In article <650s1eF2e2vdfU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Reality_Check©" wrote:
> "Larry" wrote in message
> news:x-77FE00.01530027032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <650pbiF2dgir9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >
> >> "Larry" wrote in message
> >> news:x-F93B74.22100026032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> > In article <64u2avF2dc8sbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> > "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Larry" wrote in message
> >> >> news:x-3363CA.22232125032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> >> > In article <64torpF2bqcp5U1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >> > "Reality_Check©" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Larry" wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:x-112D33.21441125032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> >> >> > In article <64rhs6F2crajtU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >> >> > "Reality_Check©" 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?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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?
> >
> > So what? Selling is a felony. Possessing with the intent to sell is a
> > felony. Possessing for personal use is a misdemeanor.
>
> More demonstrably false bullshit from Larry the legal imbecile.
If this is demonstrably false, why can't you demonstrate its falsity?
> >> >> > 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.
If I'm wrong, cite such a law here:
> > 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.
And what does that get you? A drug sale, but not a conspiracy.
You're living proof that a little knowledge is a VERY dangerous thing. |