Tom Delay Finally COMPLETLY Cleared By Texas's Highest Court.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by FoulRon

I like the second paragraph of the quoted opinion is post #50.
I believe that can be read as affirming that ignorance of the law IS an excuse.

Kinda of hard for me to believe either DeLay or the court when they say he did not know the law when wtf he did was take 190k out of a fund that was illegal to give Texas politicians and transfer those funds to Washington and then have Washington transfer the exact same amount (190k) to Texas politicians.

Of course LL thinks that is perfectly fine and he thinks he isn't partisan too I suppose

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There is nothing in the record to show that the appellant knew that he was conducting, supervising, or facilitating a transaction that involved the proceeds of criminal activity. The State has failed to establish the requisite culpable mental state to prove the offenses of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

.

Ole Tom DeLay was washing 190k right and left but according to our courts (and LexusLiar) he didn't know wtf he was a washing! The flip side is the voters in his district knew wtf he was doing and were about to vote his ass out of congress before Tom pulled a Palin and up and quit! These are voters that are solidly red voters and they knew he was a crook , even if LexusLiar is having a hard time dealing with that fact.




.

[CuteOldGuy]

Nobody said Delay didn't know. It said the State didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State fails in that regard, the Defendant goes free. That's the way it should be.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

I will own it all day long....and already have.

Next Tom DeLay circumvented the law no matter how you want to defend him. If more politicians went to jail for breaking the law there would be less corrupt politicians. Just like in more bankers had went to jail after defrauding folks there would be no need to bail to big to fail banks out. DeLay sent money to Washington to circumvent Texas law that corporate money cannot be given directly to political campaigns [/SIZE]


.

Just in case you missed me straightening out another lie of yours LexusLiar...


.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by FoulRon

I like the second paragraph of the quoted opinion is post #50. I believe that can be read as affirming that ignorance of the law IS an excuse.

Actually, it's not "ignorance of the law" ... that was clarified in the opinion. It is lack of knowledge of an unlawful act by a 3rd party, which knowledge is required to satisfy the "intent" or the requisite "mens rea" for there to be a conviction.

My example of a prosecution for walking into a business establishment in which illegal activities had occurred (as well as legal) is relevant... the prosecutor must prove the customer knew of the illegal activity before walking into the establishment and the customer INTENDED to participate in some of the illegal activity.

And in the case of money laundering the "illegal activity" must be a felony.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nobody said Delay didn't know. It said the State didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State fails in that regard, the Defendant goes free. That's the way it should be.

And that is they way it is .....

..... and has been EVEN WITH DEMOCRATS SITTING IN THE COURT.

WTF GOT CAUGHT LYING AND WANTS TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE ....

..... he also got caught making a fool of himself, which he can't blame on anyone but himself. I can understand why he desires to distance himself from the use of illegal labor on this construction jobs. Even though he knows illegal labor is used, he wants to pretend he doesn't know, so he can't be held legally accountable for it.

But he wants Delay to be held accountable ...

.............. for what someone else was THINKING!!!!

Hey, WTF, have you figured out that a check ISN'T money, yet?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Just in case you missed me straightening out another lie of yours LexusLiar....

Too bad you have to LIE to try to make yourself look correct.

A page right out of BT's book.

Is that what you do when you get caught LYING AND BULLSHITTING ...

... throw a tantrum and starting pointing fingers at other people?

No wonder you support OBAMINABLE.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Kinda of hard for me to THINK..

Fixed it for you, duffus. You are drowning in your own shit.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yea, that Texas Legislature is chucked full of ..... "stupid lawyers" who "distort"!

Texas Business and Commerce Code § 3.104:

"(f) "Check" means (i) a draft, other than a documentary draft, payable on demand and drawn on a bank or (ii) a cashier's check or teller's check. An instrument may be a check even though it is described on its face by another term, such as "money order."

You sound more and more like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE ...

Your Covey of BimbHoes must be impressed with you DAILY!!!!!

Texas Penal Code:

"Sec. 31.06. PRESUMPTION FOR THEFT BY CHECK OR SIMILAR SIGHT ORDER. (a) If the actor obtained property or secured performance of service by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, when the issuer did not have sufficient funds in or on deposit with the bank or other drawee for the payment in full of the check or order as well as all other checks or orders then outstanding, it is prima facie evidence of the issuer's intent to deprive the owner of property under Section 31.03 (Theft) including a drawee or third-party holder in due course who negotiated the check or order or to avoid payment for service under Section 31.04 (Theft of Service) (except in the case of a postdated check or order) if:..." ..

.. .just INSERT the word "Money" for "check" and indict!!!!! ..

....as per the Travis County DA's Office and Lawyer WTF!!!!!!

"Texas Penal Code

Section 1.07. (46-a) "Sight order" means a written or electronic instruction to pay money that is authorized by the person giving the instruction and that is payable on demand or at a definite time by the person being instructed to pay. The term includes a check, an electronic debit, or an automatic bank draft."

Lesson 2.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Correct. 100%. But the TRUTH is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not decide the case on whether or not "a check is money" ..... I just finished reading the Court's opinion in its entirety and copied several "bullet" points upon which the Court based its opinion, which was an evaluation of the underlying offense of "money laundering" for which Delay was convicted.

I did not see any phrase that concluded or paragraph evaluating the definition of "check" as being money or not being money.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf

Here are the quotes on the deciding points in the opinion:

"Ultimately, we agree with the court of appeals that the appellant’s convictions cannot stand because there is no possible view of the evidence that can establish that any transaction alleged to comprise money laundering involved the proceeds of a felony violation of the Texas Election Code, under either theory of criminal proceeds.

There is nothing in the record to show that the appellant knew that he was conducting, supervising, or facilitating a transaction that involved the proceeds of criminal activity. The State has failed to establish the requisite culpable mental state to prove the offenses of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

However, as we read Section 34.02(a)(2) of the Penal Code, it is an element of the offense of money laundering that the actor was aware of the fact that the money he is purported to have laundered was the proceeds of felony criminal activity. The federal money laundering statute similarly requires knowledge that the funds constitute ill-gotten gains. See 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1) (“Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity . . . .”); United States v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798, 804 (3d Cir. 1999) (one of the elements of money laundering under this provision is “knowledge that the transaction involves the proceeds of some unlawful activity”).

Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

Fortunately, for ALL OF US, regardless of political affiliation or point of view, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (regardless of political affiliation) requires a defendant to be proven to have possessed the requisite criminal intent on the elements of an offense to sustain the defendant's conviction.

Otherwise anyone communicating with a provider or walking into the door of any location in which illegal activity has occurred would support a conviction REGARDLESS of whether the "anyone" actually intended to engage in the activity which was considered illegal in the past.

Irrespective of party affiliation that is why I prefer to have judges who are "strict constructionists" who require prosecutors to follow the specific requirements of "the law" and insist on sufficient proof to establish each and every element of an offense to support a conviction.

Lesson 3

[LexusLover]

:
Originally Posted by WTF:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state’s third Court of Appeals, who threw out the conviction in 2013 stating that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence because bank checks were not to be considered money.

http://tpr.org/post/former-house-maj...iminal-charges

Do any of you kool-aide drinking Tea'billies not consider a check, money? Or do you even know wtf a check is? Do you still trade chicken for goods and services?

The above is a LIE.

Here is the direct quote from the conclusion of the opinion:

"Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf

Lesson 1
__________________

[Yssup Rider]

SEVEN POSTS IN A ROW In the same thread?

DOES THAT QUALIFY AS A MELTDOWN?

Absolutely!

Get some rest LLIDiot. The high courts in Texas are controlled by Republican judges who are controlled by moneyed interests.

Period.

It really only matters how things are today. Not in the days of Judge Roy Bean.

SEVEN IN A ROW. Might be an ECCIE single thread MELTDOWN record!!!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The above is a LIE.

Damn LLIdiot, 7 freakin' posts in a row.

And in the same thread, no less!

I am glad LLIdiot finally found someone stupid enough to listen to his silly ass bullshit.

Even if it was only himself who was stupid enough to listen.

[Yssup Rider]

Methinks the closet door got stuck and LLIDiot couldn't get out. Hence the string of self babble...

[IIFFOFRDB]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state’s third Court of Appeals, who threw out the conviction in 2013 stating that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence because bank checks were not to be considered money.

http://tpr.org/post/former-house-maj...iminal-charges

Do any of you kool-aide drinking Tea'billies not consider a check, money? Or do you even know wtf a check is? Do you still trade chicken for goods and services?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The above is a LIE.

Here is the direct quote from the conclusion of the opinion:

"Because the State has failed to prove that the corporate contributors harbored the requisite mens rea to establish an offense under the Election Code, we agree with the court of appeals that it has not established that the money conveyed by TRMPAC to RNSEC constituted the proceeds of criminal activity for purposes of money laundering or conspiracy to commit money laundering."

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/fil...e-of-texas.pdf

Lesson 1
__________________

It is worth repeating again, for those who want to change the subject.