about focking time (bike rule enforcement)

On Sep 3, 12:33*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bob Hunt wrote:
On Sep 1, 7:26 pm, Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-02, Bob wrote:

Regarding State enforced child support payments on Aug 26, 4:45 pm,
Brent P wrote:
It's a civil matter between the two parties. It should be handled like
any other dispute over monies owed to one party by another.
Suppose I burglarize your home. I deprive you of your property but
harm no one else.
This is not a contract. It's called theft.

Suppose I am the CEO of a large corporation and by
cooking ther books I deprive stockholders of their investments.
This is not a contract. It's called fraud or theft depending on the
particulars.

Are
these also civil matters between two parties or do you expect that the
police (agents of the government) arrest me and the SEC freeze company
Failure to pay an obligation, child support, is a breach of contract. A
better analogy would be those who stopped paying their mortgage or car
loan or credit card debts.

You seem to be hung up on the term "contract". Part of the social
contract we've all implicitly agreed to abide by is the agreement to
follow court orders, even orders to pay child support. But since you
apparently want to use a different analogy, try these.
Go rent a car. Do not return it as your *contract* specified. Keep it
for a week longer than specified. Then call me and tell me where you
are. I'll arrest you for auto theft and when you appear in court you
can explain to the judge that it is a breach of contract and a civil,
not criminal, matter so a criminal court can't impose any sanctions
upon you.
Now then, after you are convicted I'm sure the judge will release you
on probation (this is Cook County after all) with the provision that
you pay restitution to the rental agency and complete some community
service. Don't pay the restitution on time and don't report for your
CS hours. Call me again and I'll give you a ride to the court where
you can explain again that it is a civil, not criminal, matter.

Hey Bob, you should try to collect payment from deadbeat clients some
time. Payment is practically optional in real world terms. Going to
court will cost at least 5 figures in legal fees, and drag on for years.
And the deadbeats do not go to jail. Heck, one deadbeat I have dealt
with is on the Forbes 400 list (took the money out of an LLC, and left
everyone else holding the bag).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You did *read* what I wrote, didn't you? I was using examples to point
out to Brent that sometimes what he terms "contractual disputes for
civil courts" are, in fact, criminal matters. Whether breaching a
particular contract is a civil or criminal matter depends on the laws
in that jurisdiction. Some contracts in some jurisdictions are
enforced by criminal penalty. He was incorrect to make the kind of
blanket statement he did. Had he said, "In my opinion all contractual
disputes *should* be civil matters", then his statement would have at
least been factual.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- The complainant doesn't pay any legal fees in criminal court so
I guess your dispute was civil in nature.

On 2008-09-04, Bob wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:


Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?

Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim.

Who is the victim of possession of an illegal plant product, such as
pot?

In chi.general Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-04, Bob wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59?pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:


Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?

Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim.

Who is the victim of possession of an illegal plant product, such as
pot?


all the children?

Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-04, Bob wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?

Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim.

Who is the victim of possession of an illegal plant product, such as
pot?

Anheuser-Busch, Miller-Coors, etc, who otherwise would face competition
in the self-medication market for overworked and overstressed USians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"America is like a casino. Almost everyone loses, some make it big,
and the owners always win." - Anon.

On 2008-09-04, Tom Sherman wrote:
Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-04, Bob wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?

Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim.

Who is the victim of possession of an illegal plant product, such as
pot?

Anheuser-Busch, Miller-Coors, etc, who otherwise would face competition
in the self-medication market for overworked and overstressed USians.

That is true. However brewers both large and small are traditionally on
the losing end with the control freaks and those who seek personal
profit through legislation as well. Most of these prohibitions got going
in the same couple of decades between the late teens and the late 30s.

IMO, those who want to keep it (and other substances) illegal on the
competition/profit angle and have the power to do it are those in the
drug business, legal and illegal.

On 2008-09-05, Bob wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:19?pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bob Hunt wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?

Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim. The sole exception to that is in
homicide cases and that is only because the complainant is unable to
testify. Can a victim- other than a murder victim- be compelled to
testify? Yes, but only as a material witness and that happens so
rarely it doesn't merit discussion.

What about statutory sex crimes? Often the "victim" consented, and was
morally able to make consent (and the act was only illegal due to
fundies making the laws).


Are you referring to statutory sex crimes like when a caretaker
sexually assaults the 9 yr old child in their care? Or when a 35 year
old man engages in sexual conduct with the 13 yr old daughter of his
live-in girlfriend? Or just the 50 year old man that carries on
numerous love affairs with pre-teenaged boys? Those are the types of
so-called statutory sex crimes that I've seen prosecuted, and yes, the
victim is still the victim regardless of whether anyone thinks they
are "morally able to grant consent". Those damned fundamentalists! How
dare they make such acts crimes? The kid *wanted* it. At least that is
what all the offenders I've arrested have told me.
You really should stop trying quite so hard to be contrarian. It can
lead you into- to use one of your favorite adjectives- morally
indefensible positions.


LOL. figured you go that route. He's refering to the 19 year old who has
consentual sex with a 16.9 year old who told him she was 18. It's pretty
obvious if you read the entire paragraph he wrote.

Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-05, Bob wrote:
On Sep 4, 6:19?pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Bob Hunt wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:59 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Is not the "state" always the complainant in criminal cases (at least in
systems based on English Common Law)? How else could we have cases where
the so called victim is compelled to testify?
Not unless the State was the victim. The State is the *prosecutor*.
The victim is always the victim. The sole exception to that is in
homicide cases and that is only because the complainant is unable to
testify. Can a victim- other than a murder victim- be compelled to
testify? Yes, but only as a material witness and that happens so
rarely it doesn't merit discussion.
What about statutory sex crimes? Often the "victim" consented, and was
morally able to make consent (and the act was only illegal due to
fundies making the laws).


Are you referring to statutory sex crimes like when a caretaker
sexually assaults the 9 yr old child in their care? Or when a 35 year
old man engages in sexual conduct with the 13 yr old daughter of his
live-in girlfriend? Or just the 50 year old man that carries on
numerous love affairs with pre-teenaged boys?

"Love affairs"? Either a very bad choice of euphemism or implying that
the activity was consensual. Weird, either way.

Those are the types of
so-called statutory sex crimes that I've seen prosecuted, and yes, the
victim is still the victim regardless of whether anyone thinks they
are "morally able to grant consent". Those damned fundamentalists! How
dare they make such acts crimes? The kid *wanted* it. At least that is
what all the offenders I've arrested have told me.
You really should stop trying quite so hard to be contrarian. It can
lead you into- to use one of your favorite adjectives- morally
indefensible positions.


LOL. figured you go that route. He's refering to the 19 year old who has
consentual sex with a 16.9 year old who told him she was 18. It's pretty
obvious if you read the entire paragraph he wrote.

Or the 21-year old man who has consensual sex with the 17-year old girl
who looks older, and whom he met in a bar, which she entered with a fake ID.

When I was attending summer session in college, we had Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) teenagers and adult counselors staying in the
dormitory (since the students only half filled the building). Several of
the teenage girls were coming on STRONGLY to some of the male counselors
in their late 20's and early 30's. And if you think these girls were
innocent virgins, I have some oceanfront property in Iowa that I am
looking to sell.

Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, teenage boys have been prosecuted
for statutory rape where the girl was OLDER than they were, but still
under age 18.

The truth is that some parents can not face the fact that their
daughters want to have sex, and therefore view them as "victims" even
when the daughters consent or are the party initiating the sexual
contact. GROW UP PEOPLE!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

On 2008-09-05, Tom Sherman wrote:

Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, teenage boys have been prosecuted
for statutory rape where the girl was OLDER than they were, but still
under age 18.

I read a news story (via fark.com) where this girl 14-15 years old was
going around saying she was 19 (complete with myspace page) and having
sex with guys in their early 20s. Picture in the article didn't show
what looked like a 15 year old girl, but at the very least a 19 year old
by appearance. She's put two guys in prison already.

The truth is that some parents can not face the fact that their
daughters want to have sex, and therefore view them as "victims" even
when the daughters consent or are the party initiating the sexual
contact. GROW UP PEOPLE!

Yep. In the story I read her father was the one having the charges
filed. The second guy after he found out her real age and wasn't going
to see her any longer as I recall it.

A guy could get three forms of ID, photocopy them for his records and
still go to prison.

Brent P wrote:
On 2008-09-05, Tom Sherman wrote:

Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, teenage boys have been prosecuted
for statutory rape where the girl was OLDER than they were, but still
under age 18.

I read a news story (via fark.com) where this girl 14-15 years old was
going around saying she was 19 (complete with myspace page) and having
sex with guys in their early 20s. Picture in the article didn't show
what looked like a 15 year old girl, but at the very least a 19 year old
by appearance. She's put two guys in prison already.

One should not wish bad things on people, but...

The truth is that some parents can not face the fact that their
daughters want to have sex, and therefore view them as "victims" even
when the daughters consent or are the party initiating the sexual
contact. GROW UP PEOPLE!

Yep. In the story I read her father was the one having the charges
filed. The second guy after he found out her real age and wasn't going
to see her any longer as I recall it.

A guy could get three forms of ID, photocopy them for his records and
still go to prison.


But hey, that is all right with the fundies, since they would make any
sex besides that solely for procreation between married couples illegal.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

On Sep 5, 12:41*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Brent P wrote:

I read a news story (via fark.com) where this girl 14-15 years old was
going around saying she was 19 (complete with myspace page) and having
sex with guys in their early 20s. Picture in the article didn't show
what looked like a 15 year old girl, but at the very least a 19 year old
by appearance. She's put two guys in prison already.
....

A guy could get three forms of ID, photocopy them for his records and
still go to prison.

But hey, that is all right with the fundies, since they would make any
sex besides that solely for procreation between married couples illegal.

Funny thing, but those aren't the kind of incidents I read about in
our newspapers. Instead, our newspaper reporters have written
articles about a 30 year old live in boyfriend who molested his
girlfriend's daughter. Or an 18 year old kid who molested two little
cousins. Or 40+ year old guys meeting 16 year old girls online and
luring them to motels. Or a local law enforcement officer's sting
operation, in which he pretends to be a young girl online, and has
caught three different middle-aged men who thought they were going to
have sex with a 14 year old.

Damned fundamentalists! Imagine depriving little kids of all that
fun, eh?

- Frank Krygowski