| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 75608 | 2007-01-04 21:53:00 | Outstanding Trial-Case Law | SurferJoe46 (51) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 512732 | 2007-01-04 21:53:00 | We get a few ...er...strange interpretations of law here in Lawyerland... In October, Judge Robert Armstrong of Riverside, Calif., dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman solely because a state statute makes criminal only a person who "lewdly exposes his person, or the private parts thereof," which to Judge Armstrong clearly limited the law to males. (The prosecutor quickly filed an appeal.) :lol: |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 512733 | 2007-01-05 09:33:00 | Haha, when we thought we'd heard it all... | jermsie (6820) | ||
| 512734 | 2007-01-07 08:06:00 | Sounds reasonable Joe. If the law was meant to apply to women it would say so. For example, homosexuality was illegal in England but it was defined as men only. When Queen Victoria signed the statute criminalising it, she could not countenance that the "Love the dare not speak it's Name" could possibly apply to women. So lesbian relationships were lawful for decades in England. | Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 512735 | 2007-01-07 08:35:00 | Happy new Year Winston! Can you also advise: Regarding the term "solicit", does this mean that one that engages in the practice of soliciting is known as a "solicitor"? |
the godfather (11663) | ||
| 512736 | 2007-01-07 09:36:00 | What sort of sick twisted soul would outlaw lesbians? Queen Victoria sounds like a classy lady.:thumbs::thumbs: |
Metla (12) | ||
| 512737 | 2007-01-07 18:19:00 | indecent exposure charge against a woman solely because a state statute makes criminal only a person who "lewdly exposes his person, or the private parts thereof," You say a stupid male complained? Usually it's called flashing or whatever and I thought males actually enjoyed something like this? :confused: sarel |
sarel (2490) | ||
| 512738 | 2007-01-09 07:03:00 | Happy new Year Winston! Can you also advise: Regarding the term "solicit", does this mean that one that engages in the practice of soliciting is known as a "solicitor"? Being of a pedantic persuasion, I just know your are hanging out for my reply GF, so thanks to cut and paste here is a fuller explanation: :D "In American and Canadian English, the term often refers to "a person who seeks business or contributions from others; an advertiser or promoter" (according to Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition). This is the meaning intended in the ubiquitous signs on business premises that say "No Soliciting" or "Please Do Not Contribute To Solicitors." The equivalent British English term would be "tout" and the Australian English term "hawker". In the UK, 'solicit' is used in the phrase "solicit for prostitution" - a criminal offence - but someone who does this is not usually referred to as a solicitor since the word is generally understood to refer to lawyers." |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 512739 | 2007-01-09 08:43:00 | I also try not to contribute to Solicitors unless absolutely essential ... Perhaps we need one of these signs in Winton? en.wikipedia.org |
the godfather (11663) | ||
| 512740 | 2007-01-09 12:06:00 | Godfather, why are you still beyond the pale? | Laura (43) | ||
| 512741 | 2007-01-09 21:08:00 | strange thing surfurjoe is the law was similar over here some years ago. there was no such thing as a sexual offence against a male by a female untill recently, they changed the laws some years ago. sadly woman are one of the fastest growing group of offenders :( |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||