Posted on 04/26/2010 4:17:17 PM PDT by Smogger
You’ve already brought us to the Theater of the Absurd, why stop there?
But you are not giving the $50 back to the owner, you simply called the 1-800 number at the company where he works and are claiming that someone there blew you off.
“Gaby Darbyshire, chief operating officer of Gizmodo-parent Gawker Media, believes the search warrant and seizure are illegal. In his response to detective Broad (who executed the search), he writes “a search warrant may not be validly issued to confiscate the property of a journalist,” citing section 1524(g) of the California penal code.”
Again, “abandon” has a clear legal meaning . . . and the item was not “abandoned” at the bar. Nor can it be abandoned by someone who does not have the authority to abandon it (the person who picked up the phone at whatever telephone number the guy called).
Your legal obligation is to call it to his attention, not to take it and put it in your pocket.
When this neighborhood was new we had several families from Latin America move in. They came from one of those countries where anything you don't have locked inside your walled hacienda is fair for the taking by any and all passersby.
That's their law. It took some work but I got them turned around before someone shot them. Most folks here are armed to the teeth so there was a real risk.
You sound like you are well-grounded in the doctrines of an alien culture that's not compatible with our Common Law or our statutes and traditions.
Bring it on!
Please read my #85, and for God’s sake, consult a lawyer before entering into any transactions involving real property.
I was just curious where on the internet you received your law degree. Never mind, that went over your head also.
Yeah. Like this:
It becomes abandoned property when alleged owner not only refuses to accept it back, but refuses to even acknowledge that he's even lost anything at all, when the finder tries repeatedly to return it.
BTW, every state has statutes controlling the disposition of abandoned cash and property. Many of them apply TAXES to the problem, so you’d owe the taxes ~ anyone pay the taxes to California (thinking they’re among the places most likely to have a tax on abandoned property).
I got it the first time, and explained why you’re wrong. You apparently believe that if you ignore me, and keep repeating yourself, you will become correct. It doesn’t work that way, friend.
But he called someone at the Secretary of State’s Office and they said he doesn’t have to pay taxes! LOL
That's easy.
I merely drank Apple Kool Aid like you did, became a mindless Apple zombie and decided to spew out garbage on a regular basis on FR, whereby I compare some Apple smartphone to America's secret trigger mechanisms for our nuclear arsenal.
Oh wait, that's what a mindless Apple robot like you did right o this thread a few minutes back. What a moron!
You mean like how you compared the Apple smartphone to Americas nuclear secrets and the Abrams tank?
That kind of explanation?
You don't have a clue what the heck you are talking about do you?
Again, I can’t afford Apple products, but they sure look pretty. I used the trigger example to see if I could penetrate that thick skull of yours.
I can't spell it out any more simply than that . . . and if you do not understand, then perhaps you should stick to watching lawyers on TV.
You don't see some guy drop a note.
You are walking through Time Square. Huge crowds. You see a $50 note on the street. You pick it up You haven't stolen anything.
Now assuming that after repeaed attempts to return said money to the allged owner, the alleged owner repeatedly refuses tio accept the money, and wouldn't even acknowledge that they lost any money at all, the money reverts to you the finder, after a specified time period.
When the finder of this Apple smartphone repeatedly tried to retrun it to Apple, and Apple repeatdly refused to accept it, and wouldn't even acknowledge that they lost any phone at all, that's it.
No theft was commited anywhere.
There was no crime. Journalists have very broad protection under Federal law. You would think that a judge would be familiar with the laws that control the Fourth Estate. Was he absent the day they taught the 1st Amendment at law school?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.