Jump to content

Growing Outside And Busted


Jakk

Recommended Posts

The only defense will be feigned ignorance. Civil disobedience with a complete plot change when arrested, feigned ignorance. It's going to take a great actor to pull it off but some might be very good at feigning ignorance with a hard core of hidden civil disobedience. Not like it's anything new here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you listen to the fkn Leo and republicans they will tell you all cannabis is illegal

 

Actually, the new law was written by a democrat honestly. And he CLEARLY stated that he intended the law to require a top of some sort to prevent access from the general public.

 

Out of sight. Out of reach. Out of mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the new law was written by a democrat honestly. And he CLEARLY stated that he intended the law to require a top of some sort to prevent access from the general public.

 

Out of sight. Out of reach. Out of mind.

The public doesn't know that. It's not generally known what the intent of the law makers was. So stay ignorant my friends as you secretly stay informed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, it isn't like i don't understand the argument. It is written a bit sloppily and I worked very hard to get it fixed so it made "simple sense" to simpletons. :-)

 

But that didn't happen. I got many other ridiculous requirements removed. Like how far from your property line it must be. You would not be able to have one at all on any typical sized lot without that change.  So, hey, you do what ya can.

 

But yes,  saying "all sides, except the base," in the law is mildly ambiguous to simpletons. I knew it would be. 

 

But it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can honestly say that it wasn't totally ridiculous that the word TOP was not used if they wanted a top. It's like they couldn't bring themselves to actually say/write it. WTF is wrong with them? A decent judge (with no love for the law makers) will think the same thing. It's wide open for feigned ignorance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not true. The defense is in the words of the Act, section 8, and top is not in there at all. None of this is in section 8, period.

 

From a section 4 perspective, they will not be able to prove legislative intent required a roof, period. Just like we can't prove legislative intent for the improper transport bill was to keep MMJ in an eyeglass case.

With a good attorney and a fair judge ...... I totally agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, I am just poking fun at ya beourbud at this point.

 

 My credibility is pretty impeccable on these type of issues and I am sure anyone who wants to be safe from arrest as much as possible will follow my recommendations; and then I feel like I did my job and saved someone from the headaches of being a victim of the drug war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, I am just poking fun at ya beourbud at this point.

 

 My credibility is pretty impeccable on these type of issues and I am sure anyone who wants to be safe from arrest as much as possible will follow my recommendations; and then I feel like I did my job and saved someone from the headaches of being a victim of the drug war.

You can tell us the legislative intent but they couldn't with their wording. So legislative intent is kind of meaningless when you encounter this kind of illiteracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will not find one document that indicates legislative intent outside of the amendment to section 4 itself, I guarantee it.

 

Actually, committee hearings are video saved, fiscal analysis can show intent, committee reports can show intent, and affidavits can claim intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but intent doesn't really matter unless passed as part of the law(usually stated in Sec. 1 or 2 of the law), all that matters is what the words actually say, they screw up writing laws on a daily basis.

 

But, I aint talking about getting lucky and not appealed at a circuit level here,... If the base is considered a side, the top is absolutely a side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will not be found, I guarantee it. He never said it in committee. Ken Horn made the statement that an eyeglass case was sufficient for the improper transport law in committee, and it is nowhere to be found.

 

Those documents do a slightly better job of outlining legislative intent than the statements of one embattled ex-legislator, but I assert that you will find nothing of the intent of this amendment to require a top in any of those documents.

 

 The language changed between the time Horn stated that and the passing of the bill.

 

 I believe I have that video too. ;-p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...