LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Collusion

RobDownSouth said:
72 post by you alone so far today. Looks like a slamdunk victory for your "Post Quantity" team over your hated "Post Quality" opponents.
Click to expand...

Whatsammatuh, Throbby? Upset that someone wants to fuck Pukey's brains out?

It would only take one tenth of a second.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me. :D:D
Click to expand...
I have no idea if it's "attempted robbery".
But I know for damn sure I wouldn't want hire the person as a bank guard.

My point was not that they did anything illegal, that's Muller's purview, but it certainly goes to character of the parties involved and their desire and goal to break the law.

edited to add: By "...it doesn't matter." I meant to Trump and his apologists. Not that I claiming an illegal act.
It would appear that they'd be quite happy to hire for a bank guard position the guy who wanted to rob the bank.
 
Last edited:
water505 said:
Whatsammatuh, Throbby? Upset that someone wants to fuck Pukey's brains out?

It would only take one tenth of a second.
Click to expand...

Whatsammatuh, miles? Wife got your balls in her purse again? And you've come to Lit to pretend to be an internet badass and stave off the feeling of being completely emasculated?
 
What if you are unarmed and the note says 'please give me all the money in your till'?
 
Pookie said:
There is no linguistic confusion. My position is it can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS", thus what could have been a substantial step never actually occurring in the eyes of the Court, which is what happened in those two cases and caused them to be overturned. If the robbers in the one case had not stopped, but instead CONTINUED toward the bank, my bet is the conviction stands.



But in your fucked up analogy, the substantial step had NOT been ABORTED. You left it IN PROGRESS. You left us with a cliffhanger. He's in the process of carrying out a robbery. You took him all the way to the bank to discover the bank closed. What occurs next? Does he lie in wait behind a bush near the door? Attempt to break down the door somehow? Grab the bank manager who could possible walk up to the door at that moment? Do you have the cops knowing his plan and coming out of hiding and arresting him at that moment or as he approaches the bank door with or without a tire iron he might get from the trunk of his car? Or some other suspenseful action? Or does he simply abort the robbery attempt at that point by putting the car in drive and going home? Aborting a robbery doesn't mean he had not begun a substantial step with the cops possibly intervening. We're left to wonder and speculate. You left us hanging in YOUR drama ... that you just can't let go of. The suspense is just how the robber continues. Maybe you'll tell us how it goes sometime.




Agreed, and nothing about it effects my description of what occurred in Hogan v Pookie.



I agree that "mere preparation" isn't a substantial step. You left out that they aborted the robbery attempt. Your analogy gave us a robber having gone to the bank PREPARED to rob it, and then leaving us in suspense with a cliffhanger. The substantial step is IN PROGRESS in your fucked up analogy that you JUST CAN"T LET GO OF because Pookie can't be correct and you incorrect with a self-admitted fucked up analogy. That's the REAL issue going on with this.



My "intuitive judgement about what CONSTITUTES 'mere preparation' versus a 'substantial step'" is of your own creation based on your bizarre view that an in progress step left as a cliff hanger JUST CAN'T BE an in progress substantial step left in suspense. OBLIGATORY BOLD CAPITALIZED TEXT ADDED TO SHOW I'M CORRECT.
Click to expand...

In my last post I made references to two separate circuit court of appeals decisions, U. S. v. Still and U. S. v. Nelson. The Nelson reference was in error. Nelson was not a bank robbery case. The correct reference is U. S. v. Buffington as was correctly cited in one of my previous posts.

What follows are NOT my words.

They are NOT my interpretation of the law.

Far more importantly, they have NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH MY PREVIOUS ABSURD ANALOGY WHICH WAS A FICTITIOUS, SATIRICAL EXAMPLE NEVER INTENDED TO FORM THE BASIS FOR (and therefore shouldn't) A SERIOUS LEGAL DISCUSSION OF CASELAW PRECEDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF "ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY.'

In the case of US v. Buffington, these are the words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for himself and his other colleagues on the three judge panel, Eugene Wright and Charles Wiggins of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court was unanimous.

Judge Poole, in the 52nd paragraph of his decision under the specific discussion of the subject of "ATTEMPT" wrote as follows:

Knowing all that we have learned--which the jury did not have before it--we could well believe that the defendants intended to do what the informant claimed they had planned; but their actual conduct did not cross the boundary between preparation and attempt. Appellants were afterwards found to be armed and may have appeared to be reconnoitering Bay View Federal, but none made any move toward the bank.

http://openjurist.org/815/f2d/1292/united-states-v-buffington-t
Click to expand...

In the very next paragraph, the Court distinguished the material facts of the case from those in U. S. v. Snell where it was HELD that "movement toward the bank" was NOT REQUIRED to demonstrate "attempt" BECAUSE in Snell the defendants' plan was to kidnap a bank manager and his wife, and to hold her hostage while forcing the manager to go to the bank to obtain money.

Again, what follows are not my words NOR my interpretation of the law. They are the specific words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for a unanimous three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court:

Snell's entry into the home was "factually precedent but so far as the total scheme is concerned is analytically little different than entry into the bank itself." Id. at 188. There is no comparable entry, nor movement toward the bank in this case. The conduct in Snell was unequivocal; that here is entirely tentative and unfocused. Fortified by their information from the informant, the police concluded that, standing by their car 150 feet away, the defendants were "casing" the bank; but resort to that knowledge cannot be utilized because the prosecution had eschewed its use. Not only did appellants not take a single step toward the bank, they displayed no weapons and no indication that they were about to make an entry. Standing alone, their conduct did not constitute that requisite "appreciable fragment" of a bank robbery, nor a step toward commission of the crime of such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred.7
Click to expand...

Please note that in that last paragraph, Judge Poole's words are footnoted. Here is the specific language of footnote 7:

In light of our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to show intent and a substantial step toward bank robbery, we need not consider appellants' argument that their actions were not sufficiently intimidating to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a), and we need not address Cook's argument that the twenty year sentence he received for attempted bank robbery constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...

The case of U. S. v. Still was also a unanimous 9th Circuit Court decision.

Again, not my words, not my interpretation and "not one fucking thing to do with....etc."

In this case, the three judge panel consisted of judges Melvin Brunetti, Harry Pregerson and Mary Schroeder. They relied substantially on the Court's previous decision in Buffington.

In paragraph 16, Judge Brunetti wrote for the Court:

Our facts do not establish either actual movement toward the bank or actions that are analytically similar to such movement. Before he was apprehended by the police, Still was seen sitting in his van, with the motor running, wearing a long blonde wig, parked approximately 200 feet away from the Security Pacific National Bank. Considering that the Buffington defendants' actions went further in manifesting a substantial step than did Still's actions, Buffington compels the conclusion that proof of a substantial step toward the attempt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://openjurist.org/850/f2d/607/united-states-v-still
Click to expand...

The following ARE my words.

Now, I have not the slightest doubt that none of this will mean a goddamned thing to you. By all means, continue to piss up a rope with your absurd notion, unsupported anywhere in caselaw, that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Just know that in doing so you are in direct conflict with the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND LEGAL HOLDINGS of six separate judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In fact, let me give you a hand. Why don't you PRETEND that Judge Brunetti's sentence, "Considering that the Buffington defendants' actions went further in manifesting a substantial step..." DOES the very thing it DOES NOT -- substantiates a "substantial step" in the very Buffington case that HE DID NOT WRITE!?!?!?

But, shit, why stop there??? Why not pretend that the words "actual conduct did not cross the boundary between preparation and attempt" and "conduct did not constitute...a step...toward commission of the crime of such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred" and " there was insufficient evidence to show...a substantial step toward bank robbery" and "proof of a substantial step toward the attempt was not established" are all consistent with and supportive of your "position" that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Because you've made it perfectly clear that's what you believe despite the fact that no court anwhere has ever said anything remotely like that.

You can do that, can't you? It's exactly what everybody else does here -- IGNORE the law as handed down by the courts when arguing the law because, ultimately, the argument isn't about the law.

It's really about irrelevant, absurd analogies that I admit I should have never put forth and whether or not I'm a certifiable, obnoxious prick.

And, hell, I'll plead guilty to that, too. But it won't validate your worthless drivel about what you believe constitutes the legal standard for a "substantial step."

And since you don't believe me, go ask a real lawyer who you trust. And be certain to tell him that I make piss poor legal analogies. Because I'm sure he'll find that relevant and persuasive in supporting your LEGAL argument. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
about_average said:
I have no idea if it's "attempted robbery".
But I know for damn sure I wouldn't want hire the person as a bank guard.

My point was not that they did anything illegal, that's Muller's purview, but it certainly goes to character of the parties involved and their desire and goal to break the law.

edited to add: By "...it doesn't matter." I meant to Trump and his apologists. Not that I claiming an illegal act.
It would appear that they'd be quite happy to hire for a bank guard position the guy who wanted to rob the bank.
Click to expand...

I gather from one of your earlier posts that your assertion that "their desire and goal to break the law" is based on your reading of CFR § 110.20.

This earlier post from another thread deals with that issue. Don't know if you saw it, but would appreciate your comment. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86984146&postcount=270

There is an even longer exposition on this subject by a REAL legal expert if you're interested. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the-strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke-the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/
 
Colonel Hogan said:
In my last post I made references to two separate circuit court of appeals decisions, U. S. v. Still and U. S. v. Nelson. The Nelson reference was in error. Nelson was not a bank robbery case. The correct reference is U. S. v. Buffington as was correctly cited in one of my previous posts.

What follows are NOT my words.

They are NOT my interpretation of the law.

Far more importantly, they have NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH MY PREVIOUS ABSURD ANALOGY WHICH WAS A FICTITIOUS, SATIRICAL EXAMPLE NEVER INTENDED TO FORM THE BASIS FOR (and therefore shouldn't) A SERIOUS LEGAL DISCUSSION OF CASELAW PRECEDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF "ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY.'

In the case of US v. Buffington, these are the words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for himself and his other colleagues on the three judge panel, Eugene Wright and Charles Wiggins of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court was unanimous.

Judge Poole, in the 52nd paragraph of his decision under the specific discussion of the subject of "ATTEMPT" wrote as follows:

In the very next paragraph, the Court distinguished the material facts of the case from those in U. S. v. Snell where it was HELD that "movement toward the bank" was NOT REQUIRED to demonstrate "attempt" BECAUSE in Snell the defendants' plan was to kidnap a bank manager and his wife, and to hold her hostage while forcing the manager to go to the bank to obtain money.

Again, what follows are not my words NOR my interpretation of the law. They are the specific words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for a unanimous three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court:

Please note that in that last paragraph, Judge Poole's words are footnoted. Here is the specific language of footnote 7:

The case of U. S. v. Still was also a unanimous 9th Circuit Court decision.

Again, not my words, not my interpretation and "not one fucking thing to do with....etc."

In this case, the three judge panel consisted of judges Melvin Brunetti, Harry Pregerson and Mary Schroeder. They relied substantially on the Court's previous decision in Buffington.

In paragraph 16, Judge Brunetti wrote for the Court:

The following ARE my words.

Now, I have not the slightest doubt that none of this will mean a goddamned thing to you. By all means, continue to piss up a rope with your absurd notion, unsupported anywhere in caselaw, that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Just know that in doing so you are in direct conflict with the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND LEGAL HOLDINGS of six separate judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In fact, let me give you a hand. Why don't you PRETEND that Judge Brunetti's sentence, "Considering that the Buffington defendants' actions went further in manifesting a substantial step..." DOES the very thing it DOES NOT -- substantiates a "substantial step" in the very Buffington case that HE DID NOT WRITE!?!?!?

But, shit, why stop there??? Why not pretend that the words "actual conduct did not cross the boundary between preparation and attempt" and "conduct did not constitute...a step...toward commission of the crime of such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred" and " there was insufficient evidence to show...a substantial step toward bank robbery" and "proof of a substantial step toward the attempt was not established" are all consistent with and supportive of your "position" that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Because you've made it perfectly clear that's what you believe despite the fact that no court anwhere has ever said anything remotely like that.

You can do that, can't you? It's exactly what everybody else does here -- IGNORE the law as handed down by the courts when arguing the law because, ultimately, the argument isn't about the law.

It's really about irrelevant, absurd analogies that I admit I should have never put forth and whether or not I'm a certifiable, obnoxious prick.

And, hell, I'll plead guilty to that, too. But it won't validate your worthless drivel about what you believe constitutes the legal standard for a "substantial step."

And since you don't believe me, go ask a real lawyer who you trust. And be certain to tell him that I make piss poor legal analogies. Because I'm sure he'll find that relevant and persuasive in supporting your LEGAL argument. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleye
Click to expand...

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1979623485/borat.jpg

Colonel Hogan spend two hours of life preparing and typing reply.

Only in America does this happen!

Other countries, people worry about if they have money to buy food.

God bless America for social security and affordable high speed internet.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
In my last post I made references to two separate circuit court of appeals decisions, U. S. v. Still and U. S. v. Nelson. The Nelson reference was in error. Nelson was not a bank robbery case. The correct reference is U. S. v. Buffington as was correctly cited in one of my previous posts.

What follows are NOT my words.

They are NOT my interpretation of the law.

Far more importantly, they have NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH MY PREVIOUS ABSURD ANALOGY WHICH WAS A FICTITIOUS, SATIRICAL EXAMPLE NEVER INTENDED TO FORM THE BASIS FOR (and therefore shouldn't) A SERIOUS LEGAL DISCUSSION OF CASELAW PRECEDENT WITH REGARDS TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF "ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY.'

In the case of US v. Buffington, these are the words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for himself and his other colleagues on the three judge panel, Eugene Wright and Charles Wiggins of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court was unanimous.

Judge Poole, in the 52nd paragraph of his decision under the specific discussion of the subject of "ATTEMPT" wrote as follows:



In the very next paragraph, the Court distinguished the material facts of the case from those in U. S. v. Snell where it was HELD that "movement toward the bank" was NOT REQUIRED to demonstrate "attempt" BECAUSE in Snell the defendants' plan was to kidnap a bank manager and his wife, and to hold her hostage while forcing the manager to go to the bank to obtain money.

Again, what follows are not my words NOR my interpretation of the law. They are the specific words of Judge Cecil Poole writing for a unanimous three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court:



Please note that in that last paragraph, Judge Poole's words are footnoted. Here is the specific language of footnote 7:



The case of U. S. v. Still was also a unanimous 9th Circuit Court decision.

Again, not my words, not my interpretation and "not one fucking thing to do with....etc."

In this case, the three judge panel consisted of judges Melvin Brunetti, Harry Pregerson and Mary Schroeder. They relied substantially on the Court's previous decision in Buffington.

In paragraph 16, Judge Brunetti wrote for the Court:



The following ARE my words.

Now, I have not the slightest doubt that none of this will mean a goddamned thing to you. By all means, continue to piss up a rope with your absurd notion, unsupported anywhere in caselaw, that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Just know that in doing so you are in direct conflict with the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND LEGAL HOLDINGS of six separate judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In fact, let me give you a hand. Why don't you PRETEND that Judge Brunetti's sentence, "Considering that the Buffington defendants' actions went further in manifesting a substantial step..." DOES the very thing it DOES NOT -- substantiates a "substantial step" in the very Buffington case that HE DID NOT WRITE!?!?!?

But, shit, why stop there??? Why not pretend that the words "actual conduct did not cross the boundary between preparation and attempt" and "conduct did not constitute...a step...toward commission of the crime of such substantiality that, unless frustrated, the crime would have occurred" and " there was insufficient evidence to show...a substantial step toward bank robbery" and "proof of a substantial step toward the attempt was not established" are all consistent with and supportive of your "position" that a "substantial step" "can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS." Because you've made it perfectly clear that's what you believe despite the fact that no court anwhere has ever said anything remotely like that.

You can do that, can't you? It's exactly what everybody else does here -- IGNORE the law as handed down by the courts when arguing the law because, ultimately, the argument isn't about the law.

It's really about irrelevant, absurd analogies that I admit I should have never put forth and whether or not I'm a certifiable, obnoxious prick.

And, hell, I'll plead guilty to that, too. But it won't validate your worthless drivel about what you believe constitutes the legal standard for a "substantial step."

And since you don't believe me, go ask a real lawyer who you trust. And be certain to tell him that I make piss poor legal analogies. Because I'm sure he'll find that relevant and persuasive in supporting your LEGAL argument. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nothing in that epistle actually refutes what I said about your cliffhanger in Hogan v Pookie. You're just making longer and longer posts. This will be my shortest.
 
Last edited:
Queery69 said:
Whatsammatuh, miles? Wife got your balls in her purse again? And you've come to Lit to pretend to be an internet badass and stave off the feeling of being completely emasculated?
Click to expand...

Some words are uniquely PookieThrob...emasculate is just another dead giveaway.

*nods*
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
I'm sorry, what was my legal opinion?

Oh, that's right. I didn't offer one. I offered an opinion on Pookie...
Click to expand...

And it was an obtuse one at best. The Colonel didn't address what I said in my post at all. He felt the need to ramble on about two other cases (again) where a robbery was aborted before a substantial step was completed, in which preparation was complete.

My post addressed his trying to apply that to his fucked up analogy that leaves a robber at a bank and us having to wait for the next season of Hogan v Pookie to see if he continues the robbery or not.

But he's NOT defending his fucked up analogy. Not at all. No way, Jose. He's just masturbating over the other cases. Neither refutes my position that the substantial step is still in play in Hogan v Pookie .... because he STOPPED the fucking analogy and left us with a cliffhanger.

But again, he's NOT trying to defend his self-admitted fucked up analogy. Nuh uh.

If you want, I can post pictures to help you understand that. Just let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THROBBS
ABC Exhausting, though not Exhaustive
Replies
9
Views
7K
Sunlover102
Sunlover102
K
Groundswell Exposed
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
run_silent
run_silent
VaticanAssassin
So the Wall Street crew are marching for this guy?
Replies
12
Views
1K
akatrex
akatrex
E
'2011 - Year of the Dupe' - A Geopolitical Exposé
Replies
0
Views
802
eyer
E
JBCorbell
A paranoid style in American politics
Replies
1
Views
441
KingOrfeo
K
Back
Top