LawTalkers - It was the wrong thread

does someone have to be shown to be fooled for the crime to be complete? say when a cop sets up a con man, no one is fooled by the attempt, but he is still prosecuted, isn't he?

You have to show the guy was trying to fool someone. That wasn't proven.

LessinSF

03-13-2009 05:46 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383839)

does someone have to be shown to be fooled for the crime to be complete? say when a cop sets up a con man, no one is fooled by the attempt, but he is still prosecuted, isn't he?

What crime? There was no evidence adduced that the second "best if" date was false. Nor any evidence the first "best if" date was anything other than puffery.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-13-2009 05:47 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 383840)

She was the fuckwad prosecutor, not defense counsel.

Whoops. Sorry. Didn't the defense attorney object to much of this stuff? The objections on closing argument were sustained, and the use of the FDA witness by Posner's description didn't seem to be by consent of the defense.

LessinSF

03-13-2009 05:57 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383843)

Right. I was just saying that he should have named whoever defense counsel was. Good resume stuff.

Hank Chinaski

03-13-2009 05:57 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383841)

You have to show the guy was trying to fool someone. That wasn't proven.

this is getting circular, but what was putting the new label on?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-13-2009 05:58 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 383845)

Right. I was just saying that he should have named whoever defense counsel was. Good resume stuff.

I would think "acquittal on appeal, opinion by Posner, J." would be pretty good standing alone.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-13-2009 05:59 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383846)

this is getting circular, but what was putting the new label on?

Correcting an untruth? Henri's, let alone the government, never established that the "purchase by" date meant anything. Perhaps Henri's should be indicted for wire fraud because their label misled people into thinking the dressing went bad before it did.

Tyrone Slothrop

03-13-2009 06:06 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383837)

He did: Juliet Sorensen

She was the prosecutor. Or prosecutrix, I suppose.*

* N.B. -- An allusion to the first sentence of The Crying of Lot 49. I amuse myself, and some days that's enough.

Hank Chinaski

03-13-2009 06:10 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmmm, burger (c.j.) (Post 383848)

correcting an untruth?

g.o.

LessinSF

03-13-2009 06:20 PM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383848)

BTW, I am not buying any Henri's after this. Right up there with Pringles, the non-potato chip.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-31-2009 10:30 AM

Re: It was the wrong thread

Guess this is one of those laugh or cry ones (probably mostly the latter):

Mom who killed kid as part of religious cult can withdraw guilty plea if her child is resurrected, as she believes will happen.

1436	03-31-2009 11:07 AM

Re: Maybe ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383817)

Say if you were convinced it made sense to buy high octane premium gas. It would be one thing if I sell regular and put a sign saying "Don't buy premium. It doesn't add anything, it just cost more."

Except that the government could prove that different octane ratings do make a difference in some high performance engines* whereas the prosecutor here never proved that the dates had any meaning. No evidence. None.

Odd really, what with the whole innocent until proven guilty shtick they fed us in law school.

Think "burden shifting" if that helps.

*Really, I know the big three don't make many cars that are dependent on high octane fuels to wring out their stated hp ratings, but surely you are familiar with the concepts of pre-ignition and retarded timing.**

**It's a soft ball, don't swing too hard or you'll miss it.

Adder

04-09-2009 05:42 PM

Newsflash

Discovery in this country sucks, is totally out of control, and is ridiculous.

And judges really need to figure out how to rule on preliminary questions (e.g., personal jurisdiction) without it.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

04-10-2009 11:57 AM

Re: Newsflash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 386604)

And judges really need to figure out how to rule on preliminary questions (e.g., personal jurisdiction) without it.

Isn't that just laziness on the judge's part in not limiting initial discovery to personal jurisdiction issues if you have a motion to dismiss on that ground?

Jack Manfred

04-14-2009 07:26 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread

While playing cards in Las Vegas this weekend, another player at the table related that he had a bunch of Latham lawyers on his deal until they were laid off. He said that L&W laid off 950 lawyers firm-wide. That can't be right, can it?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 PM.

Page 138 of 198

138

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page