-24-36 clearly references ‘he’ when you obviously mean ‘she’.