Bricker, I think you’re on to something here. Jailhouse lawyer f’sure.
Mooncalf, stick to the point – you can’t appeal after an acquittal – you have to appeal after a conviction. That’s what Bricker was saying; that’s what makes this a double-jeopardy case. The fact that there are other grounds for mandamus (discovery, recusal, etc.) is irrelevant to this discussion, and only the sort of logic used by tax protestors would lead you to believe that Bricker was saying otherwise.
BTW, those cases you cited were real winners; what, a practicing attorney can’t use WestLaw?
BERYL, you idiot, BRICKER wasn’t saying an extraordinary writ never ever is available in any other circumstances ever ever ever. He was saying that under the general circumstances we have been discussing – crime, trial, conviction – a defendant will not be allowed to file an extraordinary writ (in this case, habeas corpus) until he or she is convicted, he/she has exhausted his/her appeals, and he/she has applied for and been denied post-conviction relief.
For you to extract his comment from the context in which it was made in order to make it appear to be a sweeping declaration on all writs – which it obviously was not – frankly doesn’t make you look any smarter. Oh, and BRICKER’s quote is not a “code citation” and it makes you look really dumb to say that it is.
WHO in THE rolling F would appeal an acquittal, who said anything about APPEAL …anyway….go get a cup of coffee.
link west law to this board Pftttttttttttttttttt post your password and I’ll link to WestLaw for those wanting to use it.---- brilliant remark dude.
they were collected to show PRE-CONVICTION examples of writs. That’s simply to show examples of “the court incorrectly applying” the Code cited by Bricker. Brickers maxim of extraordinary writs.
[Fireworks], more [fireworks], YEAH, Hall-a-f’in-lulahula, Damn, Why didn’t I think of that…………………………what a great use of a writ that would be…………………probably even allowable PRECONVICTION, ya think?
Nametag you have seen what the (. )( .)'s here don’t see ….THIS IS about an extraordinary writ and a PRE conviction application of that remedy to prevent the prosecution of the second indictment as it would be in violates a constitutionally protected right.
PRE CONVICTION writs were linked to show the very thing that they say is impossible. EXIST!
Thanks Jodi, We are going to take this to a level higher than “Bricker’s ball, bricker’s rule”
HE SAID, and I quote;
I’m gonna say that bad word (look away please), BULLSHIT.His rule was posted as law. I agree with you, it is incorrect. But as soon as he admits that, the roof will fall in.
Jodi, I’m really trying to be patient with you because you appear to be honestly interested in this. Please cut me a little slack, then if you are not happy, I’ll stand still while you have at it, okay?
BRICKERS WATERLOO
Bricker defines mopery and dopery------------------------
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 [1]re-indicted, based on the same act, for dopery.
Bricker defines them as-What are the elements---------------
We are going to see real soon this is
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Beryl sees it differently -What are the elements-------
Bricker changes the rules #1, adds a higher jurisdiction-
It’s a very basic question that you must answer in nearly every single case you take: is there a lesser-included offense of the crime my client is charged with The case is Blockburger v. US, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)
NEW JURISDCTION INVOLVED----------------------------------------
Our little game has added a new jurisdiction, we now have a law that he is quoting that but wouldn’t provide info for when clarification was added. This is a Supreme Court Case
Bricker quoted these authorities which contradict his positionBlockburger v. US, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). It is the “seminal case” because it laid out the rule for determining if one offense is, or is not, a lesser-included offense of another for the purposes of double jeopardy.**Blockburger teaches us the “same elements”
test: two offenses are different for double jeopardy purposes if each requires proof of an element that the other does not.
mopery has unique element (A)
dopery has unique element (B)
Both statutes have unique and common elements. see Beryl sees it differently -What are the elements (infra)
Bricker, you are **wrong. There are no issues
here of LOI as Beryl has told you all along. Are you too pompous to see this? citing the language in In UNITED STATES v. DIXON 509 US 688 Blockburger’s “same-elements” test, is again addressed by further defining the rule of “same-elements” with “two provisions” are not the “same
offense” if each …if EACH contains an element not included in the other.
Key word, EACH Key phrase "not included in the other.
mopery has unique element A
dopery has unique element B
Blockburger v. US, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)
IT APPEARS THAT there are no lesser included offenses involved
between the two offenses as each has an element the other does not.
TO Bricker (the court understands you live in an area that as suffered from the wrath of Isabel, and sincerely hopes you and your family are safe and healthy at this time)
Beryl laughing so very loud----------------------
heheheheheheheheheh snichker hehehehehe and all the little trogladytes, jumping up with their little paws held high saying “me too” “me too”. hahahahahahahahehe hehehehehehehhaha LSHMCIS, LSHIPMP
WHAT NOW ------------------------------------------------------------
hey, he wrote the little ditty about toon town, and he didn’t
A, know hot to count,
B, know how to cipher,
C, know how to add
D, count
E, write down the answer.
BUT Brickeryou sure were having a good time in
the middle of the ring proclaiming success when in fact, YOU LOST by his own hand, his own facts, his own case. Superman’s cape is rent. Mighty Casey has struck out!!! Bricker has failed at his own game, Under his own rules!!!
Random How does if feel jumping into this and co-signing
for Bricker only to find out you’re standing in a great big pile of Shit. All over you, your clothes, your ego, and now you have a reputation as a stooge. You must feel like a real butt hole taking off and proclaiming your rightness, when you were WRONG WRONG By the way. That case you won, I’d hang it on your otherwise empty office wall, hehehe…Oh, Can I link this thread when you post too, to show everyone what you look line with shit on your nose? quoting you “There are at least 10 lawyers active on this board. One of them will almost certainly be along soon to give good Information.” Beryl says-It sure appears that at least 8 of them can count though. hehehehehe
rhum runner just retarded, poor boy. What else is there to say. You too had to jump in and offer your opinion about something you knew nothing about, and you too have crap on your face. Go lick your nuts.
Nametag You were totally clueless. Drunk driving down someone else’s highway, but stopping in time to jump in and expose your stupid ass. I suggest you go sit in the corner, but you don’t have to lick anything. Look before you leap, especially when you have nothing to gain and everything to loose. go now.
andros"Not even. I leaned all that in my 200-level Business
Law course last year." your quote. I’d try to get my money back if I were you. or was it your parents money? I’ll leave it at that, you weren’t all that bad.
iampuna you really need to put that pipe down once and a while. rarely do so many turds fall into my turd traps.
wring I hope i’m “killin’ ya now too” if you liked it before, I’ll bet it is great now. (not killin’ as in Penal stuff, just , you know.)your intuition served you well.
Captain AmazingYou shall live. Enjoy.
Otto “Hunting ain’t no fun when the rabbit got the gun”, eh… Learn to be more subtle when you insult and you’ll go far. Unless of Course you have earned the right to “call 'en as you see 'em”
OxyMoron you have proven your worth of your given name. Were you too much of a dork to do a little counting and comparing. Smart move, really smart.
Waverly “doesn’t involve even the most remote knowledge of constitutional law. It’s a fucking logic question a 5th grader
could provide a direct answer for” So what’s you’re excuse wonder person? Do you look back on high school as the best 7 years of your life?
“Please avoid looking like an idiot.” <–DID YOU SAY THAT WAVERLY? Are you looking like an IDIOT? hehehe
ShaynaI think you should see a doctor, they have curs for
those with penis envy. This could help you stop the bedwetting that often accompanies this problem. “We all sleep in a yellow submarine”
TeaElle"Whoo. I’ve never been in active legal practice and I
could have given a better answer than Beryl’s." Sure, you throw the chicken bones and swing your…smallish mind around
Jodi I haven’t decided what to do with you. You were so free with the insults, and the principles you were posting, I was trying so hard to tell you to slow down, because I didn’t want you on the credits list. However, I see in you a quality that I also see in Bricker, and that is honesty. A rare quality on this page. But due to this, you live, go and multiply. We need more Jodi’s in the world.
WRITS----(that feels so much better now)-------------------------------
Well what fun would it be if we didn’t look at the miss-information aboutwrits spread here
Bricker and writs----------------------------------------
See previous post, with examples of pre conviction writs.
I’m too, whatever, I…
Oh Jodi, subtle things, like saying that Brickers maxim on writs was never never never meant to be… Problem is that he had previous to that said
Bricker, I do sincerely hope you and your family made it through the storm safely - Beryl
Beautiful meltdown, I agree. Plus that last post was a great example to link to if Beryl tries to provide legal advice to some poor sap again. Totally ignoring the plagiarism accusation (unless I missed the “defense” in that muddle) was a nice touch, too.
There’s five minutes of my life gone forever. Can I make the credit list next time, or am I doomed to be an unaccredited lurker with more than two functioning brain cells to rub together?
Wow - I hope Beryl stays with us for ever and ever. That was a truly masterful meltdown. Even better because, to be honest, I had low hopes for the thread in the beginning. Unless you are a lawyer, two lawyers arguing can be painful to watch. I will gladly admit when I am wrong.
More evidence of why posting drunk is such an exceptionally bad idea. For the poster, anyway. The entertainment value is quite high for the rest of us.
Yes, but pointing that out might lend credence to the “meltdown” for which Beryl_Mooncalf is currently under pillory.
I think after considering the roller-coaster here, we might find some way of ensuring pro forma in matters of legal Peepee duels. (Which, IMHO was handily won by Jodi, without whom I might have gone off half-cocked.)
Damnit, nobody told me I had a pipe. Party at my place!
Wait … shit. This is southwest Virginia. Y’all couldn’t find your way here if I gave you a map and put actual street lights near the road (no streetlights down here).
[sub]I am actually curious about an explication of “turd traps” etc, but if the above postings of Beryl are any indication of his coherence, I’m not sure that’s really possible.[/sub]
Maybe, but I do like the colors, where Bricker is red, and Beryl is blue. It’s like those cold war maps, where the communists were always red and we were always blue.
fruitbat, it’s becoming increasingly doubtful that this fellow is a lawyer. That last screed nailed it in my mind, though I was pretty well convinced already, because he doesn’t know how to cite cases, because he can’t follow legal reasoning, and because he states flagrantly wrong law. Oh, and B_M?
A prosecutor would (duh) – if he were allowed to do so. That was the point – a point, which, like all points made in this discussion, you missed completely. And boy, the federal courts are gonna be astonished to learn that they don’t hear appeals.