AyatollahGondola
Regular Member
Hong Kong? There's freedom in HK?
It is my understanding that he is no longer pursuing any appeal on his case. He had already spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-50K of his own money on his criminal case and there is nothing left for the appeal. None of the big CA gun rights orgs would chip in any significant amount for it. By and large they do not like UOC and even though his appeal should be a slam dunk, they are not going for it. He is currently in the process of moving overseas to Hong Kong with his family.
Hong Kong is ranked as the no. 1 country/territory for economic freedom. Don't know about where they sit for personal freedom, but they don't seem to have lost anything when the country reverted to the PRC. In many ways he will be more free over there than here in the states. America is not the bastion of liberty that it was once rumored to be.Hong Kong? There's freedom in HK?
It is my understanding that he is no longer pursuing any appeal on his case. He had already spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-50K of his own money on his criminal case and there is nothing left for the appeal. None of the big CA gun rights orgs would chip in any significant amount for it. By and large they do not like UOC and even though his appeal should be a slam dunk, they are not going for it. He is currently in the process of moving overseas to Hong Kong with his family.
None of the big CA gun rights orgs would chip in any significant amount for it. By and large they do not like UOC and even though his appeal should be a slam dunk, they are not going for it.
Edward Peruta wrote:
That is one of the legal cannons the judge ignored.
I've gottena jury summons every couple of years ever since I turned 18; I'm 40 now. The farthest its gone for me was jury selection and I got punted on those 2 occasions.
Brandon - Newbies need to acclimate themselves to our forum, read the Forum Rules, etc. to avoid such pitfalls - including avoiding necro posting.Haha I have received one Jury summons. ..........--snipped--
what ever happened with this case ? he was convicted and that's it ?
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
I love it. "Which laundromat pictured does part of the Bill of Rights not apply?"
I went through and looked for all instances of "reasonably should know" in the penal code. Most things that we are reasonably supposed to know have to do with things we can see, like if you're assaulting a person and you know or should know that that person is a police officer, then you're guilty of an additional crime. Or if you're raping somebody, and you know or reasonably should have known that that person is under 18, then you're guilty of an additional crime.
The only reference to "reasonably should know" which involves knowing something you probably can't see is in 626.9.
"Reasonably should know" is in the statute requiring people to lock up their firearms when a child could get a hold of it, but this is where you are in control of the domain (your house, your apartment).
626.9 is the ONLY statute I found where we can literally have no evidence of what we should have known. I'd like to think that such wording could be thrown out as unenforceable.
what ever happened with this case ? he was convicted and that's it ?