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.)
To: Notwithstanding
Interesting legal tactic ping
To: Notwithstanding
Very interesting. Thanks for the post.
4 posted on
02/12/2003 2:53:31 PM PST by
TXBubba
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.)
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....)
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?)
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson