|
|
|
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
|
| |
| |
In article <64rhs6F2crajtU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@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"!
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
|
| |
| |
In article <64rhs6F2crajtU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
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.
So much for a "reality check"!
So much for Larry the Legal Imbecile.
|
| |
| |
In article <64torpF2bqcp5U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
You're lying again, moron.
Was it a misdemeanor in the 1970s when he claims to have consumed it?
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. Did you
look up the statutes I cited?
|
| |
| |
In article <64torpF2bqcp5U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
Yes, it was.
Purchasing or receiving cocaine is not a felony in New York.
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 ?
|
| |
| |
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.
|
| |
| |
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$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
No, Patterson stated he used.
So where and how did he obtain the cocaine he used?
I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
at parties and in nightclubs and bars. ( When you turn 'em down they
think you must be a cop. ) No purchase,
Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
no conspiracy,
Yes conspiracy if you accepted the drugs, or agreed and took an "overt step"
toward possessing/accepting the drugs.
people offer drugs all the time for all kinds of reasons.
And you're a clueless nitwit if you think your acceptance of
those drugs wouldn't constitute a crime, State and/or Federal.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote:
Reality_Check wrote:
Here's a reality check for you: Who gives a flying @$#*?
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.
|
| |
| |
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.
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?!?
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.
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.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote: 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.
|
| |
| |
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.
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.
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 -
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, dip#@($.
(or don't).
If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
No possession.
Wrong again.
No distribution.
And wrong again.
No conspiracy.
Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
Really, is this concept beyond your comprehension?!?
Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
The person who gives it to you *might* meet the test of distribution
(though I doubt it).
Your "doubts" about the reality of law will get you 5-10.
The recipient does not.
no conspiracy,
You really need to read the conspiracy statute. If someone hands you a
joint and you take a puff and hand it backed, you didn't conspire and you
didn't possess.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks.
It would constitute a state crime. But not neccesarily a federal one if
you never purchased.
Really? So if one doesn't "purchase" the drugs, no Federal crime is
committed, eh moron?
And not a felony.
So cite the Federal "misdemeanor" that involves the distribution, sale,
possession and/or use of cocaine.
|
| |
| |
Are you claiming that EVERYONE who used marijuana or cocaine in the 70s
was convicted, much less incarcerated?
Onlly a clueless imbecile like you would make such an assertion.
Obviously not. Some were caught, some were not. The difference in most
cases: people who used but didn't deal were very rarely caught,
ROTFLMAO!
You stump-stupid @$#*-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.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-112D33.21441125032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <64rhs6F2crajtU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
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.
|
| |
| |
In article <47e9e44e$0$25981$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
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.
|
| |
| |
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
news:47e9e44e$0$25981$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
Do tell how one can conspire to purchase/possess cocaine
without committing a felony.
One can't. But it's easy to purchase and possess cocaine without
conspiring with anyone to do so.
and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
in the U$A without violating Federal Felony laws.
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,
or you've got friends who don't mind sharing, you don't have to conspire
to obtain said drugs.
I've had people offer me drugs - for free -
Conspiracy to Distrubute/Possess.
Irrelevant, it's still distribution.
On the part of the giver, perhaps.
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.
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.
|
| |
| |
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
news:64ugaeF2djj9lU1@mid.individual.net:
Conspiracy to distribute/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..
Nor are you aware of basic criminal law.
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$A.
And offering/accepting illegal drugs IS distribution, numbnuts.
What part don't you conprehend?
Yep.
Yep, if you agree and accept their offer.
I don't believe this is correct. You have to be in concert for there to
be a conspiracy. One person is buying and one is selling. These are
separate crimes.
Yep, if you accept the drugs.
Distribution is giving drugs to another person. You're not distributing
drugs if you're merely using them. Your dealer may be.
No possession,
ROTFLMAO!
Possession, dip#@($.
If you don't agree or accept the cocaine.
Wrong again.
And wrong again.
Were you born stupid, or did drug abuse make you stupid?
Could you point us to the statutes on distribution?
Tell it to the judge/jury, moron.
Since you can't take drugs in cyberspace, can you point us to the
statutes?
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.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks.
Really? So if one doesn't "purchase" the drugs, no Federal crime is
committed, eh moron?
So cite the Federal "misdemeanor" that involves the distribution,
sale, possession and/or use of cocaine.
|
| |
| |
eadrat wrote:
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
Sure, but it must be the same criminal act. If I buy drugs, I'm not
conspiring with a drug dealer to distribute drugs.
Bull#@($. Are the drugs not being distributed to you? Have you
not agreed and taken an overt act in effecting that distribution?
I'm using
(possibly on my own), and he's selling (and not with me; I'm buying)
You can't possibly be that stupid. I'm an truly stunned. Are you drunk?
That you don't know basic criminal law doesn't change that fact..
If you're inclined, you step in to the bathroom or wherever, you
snort it up. Or smoke it, whatever.
and it is possible federal charges didn't apply.
Please do tell how one can purchase, possess and/or use cocaine
in the U$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.
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.
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.
Distribution is giving drugs to another person.
Yep.
You're not distributing drugs if you're merely using them.
You clueless @$#*-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,
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.
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).
|
| |
| |
Thanatos wrote:
In article <47e9e44e$0$25981$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote:
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?
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Reality_Check=A9" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:35 pm, Peter Dworkin <pe...@pdworkin.com> wrote: 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. =3D=3D=3D=3D 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?)
|
| |
| |
Deadrat wrote:
"Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> wrote in
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.
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.
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 -
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,
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.
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.
|
| |
| |
M_P wrote:
On Mar 26, 1:43 am, "Reality_Check" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
We know he used ... but how do you know he abused?
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?)
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!
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 12:53 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
M_P wrote:
scumbag got away with.
The difference being those caught and prosecuted PAID their DEBT
to Society, this dirtball did NOT.
Now that Gov Patterson has the power to Pardon/Commute the sentences
and convictions of the 10,000s of New Yorkers who have suffered conviction=
s,
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 scumb=
ag
dirtball if he did not exercise that authority.
Amen to that!
|
| |
| |
In article <64veplF2chemhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
Who said it was state law, asswipe?
A state law violation was the topic under discussion when you claimed
the president could issue a pardon for it.
|
| |
| |
Thanatos wrote:
In article <64veplF2chemhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote:
A state law violation was the topic under discussion
Really? Do tell.
when you claimed
the president could issue a pardon for it.
Why do you lie?
|
| |
| |
In article <64ugfiF2d3riqU1@mid.individual.net> "Reality_Check" <Reality@Check.it> writes:
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 @$#*-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
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:
There's always one more bug.
|
| |
| |
_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
news:64veooF2dqmctU1@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
Bull#@($. 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.
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.
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?
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 clueless @$#*-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.
|
| |
| |
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:64vfdvF2dnu9mU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
And just "find" them laying on the ground?
I've never been that lucky.
or you've got friends who don't mind sharing,
Distribution.
Possibly the friends.
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.
That's likely to be another felony in many jurisdictions.
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.
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.
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, but they
must be planning the same crime. Unless you want to posit a conspiracy
to use 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.
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. 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.
|
| |
| |
In article <atropos-BBBAA0.06151426032008@news.giganews.com>,
Thanatos <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <x-112D33.21441125032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
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.
|
| |
| |
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
news:64veooF2dqmctU1@mid.individual.net:
I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm no | | |
