It was the wrong thread

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.)]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

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]

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

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.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

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

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.)]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

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.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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]

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

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]

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

correcting an untruth?

g.o.

[LessinSF]

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

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.

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

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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]

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.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

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]

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?