Deadrat wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote in
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" wrote in
>>>>>> "Bo Raxo" wrote in message
>>>>>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" 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?
>>>
>>> I've never been that lucky.
>>>
>>>>> or you've got friends who don't mind sharing,
>>>>
>>>> Distribution.
>>>
>>> Possibly the friends.
>>
>> And YOU, the distributee.
>
> Being a distributee may be illegal per possession laws. But it
> 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 .chop ?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>>>> 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 KoolAidŽ 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.
|