Article View: misc.consumers
Article #8586Re: Should this man have been convicted?
From: Dissident
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26
44 lines
3344 bytes
3344 bytes
Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > In article <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com>, > Spam Me Not <NoSp@m.us> wrote: > > >>Kevin you ignorant slut. >> >>Being the law is not enough reason. Get your head out of your ass and >>smell the reality. >> >>other stupid laws still on the books: >>Women may not drive in a house coat. >>You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at >>least two cows. >>Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits. >>You are forbidden to spit on the ground within 5 feet of another >>person. >>It is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course. >> >>more: http://www.stupidlaws.com/ > > > No doubt the five or six examples on that web site have been collected > from only the finest, most reliable anonymous internet sources. Of > course there's no need to document what the codes and jurisdictions are > for those laws. Actually, some of the California ones I specifically recognize from newspaper coverage when they were passed. Chico and Palo Alto both are nuclear-free zones. It is illegal to possess, manufacture or *detonate* a nuclear device within city limits. Violating this law results in a $500 fine and a misdemeanor conviction. I can't say I'm familiar with the Chico area, but I can guarantee that detonating a nuclear weapon within the Palo Alto city limits will at one blow remove all parts of the legal infrastructure involved in punishing said offense. <g> And, as of 1998 there was still a state law here making it a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine to refuse to join a sheriff's posse when so ordered. Think I'll saddle up ol' Bessie now and ride off into the sunset. -B
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3E41E401.1030201@7600.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<3E4046EB.8C37D94B@nospam.com> <mcmurtri-B499E4.23531304022003@typhoon.sonic.net> <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com> <mcmurtri-5B7DD6.19244205022003@typhoon.sonic.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 106ed4,b930db7c113fc78e X-Google-Attributes: gid106ed4,public X-Google-Thread: 107518,b930db7c113fc78e X-Google-Attributes: gid107518,public X-Google-Thread: f4552,b930db7c113fc78e X-Google-Attributes: gidf4552,public X-Google-Thread: f4d80,b930db7c113fc78e X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d80,public X-Google-Thread: 10fa57,b930db7c113fc78e X-Google-Attributes: gid10fa57,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-05 20:26:41 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E41E401.1030201@7600.net> From: Dissident <qqqq@7600.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.law-enforcement,sci.med.pharmacy,ca.general,ok.general Subject: Re: Should this man have been convicted? References: <3E4046EB.8C37D94B@nospam.com> <mcmurtri-B499E4.23531304022003@typhoon.sonic.net> <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com> <mcmurtri-5B7DD6.19244205022003@typhoon.sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.118.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1044505600 12.234.118.36 (Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT