Bricker - I wanna be YOU when I grow up.
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.
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.
*We replaced this first-year law student’s regular coffee with LSD.
Let’s see if she notices!*
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
Doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter.
Doesn’t matter.
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
Ender, KU law class of 2004.
Here is 773g, asshole. What you quoted is 773, which can be found here. Not that I’m surprised that you fucked that up too. Asshat.
kwyjibo
It’s called patent evidence.
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?
You can actually see a mothership?
[Circles Fnger around temple]
Woooooooooooooooo!
[/Circles Fnger around temple]
(And stop looking at my ass!)
Brilliant!
And Jodi, you rock!
Esprix
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?
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
Interesting.
[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]
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?
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.
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.
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).