[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[spike at rainier66.com]

> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
Cc: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 9:49 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> A record-keeping violation is a misdemeanor.

There are cases where record-keeping violations are felonies.

>>... A New York court claims record keeping-violations are felonies if they are perpetrated to cover a second crime.  That politician was not tried or convicted of any second crime that anyone knows of.

>...And he didn't have to be.  Mere intent - not conviction - is enough to justify the felony upgrade, under the specific laws the prosecution charged Trump with in this case.  Therefore, under the laws as written, all that needed to be proven is that he intended to commit a second crime, not that he actually did so, let alone that he be charged or convicted of it...

Ja, and under that theory, I would say the court would need a conviction of intending commit this second mystery crime.  I see no evidence there was ever a case or conviction of intending to commit the mystery second crime.

>...If you have a problem with that, take it up with those who write New York's laws...

Ja, but what if... Oklahoma grabbed a presidential candidate, put her in prison, claimed she committed a felony by aggravated jaywalking (or some such absurdity) and intended to commit another crime, which it did not need to identify.  Would we accept that?  No.

>...It's hardly the only example of intent alone being a factor in such laws, though IIRC, all such cases in the US today are only modifiers to some other charge, never prosecutable without some other criminal conduct (at least some other thing that, by itself, would be at least a misdemeanor).

YES!  You get it!  It really isn't a stand-alone.  It needs something else, which is why we never see anyone convicted of aggravated, no one is convicted of with intent to.  Those need an identifiable crime to go with it.  Otherwise any of us can be convicted of with intent to, we can be convicted of aggravated.  That's isn't the way our legal system works.

>...Stop dancing around the issue and pretending that he needed to be actually charged or convicted of the second crime...

No dancing needed.  The leveraging of misdemeanors to felonies requires a second crime.  It is safe to say the defendant must have committed or at least intended to commit a second crime.  To establish that requires a conviction.  Otherwise the court must abandon the principle of presumption of innocence.  The American people will not abandon the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.  This may have been what caused the defendant to take all seven swing states the 2024 election, a 7-0 clean sweep.  That was something almost none of the betting public thought would happen.  Those very few who predicted it made a fortune.  I think that New York case contributed to that clean sweep of all seven swingers.

spike