🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302082327.28a9e0d2@posting.google.com>...
> amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302080208.8613230@posting.google.com>...
> > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302070700.134561de@posting.google.com>...
> > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302070235.7623545d@posting.google.com>...
> > > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302062111.54aff87b@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302060506.17155754@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > "Joe Winett" <joe@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3e414659$1@news.vigoris.net>...
>  

You are a classic.

I asked -

> > > > I have yet to see any evidence of this other than some quotes from his
> > > > supporters.  I simply raised the question - was he in compliance with
> > > > the legislation (not the proposition) in force in California at that
> > > > time.

Ande then asked
 
> > If the city had such a strong position, would not you have expected
> > that they could have/wpould have done something.  I know the court
> > disallowed the defense to present the evidence but I didn't see an
> > amicus curie (I think that's what they are called) brief from the city
> > on his behalf.

And what is your answer?


> While you have a large vocabulary I wouldn't go so far as saying you
> are tangentially familiar with law.  

Make it personal - typically what happens when you can't argue the
point, you attack the poster.

> Amicus curie briefs are not
> submetted at thial level.  

No?  Since when? Considering that the ruling disallowing the
introduction of the mitigating evidence was challenged twice at the
appelate level, they had their chance.  So - get in touch with the
facts.

> No evidence regarding medical marijuana or
> Mr. Rosenthal's relationship with the city was allowed in the trial. 

Because the appelate court upheld the trial judge's ruling - twice if
I remember right.

> The city may have wanted to be a "friend of the court" but court
> didn't want to be friends.

They don't need the courts permission.
  
> > > and no state officials appear to have complained.  Don't forget,
> > > Rosenthal was actually "deputized" by the city of Oakland for the
> > > purpose of doing what he was doing and was doing all of this
> > > completely out in the open. He was a city official.
> > 
> > That is a statement that I have only seen made by his defenders -
> > never from a city or state official.
> 
> You obviously haven't been pay attention.  I'm not going to dig it up
> for you.  If you want to learn more about this topic try searching
> with Google's news searching function.

When you can't find the evidence yourself, you challenge me to find it
for you?  You said he was deputized - now prove it.  Oh, you can't?

> > > This is just my guess.  I've never even been to California and only
> > > have cursory knowledge of their medical marijuana laws.

Oh, so you don't know the law?  But you are telling me that the law
allows him to do what the court said he did and the jury found him
guilty of doing?
 

> > >I like the idea of having a strong
> > > federal government, but not one that oversteps it's bounds as
> > > contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.
> > 
> > Which is your interpretation.  With 260 plus million US residents, one
> > could suggest that there would be about that many opinions on the
> > isue.  Currently, the only opinion that matters is the one rendered by
> > the US SC.
> 
> Your an idiot.

Because you argued yourself into an untenable position and can't find
any support, I'm the idiot.

Good.  The classic.  Congratulations.

and good bye