Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/12/2003 2:46:52 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Notwithstanding
Common law: the organic law of the people, until the people choose to act through their elected legislatures (which has not been done here).
2 posted on 02/12/2003 2:51:44 PM PST by Notwithstanding (Satan is real. So are his minions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
Interesting legal tactic ping
3 posted on 02/12/2003 2:53:26 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
Very interesting. Thanks for the post.
4 posted on 02/12/2003 2:53:31 PM PST by TXBubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AKA Elena; american colleen; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; ...
pro-life catholic ping
5 posted on 02/12/2003 2:55:34 PM PST by Notwithstanding (Satan is real. So are his minions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
I have a nephew who believes that the accumulation of wealth is the source of most evil. He has Biblical precedence, or course, the temple money changers, and “Blessed are the Poor,” etc.

He will love this. If the Court buys this BS, he will have the ability to go into a bank and take out all that accumulated money and spend it as he sees fit... all to help "The Poooohr", of course.

Expected much sounder legal reasoning from the More Center.

Attempted legal legerdemain such as this just casts distain on the whole movement. Makes me wonder, what sort of grades did this Muise chap get in law school… how many attempts to pass the Bar exam?
11 posted on 02/12/2003 3:10:33 PM PST by MindBender26 (.....and for more news as it happens...stay tuned to your local FReeper station....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
Not a good idea.

I want you to think what "child protection" NGOs would do to use this against parents who discipline their kids or prevent them from exercising their "privacy rights"?

Don't do it.
12 posted on 02/12/2003 3:13:12 PM PST by Carry_Okie (With friends like these, who needs friends?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
He believed that there were women present at the abortion clinic who were under duress and had not given their voluntary and informed consent to have an abortion.

Mere belief that any of the women were under duress is insufficient. One must have specific evidence to support the claim with respect to a specific person--the belief must be "reasonable."

And the act of trespassing is considered sufficient evidence to create a "reasonable belief" that a person is intent on causing bodily harm to the owner or tenant of the property being trespassed on, and, depending on the demeanor of the trespasser, that "reasonable belief" may extend to the belief that the application of deadly force is warranted.

14 posted on 02/12/2003 3:14:34 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
So if you "have reason to believe" something is wrong, you can trespass?

How's that again?

20 posted on 02/12/2003 3:51:04 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
This is an outrage. Any good liberal knows that women are only free in this country today because we are killing the maximum sustainable number of babies.
48 posted on 02/12/2003 7:20:18 PM PST by WaveThatFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
My vote goes to the law center. Most teens have no idea what they're doing, and no one tells them. They just feel pressured by adults. I feel sorry for them.
51 posted on 02/12/2003 8:01:41 PM PST by concerned about politics (Stop supporting terrorism! Drill ANWR! (Thanks!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Notwithstanding
I don't think this case fits the argument because he didn't know specificly that anyone was being forced to have an abortion.

If he knew specificly that someone was being forced or coerses (sp?) to have an abortion (like a parent telling their daughter they would kick her out onto the street if she didn't have an abortion) then I think he might have some grounds for his defense.

Of course, since the law is rigged to prevent anyone getting close to someone that is planning an abortion to find out why, it will be hard to track down those cases where a woman is being forced to have an abortion.
63 posted on 02/13/2003 6:11:23 AM PST by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson