Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

"Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:x-3DFAB4.22525302052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <481bcff5$0$7066$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:x-07925C.22214702052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > In article <481bca80$0$7078$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> news:x-56FD38.11251102052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > In article <481ab22c$0$7075$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:x-945535.22512401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> > In article <481a7aea$0$30169$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
news:x-81CE27.22051501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> >> > In article <481a7540$0$30239$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> >> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No, pay attention to all, just just one thing.
>> >> >> >> >> I recall on incident were a person in CA was arrested on a
>> >> >> >> >> charge.
>> >> >> >> >> The
>> >> >> >> >> law
>> >> >> >> >> stated an offense, but does not define what the offense is.
>> >> >> >> >> Which
>> >> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> >> person brought before their attorney. Attorney refuses to 
>> >> >> >> >> hear
>> >> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> >> stating
>> >> >> >> >> "Well the courts have 'defined' it for us thus I am not 
>> >> >> >> >> touching
>> >> >> >> >> it".
>> >> >> >> >> Well,
>> >> >> >> >> ghee, since when do CA courts have the authority to make
>> >> >> >> >> legislation?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Of course this person found another attorney.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > And of course you don't have a cite for this far-fetched
>> >> >> >> > anecdote,
>> >> >> >> > right?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hardly far fetched. I have to look it up, but I can give you
an
>> >> >> >> example
>> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> how the PC reads, not how it is worded.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> PC Code 10000000:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to commit robbery.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>     (a) Any person  found guilty of robbery shall be confined
to
>> >> >> >> jail
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> term not to exceed one year.
>> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Again this is a made up of code to show you how it reads. In 
>> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> example
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> in comparison, there would be no defintion of robbery in the 
>> >> >> >> whole
>> >> >> >> CA
>> >> >> >> Penal
>> >> >> >> Code. I need to take the time to find it what PC it exactly
is.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So then the court says something like, "Any reasonble
reasonable
>> >> >> >> person
>> >> >> >> would know what robbery is."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So you're sup****ting your anecdotal, unsourced story with a
>> >> >> > hypothetical
>> >> >> > law?  Like I said before, please continue.... you're providing
me
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > some entertainment this evening.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And FYI, the real California robbery statute, 211-215, states
in
>> >> >> > part
>> >> >> > "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
>> >> >> > possession of another, from his person or immediate presence,
and
>> >> >> > against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think you'll find that all statutes have a definitions
section
>> >> >> > such
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > this one either in another subsection of the statute, or for a
>> >> >> > phrase
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > general usage, elsewhere in the criminal/penal code. 
Otherwise,
>> >> >> > they'd
>> >> >> > be constitutionally void for vagueness.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes I realize that, but in this case the law has no definition..
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean in the hypothetical, anecdotal case you referred to a few
>> >> > posts
>> >> > back?  The one that you can't substantiate at all?  I just want to

>> >> > make
>> >> > sure we're both talking about the same case.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I did a
>> >> >> search myself of the entire Cal PC. I am trying to recall the
words 
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> Cal Supreme Court, as I don't have the time right now to dig up 
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> case
>> >> >> law or that PC at this moment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well I can't recall now so I wil have to find it this weekend
>> >> >
>> >> > I eagerly await the results of your endeavor.
>> >>
>> >> And here is some of it. This was about 3 years ago. I cannot recall 
>> >> where
>> >> I
>> >> read about this case. Forum? SacBee?
>> >>
>> >> "647.6.  (a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under
>> >> 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
>> >> thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not
>> >> exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment."
>> >>
>> >> His claim was that "annoys or molests" was not defined anywhere in
the
>> >> penal
>> >> code. I myself did a search of all the pencal code to find if there 
>> >> was a
>> >> definition. I could not find any.
>> >>
>> >> There is where the Cal SC stepped in. If I recal correctly, the
CaLSC
>> >> indicated that "any reasonable person would find offensive." But
then
>> >> again
>> >> you are the one suppose to be an expert at knowing these cases, or 
>> >> where
>> >> to
>> >> find them quickly. Yep, seems to me the Cal SC writing legislation.
>> >
>> > That's what you found?  Really?  You think "annoy" needs to be
defined?
>> > Really?
>>
>> Uh yes...at what point is a person annoyed? Everyone is not the same.
>
> That's a factual question for a jury to decide.
>
> In NY, it's a felony to intentionally cause "serious physical injury" to
> someone.  What's "serious"?  Well, its defined as "protracted impairment
> of physical condition."  What makes something an impairment?  A paper
> cut?  A laceration that requires stitches?  A broken bone that prevents
> you from walking?  It's for a jury to decide whether the facts of a
> given case meet that standard or not.
>
>
>> Calling someone "boy" may annoy one, while make another happy. What's
to
>> draw the line? Who gets to make that descison?
>
>
> The jury.

In that case the whole planet could be "annoyed."

"Mama! That person walked past me!! I am annoyed!! Whhhaaaaaaa!!!"