tomdzip
2009-06-20 20:06:08 UTC
WHAT? You want examples of those who got off on technicalities?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You think it's never happened before?
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Baltimore_s_Indicted_Mayor_Partiall...ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You think it's never happened before?
Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon may have felt victorious Thursday when
several of the criminal charges she faces were tossed out by Circuit
Judge Dennis M. Sweeney. The ruling may reduce her legal exposure, but
she is by no means vindicated.
Beyond the legal technicalities and political spin, here's what
Baltimore citizens should remember: Ms. Dixon is accused of accepting
thousands of dollars in gifts and travel from a developer whose
projects received millions in city tax breaks - gifts that she failed
to report on her ethics forms. At no point has she denied any of these
facts; rather, her attorney, Arnold Weiner, has argued that those
actions were not, technically, against the law.
But even Mr. Weiner's talented obfuscations on that point aren't why
the perjury charges against Ms. Dixon were dismissed. She escapes any
public accounting of her acceptance of the gifts because State
Prosecutor Robert Rohrbaugh, in a colossal error, tainted the charges
by introducing evidence related to Ms. Dixon's performance of her
duties as an elected official, a no-no under what is known as the
"speech and debate" principle. The rule holds that an elected
official's actions such as introducing or advocating for legislation
cannot be used as evidence against him or her.
YOU DIDN'T READ THIS, DID YOU?
==============
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E7DC1031F932A25751...
This got me the Sports section!
YOU DIDN'T READ THIS EITHER.
=============
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/7/32_7_gk_kimber.html
February 17, 2009 / News / Park Slope
Stoop drinker wins his case — but on a technicality!
By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Paper
The Brooklyn Paper / Julie Rosenberg
Case dismissed! Famed stoop drinker Kimber VanRy beat the rap on
Tuesday morning, when a Brooklyn judge dismissed his case on technical
grounds.
The case against a man accused of drinking beer on his own stoop has
been dismissed, but before you go cracking open a Pabst or a Brooklyn
Lager in celebration, be warned — the case was dismissed on a
technicality.
Yes, Kimber VanRy is no longer facing a $25 fine for the public
drinking summons he received on Aug. 27 for gulping a Sierra Nevada on
his front stoop, but Judge Eugene Schwartzwald dismissed the case on
Tuesday morning only because it “took too long” to get the case to
trial.
“I’m dismissing this on ‘speedy trial’ grounds,” said the judge, using
shorthand to refer to plantiffs’ constitutional right to a prompt
trial. “This has been going on too long.”
Though he did not reveal how he might have ruled on the merits of the
case, Schwartzwald did tell VanRy’s lawyer, Tina Kansas, “You did a
nice job on the motion.”
That motion conveyed the substance of VanRy’s challenge to the portion
of the city’s open-container law that allows cops to write summonses
for any drinking that is done in view of the public, even if the
drinking itself is done on private property, such as a front stoop.
VanRy said he was drinking his Sierra Nevada on his Sterling Place
front steps, far from the public sidewalk. His summons set off a wide
debate over that most iconic of Brooklyn public spaces: the stoop.
VanRy hoped that winning the case on the merits would forever prevent
cops from ticketing people for a quiet beer on their private steps, so
Tuesday’s dismissal was a little unsatisfying.
“It feels a little hollow,” VanRy said. “This dismissal doesn’t allow
us to drink on the stoop, which was the purpose of this case.”
It’s unclear why the case took “too long,” as Schwartzwald said. VanRy
showed up for all his court appointments last fall and this winter,
but the trials never took place, though reasons were never given.
Last week, the trial was scuttled when a judge took himself off the
case because — in his words, not ours — The Brooklyn Paper’s coverage
of the VanRy Affair has been “too good.”
“I read about the case in your paper,” said Jerome Kay, a Park Slope
resident.
In the end, Brooklynites should not take VanRy’s “win” as evidence
that stoop drinking will be officially condoned by the NYPD, the
successful Sierra Nevada lover said.
“I’m not sure I’ll drink on my stoop,” he said.
GOOD SELECTION, ROVER!!
==============
http://www.bloggernews.net/12265
Lawyer Tries to Beat Client’s Beastiality Charge with
TechnicalityPosted on November 18th, 2006 by L.B. Bryant in North
American News, Society and Culture, US NewsRead 4,730 times.The lawyer
for a man, Bryan James Hathaway, 20, in Wisconsin is trying to get his
client off the hook by citing a technicality in the state’s animal
cruelty and bestiality laws. The man was arrested on “a misdemeanor
charge of sexual gratification with an animal” after he was caught
having sex with a dead deer on October 11th of this year. According to
the law in the state, it is illegal to have sex with any animal but
public defender Fredric Anderson says that this law makes no mention
of dead animals or ‘carcasses’.
In a motion filed last week with the Douglas County court, he said
“because the deer was dead, it was not considered an animal and the
charge should be dismissed.” He continued his argument with, “The
statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Also
included was the argument was the dictionary definition of animal
which states “any of a kingdom of living beings” which the deer that
his client had sex with was not.
The defense attorney for the case, Assistant district attorney James
Boughner, has come back with an argument of his own saying “when a
person’s pet dog dies, the person still refers to the dog as his or
her dog, not a carcass. It stays a dog for some time,”
The judge on the case has said that he will render a decision before
the case comes before the courts again on December 1st. If convicted
of the crime, Hathaway could face a sentence of up to two years in
prison. Normally a conviction on this charge would only carry the
penalty of a possible nine months’ jail and a fine of up to $10,000
but the sentence would be increased due to the previous conviction on
Hathaway’s record from when he pled ‘no contest’ to shooting a 26 year
old horse in order to have sex with it back in April of 2005.
Sex with dead deer not illegal, lawyer argues
I WONDER IF THIS DEFENDANT POSTS IN GOOGLE GROUPS? IT SEEMS LOGICAL
THAT IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO... OH, NEVERMIND.
=========================================
WELL, I GUESS YOU GOT ME ON THIS ONE. GEE, JUST WHEN
I HAD A PERFECT RECORD GOING FOR ME TOO. DAMN! DAMN!
DAMN! (Third time is the charm)