| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mike Dundee" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2006 12:35:41 AM |
| Object: |
For duke too. |
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are usually
at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but NOT
online.
According to a new law. If the law was signed in after Foley did his
thing, he
can't be tried in accordance with a future law.
There are other laws already on the books regarding this type of thing. The
specific law which came from a bill Foley co-sponsored was passed and
signed by President Bush in July of 2006. It's called the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006
However...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pfoley03oct03,0,4523490.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
On Monday, ABC News reported on two new exchanges between Foley and at least
one page, raising the stakes in the investigations because they seem to
indicate Foley sought to meet with the pages. Legal experts say that could
increase his legal jeopardy.
Foley wrote to a page, "I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you,"
ABC News reported.
One of the exchanges suggested that Foley met with one of the pages. "I miss
you lots since san diego," Foley wrote, and then he asked the page when they
would be having dinner together in Washington, D.C., and what they would do
afterward.
***********
From the same article
Legal experts say Foley could potentially face criminal charges under either
state or federal laws that cover transmitting obscene materials and the
soliciting of minors for sex over the Internet. Federal law does not require
that a defendant actually meet with the minor, only that the minor was
pursued for sexual reasons, said West Palm Beach defense attorney Jack
Fleischman, who specializes in sex-crime cases.
Foley was a strong advocate for toughening sexual predator laws, and he
could be scrutinized under a law that he helped write as co-chairman of the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
*************
So, he apparently can be charged with existing laws and the new law he
co-sponsored.
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 01:20:43 AM |
|
|
Mike Dundee wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are
usually at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but NOT
online.
That's to old for Earl in any event. He likes to go to the little childrens
masses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 02:28:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:20:43 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mike Dundee wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are
usually at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but NOT
online.
That's to old for Earl in any event. He likes to go to the little childrens
masses.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm-------- and how old is dear EARL... do you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
05 Oct 2006 01:45:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:20:43 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mike Dundee wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are
usually at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but NOT
online.
That's to old for Earl in any event. He likes to go to the little childrens
masses.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm-------- and how old is dear EARL... do you know?
According to Yang ....... he's 59 ...... and a very lonely, stupid old
man ( according to everybody else ).....a lot like Weatherly
............. not hard to believe really ...... when JW and Duke get into
a conversation it gives new meaning to the phrase " dumb and dumber "
.......
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
05 Oct 2006 09:04:49 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
NOspam@no.spam wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:20:43 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mike Dundee wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are
usually at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but
NOT online.
That's to old for Earl in any event. He likes to go to the little
childrens masses.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm-------- and how old is dear EARL... do you know?
According to Yang ....... he's 59 ...... and a very lonely, stupid old
man ( according to everybody else ).....a lot like Weatherly
............ not hard to believe really ...... when JW and Duke get
into a conversation it gives new meaning to the phrase " dumb and
dumber " ......
"I'm now 61, and totally happy with my decision. I don't know your
age, but if you open up your self to God and listen to him, you just
may hear him saying "why don't you give that elderly lady a ride
home", or "why don't you go visit your old neighbor in the nursing
home?" Or volunteer one day to serve at a homeless food line.
Jul 24 2003, 2:03 pm by duke32 "
He claimed 61 here. I challenged him a few times to actually tell us about
his good deeds (This atheist helps feed the needy twice a week and was doing
so at the time.) but he remained quiet.
He says he goes home for lunch every day so that's a good deed for the
people he works with in a job he's afraid to tell us about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
05 Oct 2006 01:59:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:45:30 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey59_@_yahoo.com> wrote:
NOspam@no.spam wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:20:43 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Mike Dundee wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7mn5i291oaf6gig68cadkovmu96175ru9d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:52:45 -0600, checker @flipper.com wrote:
If he's of legal age, he is a culprit to the act, and pages are
usually at least
that old.
Just one comment here. . .
The page in the foley case was sixteen, of legal age in DC, but NOT
online.
That's to old for Earl in any event. He likes to go to the little childrens
masses.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm-------- and how old is dear EARL... do you know?
According to Yang ....... he's 59 ...... and a very lonely, stupid old
man ( according to everybody else ).....a lot like Weatherly
............ not hard to believe really ...... when JW and Duke get into
a conversation it gives new meaning to the phrase " dumb and dumber "
......
I had no idea he was really an adult, considering how stupidly he
talks!
But, at 59, he's certainly old enough to know better. Too bad he
doesn't!
Yes, when he and liar-johnnie get posting together, your 'dumb and
dumber' expression is most appropriate.
Thank you for your response, Masked Avenger :o)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 10:09:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:35:41 GMT, "Mike Dundee" <none@nunya.com> wrote:
According to a new law. If the law was signed in after Foley did his
thing, he
can't be tried in accordance with a future law.
There are other laws already on the books regarding this type of thing. The
specific law which came from a bill Foley co-sponsored was passed and
signed by President Bush in July of 2006. It's called the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006
If foley did his thing before the bill was signed into law, then he didn't break
that law. But he certainly broke moral law.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dundee" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 11:33:03 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1t17i2tir7b7lc61ssoclg23br6fcau2ao@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:35:41 GMT, "Mike Dundee" <none@nunya.com> wrote:
According to a new law. If the law was signed in after Foley did his
thing, he
can't be tried in accordance with a future law.
There are other laws already on the books regarding this type of thing.
The
specific law which came from a bill Foley co-sponsored was passed and
signed by President Bush in July of 2006. It's called the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006
If foley did his thing before the bill was signed into law, then he didn't
break
that law. But he certainly broke moral law.
As usual you ducked parts you don't like. I will put them back...
Legal experts say Foley could potentially face criminal charges under either
state or federal laws that cover transmitting obscene materials and the
soliciting of minors for sex over the Internet. Federal law does not require
that a defendant actually meet with the minor, only that the minor was
pursued for sexual reasons, said West Palm Beach defense attorney Jack
Fleischman, who specializes in sex-crime cases.
Foley was a strong advocate for toughening sexual predator laws, and he
could be scrutinized under a law that he helped write as co-chairman of the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
*************
So, he apparently can be charged with existing laws and the new law he
co-sponsored.
========================
You like to ignore fact duke. As I said, there were already existing laws on
the
books that cover such things AND according to ABC News, Foley engaged in
more recent behavior too. He could be charged under the new law TOO.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 09:18:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:33:03 GMT, "Mike Dundee" <none@nunya.com> wrote:
If foley did his thing before the bill was signed into law, then he didn't
break
that law. But he certainly broke moral law.
As usual you ducked parts you don't like. I will put them back...
As usual, you don't see their lack of relevance.
Legal experts say Foley could potentially face criminal charges under either
state or federal laws that cover transmitting obscene materials and the
soliciting of minors for sex over the Internet.
Ok.
Federal law does not require
that a defendant actually meet with the minor, only that the minor was
pursued for sexual reasons, said West Palm Beach defense attorney Jack
Fleischman, who specializes in sex-crime cases.
Ok. No change is my agreement here in either one of these.
Foley was a strong advocate for toughening sexual predator laws, and he
could be scrutinized under a law that he helped write as co-chairman of the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
But if he did his moral failure before the law took effect, he can't be tried
for breaking that law.
You like to ignore fact duke. As I said, there were already existing laws on
the books that cover such things AND according to ABC News, Foley engaged in
more recent behavior too. He could be charged under the new law TOO.
BUT, not the law he sponsored.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dundee" |
|
| Title: Re: For duke too. |
04 Oct 2006 09:44:17 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:g598i29ndmglj9afeu52ej8d8pn3ijp5jv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:33:03 GMT, "Mike Dundee" <none@nunya.com> wrote:
If foley did his thing before the bill was signed into law, then he
didn't
break
that law. But he certainly broke moral law.
As usual you ducked parts you don't like. I will put them back...
As usual, you don't see their lack of relevance.
Legal experts say Foley could potentially face criminal charges under
either
state or federal laws that cover transmitting obscene materials and the
soliciting of minors for sex over the Internet.
Ok.
Federal law does not require
that a defendant actually meet with the minor, only that the minor was
pursued for sexual reasons, said West Palm Beach defense attorney Jack
Fleischman, who specializes in sex-crime cases.
Ok. No change is my agreement here in either one of these.
Foley was a strong advocate for toughening sexual predator laws, and he
could be scrutinized under a law that he helped write as co-chairman of
the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.
But if he did his moral failure before the law took effect, he can't be
tried
for breaking that law.
You like to ignore fact duke. As I said, there were already existing laws
on
the books that cover such things AND according to ABC News, Foley engaged
in
more recent behavior too. He could be charged under the new law TOO.
BUT, not the law he sponsored.
What difference does it make? And yes, if the behavior is very recent, he
CAN
be charged under his law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
