Beryl: Well said!
WTF?
Yeah. Ditto.
So to sum up from the point of view of a non-lawyer:
- Bricker posts a hypothetical which is logically straightforward and obviously intended to illustrate a particular legal principle (LIO, which I hadn’t heard of before this thread, but which I understood the gist of by the end of the OP).
- Beryl_Mooncalf avoids answering the question and tries throwing in a lot of needless questions in order to a) impress the laymen and b) muddy the argument.
- After waiting patiently for a while, Bricker gives up and explains the answer in clear terms that even a non-lawyer can understand.
- Beryl_Mooncalf claims he’s wrong and spouts off for a while, making no sense whatsoever.
- A number of people point out how mistaken Beryl_Mooncalf is.
- Beryl_Mooncalf spouts more nonsense, accidentally including a plagiarized version of the correct answer to the OP between bits of random noise.
- Beryl_Mooncalf completely loses his shit and starts posting long messages containing almost no coherent sentences, but apparently trying to attack everyone else in the thread.
At this point, not only am I convinced that Beryl_Mooncalf isn’t a lawyer, but I have to wonder if he’s some kind of delusional whackjob with a persecution complex.
Am I getting this right?
I’m starting to wonder whether someone just forgot to take their Lithium.
oh, almost forgot:
6a) at one point, Beryl_Mooncalf asks a question about the notation used to cite court cases which betrays his lack of lawyerly knowledge. His ass is subsequently handed to him by Jodi.
Can another lawyer corroborate this ass-handing, or could there actually be a legitimate excuse for not knowing this (i.e. differing notation if your law school was using the metric system or something)?
[Scott of Rocky Horror]
I’ve got to be strong, and try to hang on
Or else my mind may well snap
[/Scott of Rocky Horror]
I suppose, conceivably, if you had not been to law school in the US, you might not know this. Of course, I belive you need a degree from a US school in order to practice in any US state, so that shoots down that escape.
And any lawyer that thinks that multiple jurisdictions must be involved when a US Supreme Court case is cited should turn in his bar card right now, before someone gets hurt.
I take that back.
After having another look at timecube:
Beryl’s probably on chlorpromazine or haloperidol. 
ntucker - a masterful analysis of the thread, and if it reaches six pages, we can point directly to your post as a cogent recap – at least up to this point. Obviously, Beryl_Mooncalf’s capacity to amaze, delight, and surprise is virtually limitless, so I hesitate to predict that no more significant events are forthcoming.
As to the citation business - it’s uniquely United States, so I agree with ENugent’s comment that a non-US lawyer might have to ask that question. My wife was a lawyer in the Dominican Republic, and they don’t use precedent at all - there is no “binding case law” as we understand the term; every judge that decides a case does so based on the written law as he, she, or it interprets it; appeals courts may re-hear and re-weigh findings of fact as well as reach their own independent conclusions of law.
Come to think of it, Beryl never actually claimed to be a US lawyer.
Perhaps he, or she, is simply in another country.
My vote is still “another planet,” however.
- Rick
But he sure acts like he knows US law…
So to sum up from the point of view of a non-lawyer:
Corrected, for content, according to the facts. Thank you for your efforts and the e-mail.
-
Bricker posts a hypothetical which is logically straightforward and obviously intended to illustrate a particular legal principle (LIO, which I hadn’t heard of before this thread, but which I understood the gist of by the end of the OP).
-
Beryl_Mooncalf avoids answering the question and tries throwing in a lot of needless questions in order to a) impress the laymen and b) muddy the argument.
- however, as it tunrs out, attention and clearification was necessary if for no nther reason than later on, bricker cries “me no see ‘he’” (traditional for “I need cheating help, e-mail jodi quick)
- After waiting patiently for a while, Bricker gives up and explains the answer in clear terms that even a non-lawyer can understand.
*albeit incorrectly, because “he no see he”. But who cares about the facts when bricker needs help so he doesn’t look the full stooge here.[/l]
4) Beryl_Mooncalf claims he’s wrong and spouts off for a while, making no sense whatsoever.
let me see, did I copy that correctly from the e-mail……….
- A number of people point out how mistaken Beryl_Mooncalf is.
[l]because “we no see he” and we won’t look, were dolts too. And imagine, a world where bricker was wrong, thank god for e-mail*
- Beryl_Mooncalf spouts more nonsense, accidentally including a plagiarized version of the correct answer to the OP between bits of random noise.
- that was after the “me no see he”, but before the “ex post fact” bricker rule changes
besides, only accident here is you*
- Beryl_Mooncalf completely loses his shit and starts posting long messages containing almost no coherent sentences, but apparently trying to attack everyone else in the thread.
I know, because I didn’t look at it, and I couldn’t see it anyway unless I figure out how to get this Gomco clamp off my head
At this point, not only am I convinced that Beryl_Mooncalf isn’t a lawyer, but I have to wonder if he’s some kind of delusional whackjob with a persecution complex.
- whackjob,- Gomco clamp,- you’ve got problems we don’t want to hear about.mr stickeykeys.*
Am I getting this right?
**too slow, much faster, and squint, bigger grin, there, you got it-bcc-./b]
oh ntucker, the “me no see he”, what that means is,….me = bricker,……no – didn’t….
see = look and read…… he =the 2 letter word he forgot, the one that toppeled his house, the one he now means boys and girls. And even has a little bogus code written to hide the difference between boys and girls…(that clamp hurt your head?)
From the OP:
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.
Elements of mopery:
-
From the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 AM
-
Creeps in a furtive manner
-
On a public street
-
Wearing substantially dark clothing.
Elements of dopery:
-
creeps in a furtive manner
-
On a public street
-
Wearing substantially dark clothing
Although I disagree that there were three elements for mopery (I would say 4) and two for dopery (I would say 3), the fact of the matter is that anyone who tried to argue that the use of the term “he” in one and not the other (putting aside the fact it was beyond any rationale doubt a scrivner’s error) would amount to an additional element. Every prosecutor, every defense attorney, and every judge I’ve ever practiced in front of would laugh you out of court, Beryl, and you would gain infamy as “that mentally challenged attorney who made that dumbass argument.”
None of these factors changes the validity of the OP as an illustration of the legal concept of lesser included offenses. And the discussion after the OP has clearly shown you have little grasp of that, or for that manner, any legal concept.
But don’t let this post stop you from your continued posting in this thread. I find your posts highly amusing, but in the “laugh at you” way and not the “laugh with you” way you may crave.
As simple as this is, a question bricker still hasn’t answered!!!
BRICKER, can you properly identify, the 2 elements in the one statute, and the 3 elements for the other, that you based your incorrect answer to your little hypo on?
Please do this before someone attempts to do it for you.
This will certainly be good.
2nd request.
Beryl, you have claimed to be a lawyer, but your posts put that in serious question. Although there is no reason why you should back up your claim with a cite to your name and business adddress, you would go a long way to proving that you are a lawyer if you would do so. That way anyone who cares to could check with the person named and cross-check with the relevant state bar.
Hamlet tries, but valiant effort aside, fails.
Hamlet, being a court jester isn’t practicing in the same sense that we’re talking about here. Stick to the humor, you’re much better at it. You do come closer than bricker does though,
You provided 4 and 3, which was closer than Bricker’s 2 and 3.
But even you can’t get down to bricker’s level. He is working on again changing the facts, before responding.
4 + 3 = 7, <- Hamlets more correct answer Brickers unexplained-> 2 + 3 = 5
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
Clearly, when properly applied, there is no issue. Independent, unique facts exist, and they will until you can sexual dimorphism. Statutes were cited supporting this. This is why bricker is on valium now.
3rd Request Bricker
Hamlet tries, but valiant effort aside, fails.
Hamlet, being a court jester isn’t practicing in the same sense that we’re talking about here. Stick to the humor, you’re much better at it. You do come closer than bricker does though,
You provided 4 and 3, which was closer than Bricker’s 2 and 3.
But even you can’t get down to bricker’s level. He is working on again changing the facts, before responding.
4 + 3 = 7, <- Hamlets more correct answer Brickers unexplained-> 2 + 3 = 5
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
Clearly, when properly applied, there is no issue. Independent, unique facts exist, and they will until you can sexual dimorphism. Statutes were cited supporting this. This is why bricker is on valium now.
3rd Request Bricker
It seems the meld down never ends…
It just goes on and on my firends.
I started reading it, not knowing what was…
…but I’ll continue reading it forever just because…
It seems the meld down never ends…
<ad nauseum>
(Damned Typos…)
Hamlet correctly identified the elements of mopery and dopery from my OP. The only thing I would add - although I cringe to do so, knowing what effect it may have - is that for every crime the prosecution must show that the crime was commited in a location that gives the court jurisdiction. So in addition to the two and three elements I said existed in my post of 09-18-2003, 7:45 AM, in this thread, and which Hamlet has ennumerated, there would need to be a showing that the public street was in a city or county over which the court had jurisdiction.
You really need to let the “he” business go. You actually need to let this all go. My advice, Beryl, is to e-mail the administration, ask them to ban this username, and come back (with their permission) as a different person. I can’t see any way other than this for you to continue to participate on this board with anything approaching a hint of credibility.
- Rick
Beryl, FYI- simply filing nuisance lawsuits doesn’t qualify one as a lawyer. Don’t you have a supermarket parking lot to leaflet or something?