[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
Cc: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>
...

> >..."But it was just record-keeping" is irrelevant...
>
>>... Record keeping violations are misdemeanors.  The statute of limitations had run out.  It was the felonies they never identified.

>...And that is irrelevant...

On the contrary, that is more relevant than anything we have discussed.  Expired misdemeanors were called felonies based on a mysterious second crime which was never identified nor tried, which means the defendant is presumed innocent.  Then the court is arguing that a record-keeping misdemeanor can be arbitrarily leveraged into a felony if committed in order to cover up a felony which you did not commit.

That means the court is claiming it can take ANY record you made, any check you wrote for instance, say to your dentist, and claim that it is a felony record keeping misdemeanor, which they claim was covering for another crime which you aren't required to have committed.

I say this is nonsense.  Those 34 "felonies" were misdemeanors, the statute had expired, and the court never identified the second crime.  Very relevant is this.





>> >...If the court says it found him guilty of felonies, then it found him guilty of felonies...
>
>>... What were these felonies please?

>...Again: that is irrelevant...

Again highly relevant.  It is an arbitrary assignment of guilt, which is dangerous as all hell, and results in the conviction of innocent people.




>...  You may think it is highly and obviously relevant - ... it implies that everyone has to know every single detail of the case in order for the court to make a judgment, which is incorrect...

Everyone does not need to know, but someone does.  Who?  No one here knows.


> If the court system is allowed to convict one defendant of an unidentified felony, then it can convict you.  It can convict me.  It can convict John.  It sacrifices the presumption of innocence on the alter of political expediency.

>...This has always been the case.  This is far from the first or last case in which that accusation was made...

Accusations are allowed.  False convictions are not.  If this has always been the case, it is a good thing to have a political leader who was the victim of it, to call attention to a corrupt system.  Perhaps we can correct it.

>...Trump is certainly attempting to order the courts to convict people for political expediency regardless of whether they are actually guilty...

Good, then that's all the more reason for disciplined and legally consistent courts.

>...and while most such cases have not gone the way he wished, I suspect that not all of them have...

Do let us identify those cases.


>>... Adrian I presume you didn't commit any felonies

>...There are parts of the world where being an atheist, or other ways of how I live, would be considered a felony (or the local equivalent) with the death sentence attached...

Ja I agree, and I do thank you for that, for it proves my point.  This is not one of those parts of the world.  We have a constitution, a piece of paper, which prevents the United States of America from being one of those parts of the world.  In the United States of America, protected by our constitution, you are free to be an atheist, you are free to say (and post) what you feel, without fear of prosecution by the federal government.  They don't have that protection in Britain (BillK is free to refute but I don't think he will.)  Here you are free to have any religion, say anything you want.

>...In practice, were I to go there and be arrested, it would likely be by someone trying to make a political point rather than literally following what the law actually says, which means this applies to certain parts of the US as well (in practice, regardless of what the law actually says)...

Again I agree, and so my opposition to this crime perpetrated by the judge and prosecution in the record keeping case and Keith's case is based on your contention: the charges were really a political point rather than following the law.  I am interested in making sure courts follow the law.  Otherwise, any one of us here can be prosecuted for felonies we did not commit.  I oppose this.


>
>>... Of what felony please?  You don't know?  None of us do.  The court never told us.

>...It says it did.  You may (and apparently do) dispute if those are properly felonies, but the court said they are...

I agree the court said they are.  But no one knows what the other crime was or is.  Until that court can show us a conviction, the defendant is presumed innocent.  This makes me think the judge committed election interference in this case.  Judges must be above reproach.  They have a higher standard: they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  Convicting a defendant without identifying the crime certainly has the appearance of impropriety.  It looks like election interference to me.

>... constantly asking what the alleged felonies were, when that information has been supplied...

Adrian, what was supplied were record-keeping violations, which are expired misdemeanors.

>...I trust you see the difference between these two objections...

I do.  I very much understand the difference between felonies and misdemeanors.  This particular case was even weirder, in that after the court claimed the defendant was guilty of 34 mystery felonies, there was no penalty.  Felonies come with penalties.  It can be probation (there wasn't any) or it can be a suspended sentence with conditions (it wasn't.)  There was nothing.  OK then... what was the point in that case?  Could it be that it was election interference?  Plenty of us suspect that's what it really was.  Judges must be above reproach, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

spike

_______________________________________________