Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

In article <481bdbbe$0$7059$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:x-7B40C9.23193202052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <481bd777$0$7067$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "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!!!"
> >
> > But is it reasonable?  Would a jury be convinced BARD that the person
> > was annoyed?  (And what was the mens rea requirement of the statute? -
> > if there was the requirement of an intent to annoy, most people would
> > agree that walking past someone isn't enough proof of that intent.)
> 
> But read that PC, there has to be no intent, "Every person who annoys or

> molests any child under 18..."

So it is strict liability.  You better consider your actions and make 
sure there's no forseeable way a child under 18 would be annoyed...