__ NY Gov. Patterson admits to committing FELONIES <= is NY full of CRIMINALS ? __
Reality_CheckŠ
NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
a.. Gov. David Paterson says he tried cocaine in his 20s
b.. New governor also says he hasn't touched pot "since the late 70s"
c.. A day after he was sworn in, Paterson said he had affairs while
married
d.. Paterson replaces governor who resigned amid prostitution scandal
NEW YORK (CNN) -- New York Gov. David Paterson admitted during a television
interview Monday that he used cocaine and marijuana during his early
twenties.
Appearing on an NY-1 political show, Paterson was asked about using cocaine
and said he'd "tried it a couple of times" when he was "22 or 23." About
marijuana, he said he hadn't touched it "since the late 70s."
Paterson said that during his 2006 campaign for lieutenant governor he had
been asked on camera about drug use.
He said he had answered "in the affirmative."
Paterson, 53, became governor of New York a week ago after Gov. Eliot
Spitzer resigned amid his alleged connection to a prostitution ring.
One day after he was sworn in, Paterson said he was involved in some affairs
several years ago during a troubled period in his marriage.
Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is capable
of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer shake-up.
The Patersons have two children
Peter Dworkin
> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
> Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is capable
> of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer shake-up.
>
>
>
Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
--
Anyone who has ever heard what Santayana said is condemned to hear it
repeated.
Good Luck to anyone trying to learn Aramaic.
Kindest Regards,
Peter
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>>
>> NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
>>
>> Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
>> capable of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the
>> Spitzer shake-up.
> Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
Joe ....
Joe MAMA!
yD
> Reality_Check© wrote:
> > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
> > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is capable
> > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer shake-up.
>
> Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s. IMO anyone under 60
who says they didn't try drugs, marijuana, at the very least, is
either lying or went to Brigham Young University or the like.
yD
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-112D33.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <64rhs6F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
You're lying again, moron.
>
> Possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor, New York Penal Law 220.03, as is
> the possession of marijuana, P.L. 221.10.
Was it a misdemeanor in the 1970s when he claims to have consumed it?
Unless if fell from the sky, he either purchased it, or received it
(distribution/conspiracy)
from some other dealer/distrubutor.
> So much for a "reality check"!
So much for Larry the Legal Imbecile.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <64torpF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>> news:x-112D33.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > In article <64rhs6F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>> >
>> > Sorry, none of these are felonies, you ignoramus.
>>
>> You're lying again, moron.
>>
>> >
>> > Possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor, New York Penal Law 220.03, as is
>> > the possession of marijuana, P.L. 221.10.
>>
>> Was it a misdemeanor in the 1970s when he claims to have consumed it?
>
>>
>> Unless if fell from the sky, he either purchased it, or received it
>> (distribution/conspiracy)
>> from some other dealer/distrubutor.
>
Many a cocaine dealer will be happy to hear that, prosecutor Larry.
> Did you look up the statutes I cited?
Did you cite the statutes in effect in the 1970s ?
Are you claiming that Criminal Conspiracy (even to commit a misdemeanor)
was not a Felony when David Patterson conspired with his cocaine
supplier to obtain, purchase, possess, transport and/or use the cocaine
in question?
Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen ?
Bo Raxo
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>
Not established they were felonies, and it is possible federal charges
didn't apply.
> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen ?
>
No, Patterson stated he used. I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they think
you must be a cop. ) No purchase, no conspiracy, people offer drugs all the
time for all kinds of reasons.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
> >
>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>
>
> Not established they were felonies,
Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
without committing a felony.
> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>
>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen ?
>>
>
> No, Patterson stated he used.
So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they
> think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
> no conspiracy,
Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an "overt step"
toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reality_CheckŠ
"yD" <yaff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
> > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> > capable
> > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> > shake-up.
>
> Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
====
Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
Bo Raxo
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>> news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>> >
>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>
>>
>> Not established they were felonies,
>
> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> without committing a felony.
>
He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party, asks if
you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to share their
drugs.
No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess. If you're inclined, you step
in to the bathroom or wherever, you snort it up. Or smoke it, whatever.
>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>
> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>
I'm not an attorney, but I understand some drug use can violate state laws
without touching federal laws. Federal law is based on the interstate
commerce clause, so if you merely use what someone offers you, no commerce
involved.
>
>>
>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>>> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen
>>> ?
>>>
>>
>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>
> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>
I don't know, and neither do you. People offer drugs, it happens. I've had
it happen many times.
>>I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>
> Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
Nope. No conspiracy. No distribution. No possession, Someone hands you
the mirror, you partake (or don't). No possession. No distribution. No
conspiracy.
Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
>
>> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they
>> think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
>
> Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
>
The person who gives it to you *might* meet the test of distribution (though
I doubt it). The recipient does not.
>> no conspiracy,
>
> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an "overt
> step"
> toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
You really need to read the conspiracy statute. If someone hands you a joint
and you take a puff and hand it backed, you didn't conspire and you didn't
possess.
>
>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>
> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
It would constitute a state crime. But not neccesarily a federal one if you
never purchased. And not a felony.
Bo Raxo
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
Are you claiming that EVERYONE who used marijuana or cocaine in the 70s was
convicted, much less incarcerated?
Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in most
cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught, and even
more rarely incarcerated.
Reality_CheckŠ
>
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:47e9e44e$0$25981$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>> news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>> >
>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>
>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> without committing a felony.
>>
>
> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party, asks if
> you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to share their
> drugs.
Conspiracy to distribute/possess
> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in criminal
activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime, you have
conspiracy. Ipso facto
That you don't know basic criminal law doesn't change that fact..
> If you're inclined, you step in to the bathroom or wherever, you snort it
> up. Or smoke it, whatever.
>
>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>
>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>
>
> I'm not an attorney,
Nor are you aware of basic criminal law.
> but I understand some drug use can violate state laws without touching
> federal laws.
So tell us how obtaining, purchasing, possessing and/or using
cocaine in the USA as David Patterson confessed to did not
violate Federal Drug laws.
> Federal law is based on the interstate commerce clause, so if you merely
> use what someone offers you, no commerce involved.
If only your ignorance were reality.
Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be
blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused
by cancer or other serious illnesses.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the
backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader
social and financial implications.
"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic
'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority
At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use
of "patient pot."
The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of
marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government
argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited
patient exceptions.
The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the
drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the
use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested
was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis
in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.
A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was
non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of
"economic enterprise."
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that
homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden
patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it
imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of
whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>>>> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>
>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>
>
> I don't know, and neither do you.
The point being he obtained it from someone, unless you're asserting
he grew coca and processed his own cocaine all outside the jurisdiction
of the U$A.
> People offer drugs, it happens. I've had it happen many times.
And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
What part don't you conprehend?
>
>>>I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>
>> Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> No conspiracy.
Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
> No distribution.
Yep, if you accept the drugs.
>No possession,
ROTFLMAO!
> Someone hands you the mirror, you partake
Possession, dipshit.
> (or don't).
If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
> No possession.
Wrong again.
> No distribution.
And wrong again.
> No conspiracy.
Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
>
> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
>
>>
>>> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they
>>> think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
>>
>> Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
>>
>
> The person who gives it to you *might* meet the test of distribution
> (though I doubt it).
Your "doubts" about the reality of law will get you 5-10.
> The recipient does not.
>
>>> no conspiracy,
>>
>> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an "overt
>> step"
>> toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
>
> You really need to read the conspiracy statute. If someone hands you a
> joint and you take a puff and hand it backed, you didn't conspire and you
> didn't possess.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks.
>
>>
>>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>>
>> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
>> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
>
> It would constitute a state crime. But not neccesarily a federal one if
> you never purchased.
Really? So if one doesn't "purchase" the drugs, no Federal crime is
committed, eh moron?
> And not a felony.
So cite the Federal "misdemeanor" that involves the distribution, sale,
possession and/or use of cocaine.
Reality_CheckŠ
>
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:64u9knF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "yD" <yaff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
>>> Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>>> > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>>>
>>> > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>>>
>>> > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
>>> > capable
>>> > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
>>> > shake-up.
>>>
>>> Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
>>
>> Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
>> running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
>> but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
>> ====
>>
>> Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
>> in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
>> the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
>>
>> The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
>> to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
>>
>
> Are you claiming that EVERYONE who used marijuana or cocaine in the 70s
> was convicted, much less incarcerated?
Onlly a clueless imbecile like you would make such an assertion.
>
> Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in most
> cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught,
ROTFLMAO!
You stump-stupid fuck-knuckle. The MAJORITY of people busted for
drugs are arrested for SIMPLE POSSESSION!
Now run along and don't come back until you grow a brain.
Thanatos
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> In article <64rhs6F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> Sorry, none of these are felonies, you ignoramus.
>
> Possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor, New York Penal Law 220.03, as is
> the possession of marijuana, P.L. 221.10.
>
>
> So much for a "reality check"!
Now watch. It'll just claim you're lying over and over again.
Thanatos
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> > news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>
> > >
> >> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
> >>
> >
> > Not established they were felonies,
>
> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> without committing a felony.
Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone for a
violation of state law.
Deadrat
news:64ugaeF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rM-dnfSKpsf3a3Ta...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>> news:47e9e44e$0$25981$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>>> news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>>
>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>>> without committing a felony.
>>>
>>
>> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party,
>> asks if you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to
>> share their drugs.
>
> Conspiracy to distribute/possess
>
>
>> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
>
> If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in criminal
> activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime, you have
> conspiracy. Ipso facto
Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs. I'm using (possibly
on my own), and he's selling (and not with me; I'm buying)
>
> That you don't know basic criminal law doesn't change that fact..
>
>
>> If you're inclined, you step in to the bathroom or wherever, you
>> snort it up. Or smoke it, whatever.
>>
>>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>>
>>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not an attorney,
>
> Nor are you aware of basic criminal law.
>
>> but I understand some drug use can violate state laws without
>> touching federal laws.
>
> So tell us how obtaining, purchasing, possessing and/or using
> cocaine in the USA as David Patterson confessed to did not
> violate Federal Drug laws.
I can't find use prohibited in the USC, which concerns itself with
manufacture, importation, and distribution. Can you point me to title
and section?
>> Federal law is based on the interstate commerce clause, so if you
>> merely use what someone offers you, no commerce involved.
>
> If only your ignorance were reality.
>
> Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
But that's manufacture.
<snip>
>>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and
>>>>> used cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's
>>>>> classic strawmen ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>>
>>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know, and neither do you.
>
> The point being he obtained it from someone, unless you're asserting
> he grew coca and processed his own cocaine all outside the
> jurisdiction of the U$A.
>
>> People offer drugs, it happens. I've had it happen many times.
>
> And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
>
> What part don't you conprehend?
>
>>
>>>>I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>>
>>> Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
>> No conspiracy.
>
> Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
I don't believe this is correct. You have to be in concert for there to
be a conspiracy. One person is buying and one is selling. These are
separate crimes.
>
>> No distribution.
>
> Yep, if you accept the drugs.
Distribution is giving drugs to another person. You're not distributing
drugs if you're merely using them. Your dealer may be.
>>No possession,
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
>> Someone hands you the mirror, you partake
>
> Possession, dipshit.
>
>> (or don't).
>
> If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
>
>> No possession.
>
> Wrong again.
>
>> No distribution.
>
> And wrong again.
>
>> No conspiracy.
>
> Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
Could you point us to the statutes on distribution?
>
>> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
>
> Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
Since you can't take drugs in cyberspace, can you point us to the
statutes?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>>>
>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>>>> without committing a felony.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party,
>>> asks if you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to
>>> share their drugs.
>>
>> Conspiracy to distribute/possess
>>
>>
>>> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
>>
>> If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in criminal
>> activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime, you have
>> conspiracy. Ipso facto
>
> Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
> conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs.
Bullshit. Are the drugs not being distributed to you? Have you
not agreed and taken an overt act in effecting that distribution?
> I'm using
> (possibly on my own), and he's selling (and not with me; I'm buying)
You can't possibly be that stupid. I'm an truly stunned. Are you drunk?
>>
>> That you don't know basic criminal law doesn't change that fact..
>>
>>
>>> If you're inclined, you step in to the bathroom or wherever, you
>>> snort it up. Or smoke it, whatever.
>>>
>>>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>>>
>>>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>>>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not an attorney,
>>
>> Nor are you aware of basic criminal law.
>>
>>> but I understand some drug use can violate state laws without
>>> touching federal laws.
>>
>> So tell us how obtaining, purchasing, possessing and/or using
>> cocaine in the USA as David Patterson confessed to did not
>> violate Federal Drug laws.
>
> I can't find use prohibited in the USC,
Correct, use per se was not prohibited under federal code as far
as I recall.
> which concerns itself with
> manufacture, importation, and distribution. Can you point me to title
> and section?
Can you point me to a cocaine user who didn't either purchase, distribute,
possess, transport, use the interstate telephone system, use the interstate
banking
system, use the US postal system, and/or travel across state lines and/or
conspire
to do any aspect or element of the above in furtherance of the multi-various
crimes inherently necessary before the drugs end up in the body of the end user?
>
>>> Federal law is based on the interstate commerce clause, so if you
>>> merely use what someone offers you, no commerce involved.
>>
>> If only your ignorance were reality.
>>
>> Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
>
> But that's manufacture.
>
> <snip>
Stupid rat --
"The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not
recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California's medical marijuana
co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that
federal law preempted that of California. The government argued that if a single
exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become
unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that **consuming**
one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market
of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate-and
prohibit-**such consumption.**" (emphasis added for addle-brained rats)
So again, unless the marijuana is falling from the skies like manna from heaven,
the end user is part and parcel to the distribution/production/trafficking of
said drugs,
and has an "effect" on the interstate market as a whole, whether positive or
negative.
>
>>>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and
>>>>>> used cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's
>>>>>> classic strawmen ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>>>
>>>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, and neither do you.
>>
>> The point being he obtained it from someone, unless you're asserting
>> he grew coca and processed his own cocaine all outside the
>> jurisdiction of the U$A.
>>
>>> People offer drugs, it happens. I've had it happen many times.
>>
>> And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
>>
>> What part don't you comprehend?
>>
>>>
>>>>> I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy to Distribute/Possess.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> No conspiracy.
>>
>> Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
>
> I don't believe this is correct. You have to be in concert for there
> to be a conspiracy. One person is buying and one is selling. These
> are separate crimes.
Are you really that daft on drug law? No $$ or other compensation
needs to change hands for DISTRIBUTION to take place.
>
>>
>>> No distribution.
>>
>> Yep, if you accept the drugs.
>
> Distribution is giving drugs to another person.
Yep.
> You're not distributing drugs if you're merely using them.
You clueless fuck-chop. Exactly how does the user obtain
the drugs if not part of a distribution (or self-manufacture)?
>Your dealer may be.
Prisons are full of naive clueless drug users like you and BoRax,
and Prosecutors like Larry easily convict delusional nitwits who
falsely assume the crime of "just using" can be completed in a legal
vacuum.
>
>>> No possession,
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>>> Someone hands you the mirror, you partake
>>
>> Possession, dipshit.
>>
>>> (or don't).
>>
>> If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
>>
>>> No possession.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>>> No distribution.
>>
>> And wrong again.
>>
>>> No conspiracy.
>>
>> Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
>
> Could you point us to the statutes on distribution?
You can find them.
>>
>>> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
>>
>> Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
>
> Since you can't take drugs in cyberspace, can you point us to the
> statutes?
Sure, start at google, then findlaw.com if you are still stumped, stimpy.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Who said it was state law, asswipe?
M_P
> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
> > > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
> > >
> > > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
> > >
> > > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> > > capable
> > > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> > > shake-up.
>
> > Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
>
> Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
> running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
> but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
> ====
>
> Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
> in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
> the very same acts this drug-abusing
We know he used ... but how do you know he abused?
> scumbag got away with.
>
> The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
> to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
Is not having been convicted and/or incarcerated all that makes him a
"scumbag" and "dirtball" ... are those who used drugs and were
convicted and/or incarcerated not "scumbags" and "dirtballs"? If so,
that sounds like an argument for repealing the relevant laws. (Or if
not, what is your point in harping on his non-conviction/
incarceration?)
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>
>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> without committing a felony.
>
> conspiring with anyone to do so.
>
>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>
>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and
>>>> used cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic
>>>> strawmen ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>
>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>
> own,
And just "find" them laying on the ground?
> or you've got friends who don't mind sharing,
Distribution.
> you don't have to conspire to obtain said drugs.
So you stole the drugs from your friends?
That's likely to be another felony in many jurisdictions.
>
>>> I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>
>> Conspiracy to Distribute/Possess.
>>
>>> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down
>>> they think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
>>
>> Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
>
> On the part of the giver, perhaps.
Well then, all those 1000s of people convicted and/or imprisoned
for conspiracy to distribute, who were merely the receivers of,
or other peripheral players to the distribution of drugs will be
happy you've figured out a legal loophole to get
them freed.
>
>>> no conspiracy,
>>
>> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an
>> "overt step" toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
>
> Conspiracy takes conspirators, fellow planners. An overt step to
> commit a crime may be taken alone.
So from whom are you obtaining the drugs without their agreement?
Please tell us you aren't so pig-ignorant to think that ALL the
conspirators of a crime must take an overt act in furtherance
of the crime for the overall criminal conspiracy to become choate.
>
>>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>>
>> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
>> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
>
> No one says it isn't a crime, just that it needn't be conspiracy.
So tell us then how you would obtain cocaine from your supplier
without conspiring with them, or committing another crime such as
theft, stupid rat.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Now that Gov Patterson has the power to Pardon/Commute the sentences
and convictions of the 10,000s of New Yorkers who have suffered convictions,
and prison for the very same crime(s) that Patterson himself committed but never
suffered or paid for - he would indeed and in fact be a hypocritical scumbag
dirtball if he did
not exercise that authority.
Perhaps his BLINDNESS is the some comic god "sending a message" of Karmic irony.
LOL!
M_P
> >> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
Amen to that!
Thanatos
A state law violation was the topic under discussion when you claimed
the president could issue a pardon for it.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Really? Do tell.
> when you claimed
> the president could issue a pardon for it.
Why do you lie?
Pete nospam Zakel
>"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ttSdnYRZx-Nza3Ta...@comcast.com...
>> Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in most
>> cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught,
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>You stump-stupid fuck-knuckle. The MAJORITY of people busted for
>drugs are arrested for SIMPLE POSSESSION!
True, but the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs are never
busted. And in the cases of those who deal who are arrested, most are simply
charged with possession.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@seeheader.nospam)
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:
There's always one more bug.
Deadrat
news:64veooF...@mid.individual.net:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>>>>> without committing a felony.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party,
>>>> asks if you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering to
>>>> share their drugs.
>>>
>>> Conspiracy to distribute/possess
>>>
>>>
>>>> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
>>>
>>> If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in criminal
>>> activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime, you have
>>> conspiracy. Ipso facto
>>
>> Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
>> conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs.
>
> Bullshit. Are the drugs not being distributed to you? Have you
> not agreed and taken an overt act in effecting that distribution?
I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not distributing cocaine
by hoovering it. I have to perform some act that gets the drug to other
people. Drug users are not necessarily drug dealers.
>> I'm using
>> (possibly on my own), and he's selling (and not with me; I'm buying)
>
> You can't possibly be that stupid. I'm an truly stunned. Are you
> drunk?
Let me check. Er, no. The room spins when I'm drunk.
Purchasing drugs is not distributing drugs. Most of the cocaine users I
know don't mule, don't sell, don't get their drugs by mail, don't travel
across state lines, and stay the hell off the phone.
>>>> Federal law is based on the interstate commerce clause, so if you
>>>> merely use what someone offers you, no commerce involved.
>>>
>>> If only your ignorance were reality.
>>>
>>> Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
>>
>> But that's manufacture.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Stupid rat --
>
>
> "The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act,
> does not recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the
> federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to break
> up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. This
> activity was the result of the belief that federal law preempted that
> of California. The government argued that if a single exception was
> made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable
> in practice. The government also contended that **consuming** one's
> locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate
> market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may
> regulate-and prohibit-**such consumption.**" (emphasis added for
> addle-brained rats)
This isn't about consumption. It's about manufacture. The government
sucessfully argued that even if you grew weed for and only for your own
use, it was still manufacture.
> So again, unless the marijuana is falling from the skies like manna
> from heaven, the end user is part and parcel to the
> distribution/production/trafficking of said drugs,
> and has an "effect" on the interstate market as a whole, whether
> positive or negative.
If the end user is the grower, he may not successfully argue that he's
not really a grower because he's the only user. What's so hard about
this?
>>>>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and
>>>>>>> used cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's
>>>>>>> classic strawmen ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, and neither do you.
>>>
>>> The point being he obtained it from someone, unless you're asserting
>>> he grew coca and processed his own cocaine all outside the
>>> jurisdiction of the U$A.
>>>
>>>> People offer drugs, it happens. I've had it happen many times.
>>>
>>> And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
>>>
>>> What part don't you comprehend?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>>>>
>>>>> Conspiracy to Distribute/Possess.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> No conspiracy.
>>>
>>> Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
>>
>> I don't believe this is correct. You have to be in concert for there
>> to be a conspiracy. One person is buying and one is selling. These
>> are separate crimes.
>
> Are you really that daft on drug law? No $$ or other compensation
> needs to change hands for DISTRIBUTION to take place.
Of course, but the distributor is not the consumer.
>>>> No distribution.
>>>
>>> Yep, if you accept the drugs.
>>
>> Distribution is giving drugs to another person.
>
> Yep.
>
>> You're not distributing drugs if you're merely using them.
>
> You clueless fuck-chop. Exactly how does the user obtain
> the drugs if not part of a distribution (or self-manufacture)?
You're arguing that I'm running a store when I buy something at Target.
>>Your dealer may be.
>
> Prisons are full of naive clueless drug users like you and BoRax,
What makes you think I'm a drug user?
> and Prosecutors like Larry easily convict delusional nitwits who
> falsely assume the crime of "just using" can be completed in a legal
> vacuum.
Of course not. Using and possession are crimes. Just not the one you
claim.
>
>>
>>>> No possession,
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>
>>>> Someone hands you the mirror, you partake
>>>
>>> Possession, dipshit.
>>>
>>>> (or don't).
>>>
>>> If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
>>>
>>>> No possession.
>>>
>>> Wrong again.
>>>
>>>> No distribution.
>>>
>>> And wrong again.
>>>
>>>> No conspiracy.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
>>
>> Could you point us to the statutes on distribution?
>
> You can find them.
Maybe it's my drug-addled state, but I can't. Help me out.
>>>> Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
>>>
>>> Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
>>
>> Since you can't take drugs in cyberspace, can you point us to the
>> statutes?
>
> Sure, start at google, then findlaw.com if you are still stumped,
> stimpy.
So you can't. OK. So stop yelling at me. You're harshing my mellow.
<snip>
tjab
Possession of half a gram (not much) is a class D felony, P.L. 220.06.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
> news:64veooF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>>>>>> without committing a felony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He admitted to using cocaine. Someone comes up to you at a party,
>>>>> asks if you want some - that's happened to me. They're offering
>>>>> to share their drugs.
>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy to distribute/possess
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No need to conspire, to purchase, to possess.
>>>>
>>>> If there is an offer, agreement and acceptance to engage in
>>>> criminal activity, and an overt act in furtherance of that crime,
>>>> you have conspiracy. Ipso facto
>>>
>>> Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
>>> conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs.
>>
>> Bullshit. Are the drugs not being distributed to you? Have you
>> not agreed and taken an overt act in effecting that distribution?
>
> I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not distributing
> cocaine by hoovering it.
By accepting the cocaine from the distributor, you the distributee,
become the necessary link in the chain of distribution.
It doesn't get any clearer than that, numbnuts.
Now go smoke another joint, stoner.
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>>>>
>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>>>> without committing a felony.
>>>
>>> One can't. But it's easy to purchase and possess cocaine without
>>> conspiring with anyone to do so.
>>>
>>>>> and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
>>>>
>>>> Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
>>>> in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and
>>>>>> used cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's
>>>>>> classic strawmen ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Patterson stated he used.
>>>>
>>>> So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
>>>
>>> He'll have to tell us. But if you go looking for the drugs on your
>>> own,
>>
>> And just "find" them laying on the ground?
>
>
>>> or you've got friends who don't mind sharing,
>>
>> Distribution.
>
And YOU, the distributee.
>
>>> you don't have to conspire to obtain said drugs.
>>
>> So you stole the drugs from your friends?
>
> Friends don't let friends steal drugs from friends.
So you prefer to play the role of distributee in
the chain of distribution, eh fuckchop ?
>
>> That's likely to be another felony in many jurisdictions.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
>>>>
>>>> Conspiracy to Distribute/Possess.
>>>>
>>>>> at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down
>>>>> they think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
>>>
>>> On the part of the giver, perhaps.
>>
>> Well then, all those 1000s of people convicted and/or imprisoned
>> for conspiracy to distribute, who were merely the receivers of,
>> or other peripheral players to the distribution of drugs will be
>> happy you've figured out a legal loophole to get them freed.
>
> Sorry, but I don't believe that there are thousands of people who were
> caught with small amounts of drugs and convicted of trafficking.
Bwhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Take your "beliefs" and 10 gallons of cyanide KoolAid® and start a cult, stimpy.
>
>>>>> no conspiracy,
>>>>
>>>> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an
>>>> "overt step" toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
>>>
>>> Conspiracy takes conspirators, fellow planners. An overt step to
>>> commit a crime may be taken alone.
>>
>> So from whom are you obtaining the drugs without their agreement?
>
> I was hypothetically doing in on my own.
The miracle of the Virgin Line ?
>
>> Please tell us you aren't so pig-ignorant to think that ALL the
>> conspirators of a crime must take an overt act in furtherance
>> of the crime for the overall criminal conspiracy to become choate.
>
> No, all it takes is an overt act on the part of one conspirator,
Exactamundo!
> but they must be planning the same crime. Unless you want to posit a
> conspiracy to use drugs.
Distribution = distributor + distributee
Got it, Spicoli ?
>
>>>>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>>>>
>>>> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
>>>> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
>>>
>>> No one says it isn't a crime, just that it needn't be conspiracy.
>>
>> So tell us then how you would obtain cocaine from your supplier
>> without conspiring with them, or committing another crime such as
>> theft, stupid rat.
>
> The crimes are possession, use, and trafficking. They're separate.
Yet linear.
> If I've got a warehouse of weed, I'll be indicted for the last. If
> I'm caught with an ounce, not so much.
Irrelevant to how many crimes you committed to OBTAIN that ounce, dipstick.
You're starting to sound like Bo, all theory and wishful thinking, little
reality.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <64ugfiF...@mid.individual.net> "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> writes:
>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ttSdnYRZx-Nza3Ta...@comcast.com...
>
>>> Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in
>>> most cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught,
>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> You stump-stupid fuck-knuckle. The MAJORITY of people busted for
>> drugs are arrested for SIMPLE POSSESSION!
>
> True, but the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs are never
> busted. And in the cases of those who deal who are arrested, most
> are simply charged with possession.
So what's the price of pepperoni in Poughkeepsie ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <RGtGj.6010$6H....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
> Under Federal law, possession of drugs is punishable by up to a year
> in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DC173FF935A25751C0A966958260
>
> TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part D > § 844Prev | Next §
> 844. Penalties for simple possession
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000844----000-.html
Oh My!
That'll make the buggers' eyes water ...
Cub Prosecutor Larry must be as frustrated as a deaf-mute playing bingo right
now,
wanting to chime in, but can't do so without admitting that RealityCheck, Prof.
Jonez and tjab are right and the stump-stupid stoners in opposition are the easy
fish that prosecutors
like him convict and incarcerate by the THOUSANDS every year, eh Larry ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
<snip>
> If the end user is the grower, he may not successfully argue that he's
> not really a grower because he's the only user. What's so hard about
> this?
Try this on for size then, Socrates:
If the end user is the distributee, he may not successfully argue that he's
not really part of the chain/conspiracy of distribution because he's only
the user.
What's so hard about that?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
And equally bad for the distributee, when they get charged and convicted
with distrubution, criminal attempt and/or criminal conspiracy to distribute.
>
> The bank teller is a necessary link in the chain of bank robberies
> (or is that the robbery of a chain of banks?). Are you going to
> charge her too?
Is that how far you've sunk ?
Seek a CAT scan ... immediately.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
> doesn't make one (or is that ONE?) a distributor.
Good thing for Prosecutors then that the statutes and
codes criminalize *Distribution* and inculpate all those
who knowingly take part in said distribution with the
criminal conspiracy, whether they be distributor, distributee,
the accountant, the driver, the lookout, the butcher, the baker
and the candlestick maker ...
>
>>>>> you don't have to conspire to obtain said drugs.
>>>>
>>>> So you stole the drugs from your friends?
>>>
>>> Friends don't let friends steal drugs from friends.
>>
>> So you prefer to play the role of distributee in
>> the chain of distribution, eh fuckchop ?
>
> If I had a choice. Distribution has heavier penalties than
> possession.
The Supreme Court; Mandatory Life Term Is Upheld in Drug Cases
Published: June 28, 1991
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Constitution permitted imposition of a
mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for nonviolent first
offenses.
The 5-to-4 decision suggested that such a severe penalty might be
unconstitutional for some crimes, but the Court stopped well short of specifying
where it would draw the line beyond which a sentence would be "cruel and unusual
punishment," in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Court upheld a sentence imposed under a Michigan law on a man convicted in
1986 of having cocaine in his possession. Michigan is the only state to impose a
mandatory life sentence, without parole, for possession of relatively small
amounts of narcotics. The sentence for an equivalent crime under the Federal
sentencing guidelines is about 10 years.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Well then, all those 1000s of people convicted and/or imprisoned
>>>> for conspiracy to distribute, who were merely the receivers of,
>>>> or other peripheral players to the distribution of drugs will be
>>>> happy you've figured out a legal loophole to get them freed.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I don't believe that there are thousands of people who
>>> were caught with small amounts of drugs and convicted of
>>> trafficking.
>>
>> Bwhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>>
>> Take your "beliefs" and 10 gallons of cyanide KoolAid® and start a
>> cult, stimpy.
>
> So, no substantive response, then? Note that are thousands of people
> in prison for being caught with small amounts of drugs. But they
> weren't convicted for distribution.
How many were CHARGED with Distribution/Conspiracy, only to
be coerced into a Plea "bargain" for possession ?
>
>>>>>>> no conspiracy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an
>>>>>> "overt step" toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conspiracy takes conspirators, fellow planners. An overt step to
>>>>> commit a crime may be taken alone.
>>>>
>>>> So from whom are you obtaining the drugs without their agreement?
>>>
>>> I was hypothetically doing in on my own.
>>
>> The miracle of the Virgin Line ?
>
> You see strange things on coke.
It's the Real Thing.
>
>>>> Please tell us you aren't so pig-ignorant to think that ALL the
>>>> conspirators of a crime must take an overt act in furtherance
>>>> of the crime for the overall criminal conspiracy to become choate.
>>>
>>> No, all it takes is an overt act on the part of one conspirator,
>>
>> Exactamundo!
>>
>>> but they must be planning the same crime. Unless you want to posit
>>> a conspiracy to use drugs.
>>
>> Distribution = distributor + distributee
>>
>> Got it, Spicoli ?
>
> You're the one who doesn't get it. The crime is being a distributor,
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Do try again.
> the one who passes the joy on to many others. If I bogart the
> product and don't pass it on, I'm not a distributor.
Tell it to the Judge at your Mandatory Minumum sentencing hearing, numbnuts.
>
>>>>>>> people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
>>>>>> those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one says it isn't a crime, just that it needn't be conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> So tell us then how you would obtain cocaine from your supplier
>>>> without conspiring with them, or committing another crime such as
>>>> theft, stupid rat.
>>>
>>> The crimes are possession, use, and trafficking. They're separate.
>>
>> Yet linear.
>
> Please explain this legal term of art.
Right after you cite the statute the discretely criminalizes being
a "distributor" and not "distribution" or the conspiracy/enterprise of
that distribution.
>
>>> If I've got a warehouse of weed, I'll be indicted for the last. If
>>> I'm caught with an ounce, not so much.
>>
>> Irrelevant to how many crimes you committed to OBTAIN that ounce,
>> dipstick.
>
> Whatever that means. Most people don't commit any other crimes to
> obtain (or even OBTAIN) that ounce.
Do tell, in what alternative fantacy world that takes place, and exactly
how one can execute a Virgin Possession without divine intervention.
> They have it under their control, they've broken the possession law.
While first breaking the conspiracy and distribution laws.
>
>> You're starting to sound like Bo, all theory and wishful thinking,
>> little reality.
>
> And yet when I ask for the statutes, I get nothing.
>
> Go figure.
Then carry on in your delusional fog ... one day you'll meet an
overzealous cub prosecutor like Larry from NY ... and it will
all become crystal clear ... and quite painful.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> distribution are separate crimes. For the sake of argument, let's
> assume they're not. Then growing is manufacture and falls under the
> statute. Even if you're the only user.
>
> Not growing but holding is a different crime.
And how did you come to "hold" the drugs, if you
didn't grow/manufacture them yourself, or conspire
with a distributor for the sale/distribution of those
drugs to you, eh Gomer?
> You must think abusive posts will change that fact.
You must think that willful pig-ignorance and stupidity
change legal reality.
>
> But you're wrong about that, too.
Ditto.
Thanatos
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <64veplF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >>> In article <47e9e44e$0$25981$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> >>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:64u2avF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not established they were felonies,
> >>>>
> >>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> >>>> without committing a felony.
> >>>
> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone
> >>> for a violation of state law.
> >>
> >> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
> >
> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
>
> Really? Do tell.
I did tell.
> > when you claimed
> > the president could issue a pardon for it.
>
> Why do you lie?
Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone for a
violation of state law.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Thanatos wrote:
>> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> >> Thanatos wrote:
>> >>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> >>>> without committing a felony.
>> >>>
>> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone
>> >>> for a violation of state law.
>> >>
>> >> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
>> >
>> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
>>
>> Really? Do tell.
>
> I did tell.
>
>> > when you claimed
>> > the president could issue a pardon for it.
>>
>> Why do you lie?
>
> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone for a
> violation of state law.
Who said it was a violation of State law, eh jackass ?
Reality_CheckŠ
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-A92621.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <47e9e44e$0$25981$8826...@free.teranews.com>,>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>> >>
>> > >
>> >> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not established they were felonies,
>>
>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> without committing a felony.
>
> dealer to buy some cocaine, we've conspired to purchase it. We're both
> guilty of Class A misdemeanors in New York.
You're jumping in late. With respect to the thread and the discussion,
the implication was the conspiracy/agreement between the dealer and
purchaser.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <64u2avF...@mid.individual.net>,>> news:x-3363CA.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > In article <64torpF...@mid.individual.net>,>> >> news:x-112D33.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> >> > In article <64rhs6F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >> > "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry, none of these are felonies, you ignoramus.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor, New York Penal Law 220.03, as
>> >> > is
>> >> > the possession of marijuana, P.L. 221.10.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, it was.
>> >>
>> >> Unless if fell from the sky, he either purchased it, or received it
>> >> (distribution/conspiracy)
>> >> from some other dealer/distrubutor.
>> >
>> > Purchasing or receiving cocaine is not a felony in New York.
>>
>> Many a cocaine dealer will be happy to hear that, prosecutor Larry.
>
> Cocaine "dealers" sell cocaine, by definition. Selling cocaine is a
> felony. Penal Law 220.39.
They've got to purchase or receive it first, now don't they Larry?
>>
>> > Did you look up the statutes I cited?
>>
>> Did you cite the statutes in effect in the 1970s ?
>
> Yes, I did.
And where was the notation to indicate they were
in effect during the 70s ?
>
>> Are you claiming that Criminal Conspiracy (even to commit a misdemeanor)
>> was not a Felony when David Patterson conspired with his cocaine
>> supplier to obtain, purchase, possess, transport and/or use the cocaine
>> in question?
>>
>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>>
>> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic strawmen ?
>
> He did not claim that.
But as usual Larry inserts his classic NY Strawman qualification to
the crap he spews.
> A buyer of cocaine does not necessarily
> "conspire" with anyone to purchase it, not even the seller.
Do they both not agree to violate the various drug laws?
Or are you now positing some miracle of Immaculate Possession?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <fsefe5$c...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
> street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from 40-80%),
> generally people are in possession of far more than a gram for this
> statute to actually apply.
More Larry the Liar bullshit.
If a 1/2 gram of PURE is the standard, and by your own assertions
"street-level"
cocaine (is that P Diddy level, Martha Stewart or Britney Spears level?) is
40-80% pure,
then possession of as little as 6.25 TENTHS of a GRAM of street level
cocaine qualifies
as a felony. That's not even enough for the taxi ride to the party for a
group of friends, much
less enough for a nights fun. And being powdered cocaine is sold mostly by
the gram or
eight-ball, it's felony from jump street.
> This amount of weight is far more than what most users would possess,
> and is often indicia of a seller.
A GRAM of cocaine is dealer level in your mendacious world?
Why isn't anyone surprised?
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <fsefe5$c...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
>cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
>street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from 40-80%),
>generally people are in possession of far more than a gram for this
>statute to actually apply.
>
>and is often indicia of a seller.
Going in the middle of your range, 60%, we're still talking less
than a gram. Any particular reason why you would claim otherwise?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650pbiF...@mid.individual.net>,
> felony. Possessing for personal use is a misdemeanor.
More demonstrably false bullshit from Larry the legal imbecile.
>
>
>
>
>> >> > Did you look up the statutes I cited?
>> >>
>> >> Did you cite the statutes in effect in the 1970s ?
>> >
>> > Yes, I did.
>>
>> And where was the notation to indicate they were
>> in effect during the 70s ?
>
> I didn't know there needed to be a special citation. You could, of
> course, do the research yourself.
>
>
>> >> Are you claiming that Criminal Conspiracy (even to commit a
>> >> misdemeanor)
>> >> was not a Felony when David Patterson conspired with his cocaine
>> >> supplier to obtain, purchase, possess, transport and/or use the
>> >> cocaine
>> >> in question?
>> >>
>> >> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>> >>
>> >> Did David Patterson state he conspired, purchased, obtained and used
>> >> cocaine in New York, or is that another one of Larry's classic
>> >> strawmen ?
>> >
>> > He did not claim that.
>>
>> But as usual Larry inserts his classic NY Strawman qualification to
>> the crap he spews.
>>
>>
>> > A buyer of cocaine does not necessarily
>> > "conspire" with anyone to purchase it, not even the seller.
>>
>> Do they both not agree to violate the various drug laws?
>
> This is not the legal definition of a conspiracy, so you're the one
> creating a strawman here. There is not a single conspiracy law in the
> country that says someone who buys drugs is in a conspiracy with the
> seller.
No wonder you're a low-level cub prosecutor.
> Picture it this way, if you can: all conspirators are, by definition,
> accomplices of one another. So to take your illogical argument to its
> end, a buyer of drugs is guilty of SELLING the drugs, since he was an
> accomplice who helped the seller sell his drugs (by virtue of giving him
> someone to sell the drugs to). Do you even begin to see how circular
> this is, fool?
You really are a legal imbecile Larry.
>
>> Or are you now positing some miracle of Immaculate Possession?
>
> I am saying that when one agrees to buy drugs, under every conspiracy
> law in the country, he does not qualify as a conspirator in the drug
> sale. If I'm wrong, cite a statute that says otherwise here:
Pick any of the distribution statutes, then add the distributor and
distributee
who agree to violate that statute and take an overt step in furtherance of
that
crime.
Try again, numbnuts.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650p31F...@mid.individual.net>,
> pointed out to you, it is legally impossible for dealers and purchasers
> to be co-conspirators.
Complete bullshit.
> They have an agreement, of course, but its not a
> conspiracy
An agreement to violate the drug distribution laws.
> and they're not accomplices.
Sure Larry ... sure ...
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650pveF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>> news:x-EDB477.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
>> > cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
>> > street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from
>> > 40-80%),
>> > generally people are in possession of far more than a gram for this
>> > statute to actually apply.
>>
>> More Larry the Liar bullshit.
>>
>> If a 1/2 gram of PURE is the standard, and by your own assertions
>> "street-level"
>> cocaine (is that P Diddy level, Martha Stewart or Britney Spears level?)
>> is
>> 40-80% pure,
>> then possession of as little as 6.25 TENTHS of a GRAM of street level
>> cocaine qualifies
>> as a felony.
>
> math, like your thinking, is backwards.
That about sums up the level of your "expertise".
LOL!
Tell us again what College you claimed you graduated from, eh moron?
Did you even make it out of Jr. High School math, you stammering imbecile?
Thanatos
"Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >> >>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> >> >>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Not established they were felonies,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> >> >>>> without committing a felony.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon someone
> >> >>> for a violation of state law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
> >> >
> >> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
> >>
> >> Really? Do tell.
> >
> > I did tell.
> >
> >> > when you claimed
> >> > the president could issue a pardon for it.
> >>
> >> Why do you lie?
> >
> > Do tell how the president of the United States can
> > pardon someone for a violation of state law.
>
> Who said it was a violation of State law, eh jackass ?
A state law violation was the topic under discussion when you claimed
Walter Bushell
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> news:64u9knF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "yD" <yaff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
> >> Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
> >> > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
> >>
> >> > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
> >>
> >> > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> >> > capable
> >> > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> >> > shake-up.
> >>
> >> Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
> >
> > Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
> > running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
> > but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
> > ====
> >
> > Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
> > in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
> > the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
> >
> > The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
> > to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
> >
>
> Are you claiming that EVERYONE who used marijuana or cocaine in the 70s was
> convicted, much less incarcerated?
>
> Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in most
> cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught, and even
> more rarely incarcerated.
Most dealers never got caught if they stuck with Mary Jane. _Always_
having coke got one a certain reputation, every time a friend of your
customers couldn't connect, why you name was likely to be dropped.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <fsfbug$k...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>fact be a felony in NY if the pure cocaine is over 500MG.
So why would you write, as you did, that generally people are in
possession of "far more than a gram" for the felony charge to apply?
_ Prof. Jonez _
You're lying again, asswipe. The OP never claimed it
was a "state law" violation.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>> tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>>>>> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, none of these are felonies, you ignoramus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor, New York Penal Law 220.03,
>>>>>>> as is the possession of marijuana, P.L. 221.10.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So much for a "reality check"!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now watch. It'll just claim you're lying over and over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possession of half a gram (not much) is a class D felony, P.L.
>>>>> 220.06.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
>>>> cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine.
>>>> Since street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere
>>>> from 40-80%), generally people are in possession of far more than
>>>> a gram for this statute to actually apply.
>>>>
>>>> This amount of weight is far more than what most users would
>>>> possess, and is often indicia of a seller.
>>>
>>> Going in the middle of your range, 60%, we're still talking less
>>> than a gram. Any particular reason why you would claim otherwise?
>>
>> No, why would I? Possessing less than a gram of white powder can in
>> fact be a felony in NY if the pure cocaine is over 500MG.
>
> So why would you write, as you did, that generally people are in
> possession of "far more than a gram" for the felony charge to apply?
Because Larry Glasser, like Kent Wills and Cliff Claven, are just consummate
liars
and bullshitters.
Behold the legal "wisdom" of Larry the Legal Imbecile:
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where
you can still smoke."
-- Larry the idiot
"There are over 1300 ADAs in New York City alone, and
I personally know at least a half-dozen named Larry or Lawrence."
-- Larry the eponymous fool
" I don't know a single attorney, public or private,
who knows his/her attorney registration number."
-- Larry Glasser
_ Prof. Jonez _
>
>> Right after you cite the statute the discretely criminalizes being
>> a "distributor" and not "distribution" or the conspiracy/enterprise
>> of that distribution.
>
>
> 21USC841A.(a)
> <quote>
> Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any
> person knowingly or intentionally-
> (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to
> manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; ....
> </quote>
>
> Note the big three: manufacture, distribute, or dispense. And the
> criminal act is placed on "any person" doing this. That is the
> manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser.
And the Criminal Conspiracy codes or statutes would also
criminalize "any person" who knowingly agrees with said
manufacturer, distrubutor or dispensor in furtherance of
the commission of said crime(s).
A criminal distributee is an integral part of the chain of criminal distrubution
for
a criminal distributor. Ipso Facto, Ratzo.
yD
> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
>
> > > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
>
> > > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> > > capable
> > > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> > > shake-up.
>
> > Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
>
> Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
> running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
> but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
> ====
>
> Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
> in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
> the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
>
> The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
> to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
A lot of people who used illegal drugs in the 70s did not get
convicted. This man is now serving society as Governor of New York.
Cop a chill, dude.
yD
Deadrat
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
>> news:65070vF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Right after you cite the statute the discretely criminalizes being
>>> a "distributor" and not "distribution" or the conspiracy/enterprise
>>> of that distribution.
>>
>> Oh, what the hell. You made me look. Happy now?
>>
>> 21USC841A.(a)
>> <quote>
>> Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any
>> person knowingly or intentionally-
>> (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent
>> to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; ....
>> </quote>
>>
>> Note the big three: manufacture, distribute, or dispense. And the
>> criminal act is placed on "any person" doing this. That is the
>> manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser.
>
> And the Criminal Conspiracy codes or statutes would also
> criminalize "any person" who knowingly agrees with said
> manufacturer, distrubutor or dispensor in furtherance of
> the commission of said crime(s).
Of course. But the crime in question would have to be to distribute to
another party. Not what the buyer for personal use does.
> A criminal distributee is an integral part of the chain of criminal
> distrubution for
> a criminal distributor. Ipso Facto, Ratzo.
And there's no reason that I can see that the statute couldn't have been
written just that way, to make drug possession part of the illegal act of
participating in a drug "network." But that's not how it's written,
simple possession and distribution are criminalized separately.
Thanatos
Well, it would have to have been because the offense he said he was
convicted of doesn't exist on the federal level.
Besides, it doesn't matter because when I responded to your claim that
president could issue a pardon by pointing out that the president can't
issue pardons for state law violations, you claimed I was wrong about
that. It was only after I provided several legal citations to back up my
claim and you realized you were flat wrong that you retreated to your
typical name-calling and "you're lying" bullshit.
It's what you always do whenever you're proven wrong about anything. In
fact, it's the surest sign that you know you've been beaten.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <6524qvF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanatos wrote:
>> > In article <650orpF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> >
>> >> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Thanatos wrote:
>> >>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Thanatos wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
>> >>>>>>>> without committing a felony.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon
>> >>>>>>> someone for a violation of state law.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> A state law violation was the topic under discussion
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Really? Do tell.
>> >>>
>> >>> I did tell.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> when you claimed
>> >>>>> the president could issue a pardon for it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why do you lie?
>> >>>
>> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can
>> >>> pardon someone for a violation of state law.
>> >>
>> >> Who said it was a violation of State law, eh jackass ?
>> >
>> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
>>
>> You're lying again, asswipe. The OP never claimed it
>> was a "state law" violation.
>
> Well, it would have to have been because the offense he said he was
> convicted of doesn't exist on the federal level.
You're lying again. You punked yourself like a chump, and got caught cold.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:VWUGj.8670$Rq1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Got a citation to statute where it excludes the distributee from
being "another party" in the crime of distribution ?
> Not what the buyer for personal use does.
>
>> A criminal distributee is an integral part of the chain of criminal
>> distrubution for a criminal distributor. Ipso Facto, Ratzo.
>
> And there's no reason that I can see that the statute couldn't have been
> written just that way, to make drug possession part of the illegal act of
> participating in a drug "network."
No need to. Possession is a discrete and separate crime from distribution,
as evidence by the fact that THOUSANDS of defendants are charged
with both distribution and possession and conspiracy, all for the same
illegal
drugs.
> But that's not how it's written,
> simple possession and distribution are criminalized separately.
Yep. Which even to someone playing as obtuse as you are, the
distributee can in fact be in violation of both criminal distribution,
criminal possession and conspiracy for same, all over the same
batch of drugs.
Reality_CheckŠ
On Mar 26, 2:43 am, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
>
> > > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> > > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
> > > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> > > capable
> > > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> > > shake-up.
>
> > Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
>
> Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
> running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
> but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
> ====
>
> Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
> in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
> the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
>
> The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
> to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
A lot of people who used illegal drugs in the 70s did not get
convicted. This man is now serving society as Governor of New York.
Cop a chill, dude.
=========
Go chill in prison stoner, with the THOUSANDS of others doing time
for the same crimes Gov. Patterson committed but didn't pay for.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650s90F...@mid.individual.net>,
> disbelieve them, too?
Now how could one disbelieve an on-point citation to case law, eh Larry?
>> > They have an agreement, of course, but its not a
>> > conspiracy
>>
>> An agreement to violate the drug distribution laws.
>
> Is not a conspiracy under any state or federal law.
So where are those citations ?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650s1eF...@mid.individual.net>,
tjab has already posted the law that flushes your lie right down the
shitter where it belongs.
Now show us some more of the fuzzy Larry math we've all
grown to know and love.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <650sjbF...@mid.individual.net>,
We can already see your abject idiocy when it comes to basic math
Larry, but if you must embarrass yourself further, go right ahead.
>
> 1) one tenth of a gram is .1 grams, or 100 milligrams.
Brilliant.
>
> 2) 6.25 tenths, then, is .625 grams, or 625 milligrams.
Or 62.5% of a gram.
>
> 3) I said 40% to 80%. So lets look at both of those numbers:
> 3a) 40% of 625 milligrams is 250 milligrams.
> 3b) 80% of 625 milligrams is 500 milligrams.
Yep.
>
> So I ask again - how is How is 40% to 80% of 6.25 tenths of a gram over
> 500 milligrams?
It's not blue either, jackass. Nor is it over a pound. But neither of
those were qualifiers in your original stupid statement, which you've
snipped and removed, so lets restore what you originally said:
Larry the lying legal jackass said:
> > If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
> > cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
> > street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from 40-80%),
> > generally people are in possession of far more than a gram for this
> > statute to actually apply.
To which I replied:
> then possession of as little as 6.25 TENTHS of a GRAM of street level
> cocaine qualifies as a felony.
Now do you really want to continue to abuse yourself in public again Larry ?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <fsghlr$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> When someone is in possession of such a substance, the laboratory must
> analyze the substance to determine how much is pure cocaine.
>
> I've seen cases where people are in possession of over 2 grams of
> cocaine (aggregate weight) but it's less than 500 milligrams of pure
> cocaine, making it a misdemeanor (and very weak).
>
> Are you really having this much trouble keeping up?
Larry trying to take the Lying Jackass award from Kent Wills:
<emphasis added **>
Larry the Legal Imbecile wrote:
> >> >If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
> >> >cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
> >> >street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from
> >> >40-80%),
> >> >generally people are in possession of **far more than a gram** for
> >> >this
> >> >statute to actually apply.
tjab replied thus:
> >> Going in the middle of your range, 60%, we're still talking **less**
> >> than a gram.
Larry the lying shitwipe punks himself yet again.
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <653422F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>>
>> >> > They have an agreement, of course, but its not a
>> >> > conspiracy
>> >>
>> >> An agreement to violate the drug distribution laws.
>> >
>> > Is not a conspiracy under any state or federal law.
>>
>> So where are those citations ?
>
<cue crickets chirping>
Thanatos
"Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-52FECC...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <6524qvF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >> > In article <650orpF...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> > "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> Thanatos wrote:
> >> >>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Thanatos wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Did Federal Drug Laws not apply to the Felonies in question?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Not established they were felonies,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
> >> >>>>>>>> without committing a felony.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Do tell how the president of the United States can pardon
> >> >>>>>>> someone for a violation of state law.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Who said it was state law, asswipe?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A state law violation was the topic under discussion
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Really? Do tell.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I did tell.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> when you claimed
> >> >>>>> the president could issue a pardon for it.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Why do you lie?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do tell how the president of the United States can
> >> >>> pardon someone for a violation of state law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who said it was a violation of State law, eh jackass ?
> >> >
> >> > A state law violation was the topic under discussion
> >>
> >> You're lying again, asswipe. The OP never claimed it
> >> was a "state law" violation.
> >
> > you realized you were flat wrong that you retreated to your
> > typical name-calling and "you're lying" bullshit.
> > It's what you always do whenever you're proven wrong about
> > anything. In fact, it's the surest sign that you know
> > you've been beaten.
>
> You're lying again.
Way to prove my point, chief.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <650sjbF...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> 3a) 40% of 625 milligrams is 250 milligrams.
> 3b) 80% of 625 milligrams is 500 milligrams.
>
>500 milligrams?
Nice game of three card monte, Larry, but the real question is, how is
6.25 tenths of a gram "far more than a gram?"
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <fsghlr$9...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>When someone is in possession of such a substance, the laboratory must
>analyze the substance to determine how much is pure cocaine.
>
>I've seen cases where people are in possession of over 2 grams of
>cocaine (aggregate weight) but it's less than 500 milligrams of pure
>cocaine, making it a misdemeanor (and very weak).
>
>Are you really having this much trouble keeping up?
You've now gone from "generally" to "I've seen cases."
Are you really having this much trouble admitting you were wrong?
tjab
For Moe, this would be proof that Jonez and Kent are the same person.
_ Prof. Jonez _
You punked yourself, and got outed.
Now run along.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Reality_CheckŠ <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
A real Agatha Christie she is ... imagine how useful she'd have been
on Dick Cheney's WMD propaganda machine ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
You misspelled "a lying asswipe".
Reality_CheckŠ
"tjab" <tj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:fsis64$4...@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
"Travel to Cuba by US citizens is outright prohibited"
yD
> "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6df17f57-cbd4-403a...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "yD" <yaffaD...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:d2eef548-3fad-4d85...@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
>
> > > > NY Governor Patterson admits to committing FELONIES
>
> > > > NY gov says he tried coke and pot in his youth
>
> > > > Paterson is regarded in New York as a politician of integrity who is
> > > > capable
> > > > of building consensus in the capital in Albany after the Spitzer
> > > > shake-up.
>
> > > Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying fuck?
>
> > Well,some people do -- but the drugs are common knowledge, when he was
> > running for Lt. Governor, he admitted to taking marijuana and cocaine
> > but has not taken illegal drugs since the 1970s.
> > ====
>
> > Funny. THOUSANDS of people who "took" marijuana and cocaine
> > in the 1970s ended up convicted of Felonies and/or Incarcerated for
> > the very same acts this drug-abusing scumbag got away with.
>
> > The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
> > to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
>
> A lot of people who used illegal drugs in the 70s did not get
> convicted. This man is now serving society as Governor of New York.
> Cop a chill, dude.
> =========
>
> Go chill in prison stoner, with the THOUSANDS of others doing time
>
> - Show quoted text -
You called me a stoner? Hey, instead of chillin' dude, why don't you
seek help.
yD
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <653d9mF...@mid.individual.net>,
> People v Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 446 (1990); People v Feldman, 50 N.Y.2d 500
> (1980); People v Herring, 83 N.Y.2d 780(1994)
>
> Also look at the New York State CJI charge on "agency." Do you know
> what the agency defense is? It is an affirmative defense to a charge of
> selling drugs that you were buying them or acting on behalf of the buyer
> rather than the seller. The charge itself states "Under our law, a
> person is not guilty of selling a controlled substance [marihuana] [or
> of possessing a controlled substance (marihuana) with the intent to sell
> it] if he/she was acting as the [buyer]."
>
> Could it be any clearer?
Interesting.
Do you have any evidence, any at all, that Gov. David Patterson committed
his drug felonies in the State of NY where he could avail himself of this
drug-dealer
coddling, soft on crime, NY law ?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <fsisga$4...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> them, actually) is that you can't distinguish fact from opinion.
LOL!
Larry> If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
Larry> cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
Larry> street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from
Larry> 40-80%), generally people are in possession of **far more** than a
gram
Larry> for this statute to actually apply.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <fsisga$4...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>them, actually) is that you can't distinguish fact from opinion.
You wrote:
"If you look at the statute closely, unlike the other weight-based
cocaine charges, this must be 500 milligrams of PURE cocaine. Since
street-level cocaine is far from pure (generally, anywhere from
40-80%), generally people are in possession of far more than a gram
for this statute to actually apply."
In the middle of your range, 60%, 835 milligrams of white powder
contains more than 500 milligrams of pure cocaine.
Is it your "opinion" that 835 milligrams is far more than a gram?
>If you want to argue over whether these laws should be in effect, or
>whether buyers and sellers should be charged as co-conspirators in the
>sale, we can discuss that all you want and you can tell me why you think
>your position is better than mine.
If I wanted to argue over that, I would. I don't, so I haven't.
If you haven't said anything incorrect, why are you so desperate to
change the subject?
Reality_CheckŠ
> In article <fsmovf$e...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> with equal distributions or a standard deviation. You assumed it was.
You're lying again, Larry.
> I was simply recapping from memory
aka BULLSHITTING.
> a swath of cases I prosecuted. I'd
> say the majority of cases are between 40% and 50/55%,
So which is it now, liar? 50 or 55% for the upper limit?
Is that equally distributed, or are you prevaricating again?
So tell us liar, with your newly fabricated figures, how
is 1.05 grams *far more than a gram*, legally speaking?
<snip anecdotal bullshit>
>
> Oh, and there's also the issue of having to prove the weight beyond a
> reasonable doubt. If a lab analysis showed exactly 500 milligrams (or
> even up to about 550 or so), as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion
> the charge probably wouldn't be brought.
So then how is 1.05 grams *far more than a gram* in prosecutorial terms, eh
lying Larry?
> Between accepted margins of
> error, and ambiguities that defense lawyers could create at trial
> (whether they exist or not), it would be hard to convince a jury beyond
> a reasonable doubt that the defendant had 500mg or more if the lab
> analysis was exactly that or only a small amount over.
Seems like your bullshit and lies are far outside the "accepted margins of
error"
> So it is not my "opinion," but rather a fact, that if you reviewed all
> of the cases in which someone was charged with this crime, the aggregate
> weight of the cocaine they possessed would be over 1 gram.
Which isn't what you originally claimed, liar.
So tell us again how 1.05 grams of cocaine is "far more than a gram".
>Frankly, I don't care if you believe me or not, and I'm sure you don't,
>but that's
> a fact.
Why would anyone believe a liar like you, Larry ?
"The average purity of powder cocaine in 2003 was high and was similar
across quantity levels (60 to 80 percent) but was still well below the peak
levels of the late 1980s. Through the late 1980s, there were pronounced
differences in average purity between the two lower quantity levels and the
two higher quantity levels. Now those differences are quite small,
suggesting that "cutting" or diluting powder cocaine as it moves from the
higher (~100 gram) to the lower (~1 gram) quantity levels is not as common
as it used to be. "
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/price_purity/exec_summ.pdf
Now why don't you go eat some more shit, Larry, you shiteating liar?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in news:65a3jjF2f20tbU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fsj4hc$7...@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
>>>
>>>> In article <Cf8Hj.36349$J41....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>> tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fsis64$4...@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
>>>>> You buy some nice porkchops. The butcher weighs your purchase --
>>>>> 20 ounces -- you pay at the register, and the meat police bust
>>>>> you at the door. Down at the police lab, they trim your
>>>>> porkchops of bone and fat -- remember it's only the meat that's a
>>>>> problem -- and reweigh.
>>>>> 13.5 ouinces. You're off the hook and swear that this time you'll
>>>>> stick to being a vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who fails to see that your purchase was far more than a pound, but
>>>>> ended up not violating the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hands?
>>>>
>>>> Did you have a point?
>>>
>>> If the discussion is over your head, don't put up your hand.
>>
>> So tell us how 1.05 grams of cocaine is "far more than a gram".
>
> Sure, I'll try again.
>
> People who are busted with more than a gram of illegal powder that
> they weren't fast enough to put up their noses might not be in
> possession of more than a gram of pure cocaine.
Non-responsive.
Try again.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <MFRHj.189$ch4...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat <a...@b.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in news:65a3jjF2f20tbU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fsj4hc$7...@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Cf8Hj.36349$J41....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>> tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in
>>>>>> news:fsis64$4...@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You buy some nice porkchops. The butcher weighs your purchase
>>>>>> -- 20 ounces -- you pay at the register, and the meat police
>>>>>> bust you at the door. Down at the police lab, they trim your
>>>>>> porkchops of bone and fat -- remember it's only the meat that's
>>>>>> a problem -- and reweigh.
>>>>>> 13.5 ouinces. You're off the hook and swear that this time
>>>>>> you'll stick to being a vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who fails to see that your purchase was far more than a pound,
>>>>>> but ended up not violating the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hands?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you have a point?
>>>>
>>>> If the discussion is over your head, don't put up your hand.
>>>
>>> So tell us how 1.05 grams of cocaine is "far more than a gram".
>>
>> Sure, I'll try again.
>>
>> People who are busted with more than a gram of illegal powder that
>> they weren't fast enough to put up their noses might not be in
>> possession of more than a gram of pure cocaine.
>
You're lying again, jackass.
So tell us again how 1.05 grams of cocaine is "far more than a gram".
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <655vvkF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>> news:x-89DBDC.23...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> In article <653d9mF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>
>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:x-54FA54.23...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>> In article <653422F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:x-E6FF6D.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>>>> In article <650s90F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:x-275442.01...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>>>>>> In article <650p31F...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:x-A92621.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <47e9e44e$0$25981$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:poednQtjzYamQ3Ta...@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> any other state law?
So you have ZERO evidence that David Patterson committed his
drug crimes in the State of NY, eh Larry ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So tell us again Larry how 1.05 grams of cocaine is "far more than a gram"
legally speaking.
"What do you think a "DNA Warrant" is? There is no such thing."
-- Larry the lying legal stooge
" [The Jury] might have unanimously found that he probably committed the crime,
or likely committed them, or possibly committed them - *or* that he was in fact
innocent."
-- Larry the idiot
"The jury was hung. Whether it was hung 11 for the top count and 1
for a lesser count or 1 for the top count and 11 to acquit is of no legal
relevance in terms of bail."
-- Larry the legal imbecile
" Actually, prisons are one of the few public places where