[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[John Clark]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 10:01 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

* > **John previously you mentioned a politician who was “convicted” of 34
> felonies.  I find no convictions of felonies, but rather only 34
> misdemeanors for false record keeping, which are felonies if the intent is
> to conceal another crime.  Without the other conviction, those 34 revert to
> misdemeanors.  But without that conviction, the 34 charges aren’t even
> misdemeanors, for it cannot be established the records were false to start
> with.  *


*I am unable to make any sense of the above.*

*> It appears that a corrupt court “convicted” an innocent person,
> presumably for political purposes. *


*Innocent? Does Jeffrey Epstein's best friend and Ghislaine Maxwell’s
benefactor really seem like an innocent to you?  *

*  John K Clark*

a;l




>
> *>… if they are so astonishingly stupid that they become entertaining, in
> the way that the movie Airplane or The Naked Gun is entertaining…*
>
>
>
> *I am a huge fan of both of those.  Comedy masterwork, if one is in the
> mood for such silliness.  I seldom an in any other mood.*
>
>
>
> *>…However the matter is academic because there have been no personal
> attacks at Extropolis… *
>
>
>
> *Excellent.  We can have discussions even on sensitive topics while
> keeping it civil.*
>
>
>
> *For instance, John previously you mentioned a politician who was
> “convicted” of 34 felonies.  I find no convictions of felonies, but rather
> only 34 misdemeanors for false record keeping, which are felonies if the
> intent is to conceal another crime.  Without the other conviction, those 34
> revert to misdemeanors.  But without that conviction, the 34 charges aren’t
> even misdemeanors, for it cannot be established the records were false to
> start with.  It appears that a corrupt court “convicted” an innocent
> person, presumably for political purposes.  This was perfectly obvious to
> the outside observer, which contributed to his winning the office.*
>
>
>
> *But I am open-minded.  So John, when was the trial for this other crime
> please?  Where is the documentation of that conviction?  How did they keep
> that so secret?  When was that trial, and where are the records?  Without
> that conviction, there is no second crime, and the 34 “convictions” are
> phony as a three-dollar bill.*
>
>
>
> *spike*
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251115/ca00b9d7/attachment.htm>