Excerpt from a typical Beryl case? Maybe!
Now sir, my client claims that she forgot she was carrying that bottle of… delicious bourbon… Brownest of the brown liquors…
So tempting.
What’s that?
You want me to drink you?
But I’m in the middle of a trial… Excuse me!
step step step step SLAM
Ahhh - I see it now. I said, on page 1, that mopery had three elements, and dopery two. I was wrong. Hamlet is correct - mopery has FOUR elements as I defined it, and dopery has THREE of those same elements.
This doesn’t change the conclusion that dopery is a lesser-included offense, although it maight have made for some appealable jury instructions had my version prevailed.
Muffin,[Respectfully]
there isn’t a person here that would be beneficial to my “livelyhood” to the point I want “me” known. In fact, I do not think that is wise now because the real looser here has become the varoius Bar associations. And I’m not proud of that,however, it wasn’t planned that way. That’s the hand I’ve got now and I feel it is important to make a few tricks apparent. Let’s assume what is apparently the unthinkable around here, that I am what I am, and accept that this is more than a one dimensional brickerism. (just for this argument, otherwise, you’re free to believe what you choose) Would you not think I had a clue? If I was a member of the bar, I probably had proven myself to a much more demanding group than the few here. What would it look like when the mass of whatever piling on invalid arguments and thereafter, relied on progressively more invalidity to defend the previous fallacies, least their position of eminence be jeopardized. I see this as a swarming soccer team of 6 year olds, who “swarm” on the soccer ball, following it thoughtlessly around the field, kicking at anything within a few feet of the ball hoping to kick something other than each other. The ego pill that is hard for many to swallow, other than a practicing attorney, who is often required to do so.
Thank you, you’re can return to your own opinion now.
[/respectfully]
Kwyjibo and Mojo prove that they take the inmates from the asylum on field trip at times, and let them play with the computer other times.
Apparently, if the inference I draw from Beryl latest post is anything near accurate… I hold a near-mesmerizing sway over the opinions of all the lawyers - sans, naturally, Beryl - posting here.
That being the case, I must report to you all an alarming lack of toadying and suck-ups towards yours truly, and I expect that situation to be remedied in the near future. I want flattering compliments and wholly uncritical admiration of all that I do and say, and I want it NOW.
Hehe lawyer shows are more fun on the net then on tv 
GOT THAT RIGHT LAW TALKING GUY!!!
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,
“As of now, Beryl_Mooncalf no longer exists. Say hello to Miguel Sanchez!”
emphasis mine typo typo , I guess I missed the jury instructions too, where exactally were they?
I’m getting to you bricker, your math and spelling skills are greatly reduced, is it the pressure of the battle, or the pressure of maintaining the façade?
Do the math brecker, then we’ll talk about the difference between boys and girls.
There were too many cases, (3771 in my first search) where the defendant was a woman and the charge was included the terms “he” commits an offense. Oddly enough, not a one challenged the statute because of the use of “he” when the defendant was a woman. Probably because it would be insane to do so, but if you wish to make that argument, you go! Just let me watch as the prosecutor falls down laughing and the judge stares at you and then orders your immediate commitment.
But you asked for a cite, US CODE preferred, so I went out and got the funniest one I could:
16 USCA § 773g
A person is guilty of any offense if he commits an act prohibited by section 773e(a) (2), (3), (4), or (6) of this title; or section 773e(b) of this title.
Now, you may ask yourself, what exactly is 773e(a)? Well, it is entitled NORTHERN PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHING, and deals with regulations on halibut fishing. So here is what I suggest for you Beryl. You go to Washington, find a woman and take her fishing for halibut, and then you two: “ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, export or have custody, control or possession of, any fish taken or retained in violation of the Convention, this subchapter, or any regulation adopted under this subchapter;”. Then you go before the judge with your woman-friend and the halibut and make your winner of an argument. You could be famous. F. Lee Bailey watch out, because you would have set an amazing precedent, and gained a victory over all of us. Go for it!!!
And by the way, it was a typo. Get over it.
Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.
Snicker
snort
Just for grins, Beryl, please answer the following: You seem attuned to spelling and grammatical errors and count them as genuine flaws worthy of argument within the scope of a debate. Is this correct?
“Hi, I’m Beryl_Mooncalf. You might remember me from such meltdowns as ‘Question for Beryl_Mooncalf’ and the upcoming ‘Why Do My Pants Smell Like Burning?’”
Kwyjibo
You mothership called. They need your clueless ass to come home.
Holy shit.
Justhink has gone to law school.
The Republic is doomed.
Regards,
Shodan
Ahhh…the cruel inevitability of Gaudere’s Law.
Waverly
Last time I called you a liar, and you left. What else is there to say.
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!)
Bricker, I reject your arguments. The flag in your courtroom has a yellow fringe, making it an Admiralty Flag. That means this is a court-martial. Since I am not a member of the armed forces, I cannot be court-martialed, and this court has no jurisdiction over me.
Good day to you.
P.S., I am not a crank.