• on a comment on Who's Above The Law? over 5 years ago

    trying to find that. I didnt think albertini was the case i was looking for either but its in my notes haha. Still looking. Kinda hard when in the middle of class though

  • on a comment on Who's Above The Law? over 5 years ago

    i didnt know it was illegal and i was assured it was not illegal are BOTH mistake of law claims and follow the same rules.

    mens rea is different altogether.

  • on a comment on The T Word over 5 years ago

    followed by an oops!

  • on a comment on Who's Above The Law? over 5 years ago

    it is not a mens rea argument, its a mistake of law argument.
    There is a Reasonable Reliance Exception If the misunderstanding is based on official, errouneous interpretation of the law by a party who has duty of enforcing or applying or interpreting that law

    See Albertini where the Fed. Ct. of appeals overturned his conviction saying anti-leafletting statute was invalid.  Next day, he continued leafleting.  The S.C. said that the statute was valid, and during that he was arrested for leafleting the 2nd time.  He was relying on Ct. of Appeal's official interpretation

    It cannot be from a private lawyer
    Generally can only can rely on : court, administrative agency, or prosecutor.  But DOJ does enforce the law. The court interprets so that is out. Apply the law? possibly in court they apply laws to their cases...

    The DOJ is not an administrative agency and neither are Bush's legal advisers. But DOJ officials can be prosecutors.  Were any of the memos written by a prosecutor? The court certainly didn't weigh in on the decision. It is dicey but could possibly be a defense, but i don't think so.  

  • on a comment on Who's Above The Law? over 5 years ago

    is a requirement, but this is not a mens rea defense, its an ignorance of the law defense which is not an adequate defense. see People v Marrero

  • the new mouthpiece for gay marriage? I would much rather have someone from One Iowa, even Gronstal or a NY Senator talking than Perez.

  • goes after Yoo.

    Not many people on here are lawyers, fewer have represented people in Guantanamo. I have. It is definitely personal.

  • https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/pa ge/gavinnewsom

  • comment on a post SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Announces Governor Bid over 5 years ago

    here is his act blue page.

    https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/pa ge/gavinnewsom?refcode=twitter

  • good luck

  • on a comment on I blame Obama over 5 years ago

    FOIA could be stalled in the courts for a long time.

  • ugh typos -

  • became president no became a republican

  • issue anymore. That's where you are wrong.

    If it goes to a vote and fails, then so what. Those born after Reagan became a republican dont care. How long will it take? At most 10 years in my opinion. People born in the late 80s and early 90s arent that big an impact YET.

    In 10 years you will have great majority of 20 years worth of eligible voters who arent dogged by "the sanctity of marriage."

    Who comes out on top? My generation.

  • Rubén Diaz Sr., 65, a Pentecostal pastor from the Bronx, was elected to the senate in 2002 to represent one of the poorest districts in the city. Most of his energy goes toward combating the scourge of homosexuality. In 1997, Diaz insisted that gays be barred from entering the city to participate in a series of sporting events because they were likely to spread AIDS.  Diaz has insisted that his goal in the leadership fight is to block any gay-marriage bill.

    his may be because Democrats were already in shock that Smith had offered even more power to another Bronx dissident known to push the envelope in his business affairs. Pedro Espada Jr., 54, is a peppery ex-boxer who has been giving the Bronx Democratic organization conniptions for years. In 1998, while facing charges of steering money from a large health clinic he runs into his political campaigns, Espada wore his own secret listening device to meetings with top Democratic officials... Espada beat that case at trial. But a few years later, three of his top aides pleaded guilty to state charges of having diverted $30,000 in clinic funds into his campaigns, while another went to prison for perjury. The money had been intended to help poor families and patients suffering from AIDS.

    Carl Kruger, a wily and wealthy senator from south Brooklyn, cut the best deal of all. Kruger, 58, won election to the senate in 1994 with the support of Tony Genovesi, the late assemblyman and Brooklyn powerbroker who was an eloquent foe of capital punishment. Upon his election, Kruger immediately voted for the death penalty, prompting his mentor to accuse him of betrayal.

    http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-12-17/c olumns/how-the-gang-of-three-ties-up-sen ate-dems/2


Advertise Blogads