Ask A Provider Anything

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by DSK

Additionally, the authentication process is likely problematic....
What if someone hacked my account and posted? That is why they met the people in person to authenticate.

You do realize you just answered your own question, correct?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by DSK

How does something I wrote on someone else's site prove I actually wrote it on my computer?

That is why we have a trial jury for, ask Michael Skupin.

[TinMan]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

So you are equating willful negligence with intent, did you vote for Hillary?

What does Hillary have to do with the subject matter? I am describing how AML laws were originally written with the actual launderers in mind, but prosecutors tried and failed to hang bank employees on those statutes. They couldn't prove intent in some of those cases, so they went about it another way by enacting new statutes that hung folks for willful negligence ("you should have known"). This was a 20+ year process, by the way.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

So you are equating willful negligence with intent, did you vote for Hillary?

"Willful negligence" is an oxymoron. That's like saying I intended to kill Andy by accident. The phrase "equating willful negligence with intent" is just plain gibberish.

With some exceptions, criminal liability requires proof of intent. From FindLaw:

"Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as 'mens rea,' which is simply Latin for a 'guilty mind.' In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime."

See: FindLaw, "Mens Rea -- A Defendant's Mental State".

Mens rea ranges from willful (intending the conduct and the result) to negligent (not intending the conduct or the result -- i.e., an accident). To say someone is "willfully negligent" is nonsensical.

The Texas Penal Code states the spectrum of the possible mental states the prosecution must prove:

"TEXAS PENAL CODE, Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.
(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

See: Texas Penal Code sec. 6.03 (emphasis added).

In Texas, most statutes making conduct a criminal offense state the culpable mental state or states the prosecution must prove. However, if the statute doesn't state a culpable mental state, then, at least, recklessness is read into the statute. (I misspoke above when I said at least negligence must be proven.) Here's the relevant statute:

"TEXAS PENAL CODE, Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
(b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element.
(c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.
(d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
(1) intentional;
(2) knowing;
(3) reckless;
(4) criminal negligence.
(e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.
(f) An offense defined by municipal ordinance or by order of a county commissioners court may not dispense with the requirement of a culpable mental state if the offense is punishable by a fine exceeding the amount authorized by Section 12.23."

See Texas Penal Code sec. 6.02.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

You do realize you just answered your own question, correct?

You didn't realize that it was a rhetorical question I intended to answer to prove my point and illustrate the chain of custody problem addressed by the in person investigation, hence making it seem like more than just writing reviews is part of this prosecutorial overreach, and we do not yet have evidence anyone has been prosecuted solely for writing reviews, even though it is damn close to it?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

"Willful negligence" is an oxymoron. That's like saying I intended to kill Andy by accident. The phrase "equating willful negligence with intent" is just plain gibberish.

With some exceptions, criminal liability requires proof of intent. From FindLaw:

"Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as 'mens rea,' which is simply Latin for a 'guilty mind.' In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime."

See: FindLaw, "Mens Rea -- A Defendant's Mental State".

Mens rea ranges from willful (intending the conduct and the result) to negligent (not intending the conduct or the result -- i.e., an accident). To say someone is "willfully negligent" is nonsensical.

The Texas Penal Code states the spectrum of the possible mental states the prosecution must prove:

"TEXAS PENAL CODE, Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.

(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

See: Texas Penal Code sec. 6.03 (emphasis added).

Thank you for validating my post #163 and I want to now reiterate that I clearly understood intent and criminal responsibility, and your post demonstrates that intent is not always required. If intent is an element of promoting prostitution via writing a review, it is critical to making the felony case.
If the defendant had no intent to promote prostitution, he is clearly guilty only if the standard is below intent, such as recklessly promoting prostitution.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by DSK

Thank you for validating my post #163 and I want to now reiterate that I clearly understood intent and criminal responsibility, and your post demonstrates that intent is not always required. If intent is an element of promoting prostitution via writing a review, it is critical to making the felony case.
If the defendant had no intent to promote prostitution, he is clearly guilty only if the standard is below intent, such as recklessly promoting prostitution.

I think you STILL don't understand. Willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently are ALL types of intent. To write, "If the defendant had no intent to promote prostitution, he is clearly guilty only if the standard is below intent, such as recklessly promoting prostitution." Recklessly is ALSO a type of intent.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by TinMan

What does Hillary have to do with the subject matter?

You are not that dumb, are you ? Care to explain why the FBI castigated Hillary's "willful gross negligence" in her mishandling of the classified materials but declined to charge her for her lack of "criminal intent"?

And while you are at it, please also explain why no one has ever been at least indicted for this epic "willful negligence"?

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

You are not that dumb, are you ? Care to explain why the FBI castigated Hillary's "willful gross negligence" in her mishandling of the classified materials but declined to charge her for her lack of "criminal intent"?

And while you are at it, please also explain why no one has ever been at least indicted for this epic "willful negligence"?

You are not that dumb, are you? Care to explain why you're posting about Hillary Clinton in Coed? Take your mindless rantings to the Political Forum.

[ShysterJon]

In case anybody's interested, there's a new thread in the Legal Forum about the The Review Board arrests in Seattle:

"Promoting Prostitution by writing a review?"

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

"Willful negligence" is an oxymoron. That's like saying I intended to kill Andy by accident. The phrase "equating willful negligence with intent" is just plain gibberish.

Oxymoron?! Gibberish?! Are you not the one who equates "willful" and "negligence" as "ALL types of intent," Shyster?

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by DSK

You didn't realize that it was a rhetorical question I intended to answer to prove my point and illustrate the chain of custody problem addressed by the in person investigation, hence making it seem like more than just writing reviews is part of this prosecutorial overreach, and we do not yet have evidence anyone has been prosecuted solely for writing reviews, even though it is damn close to it?

Really?! Well I do have a "rhetorical question" for you: Could Al Goldstein be indicted under this Washington prostitution law if he still is alive today?

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Oxymoron?! Gibberish?! Are you not the one who equates "willful" and "negligence" as "ALL types of intent," Shyster?

Yes, willful and negligence are both types of intent, according to thousands of years of common law and thousands of criminal statutes. Now, in Andy's World of Psychotic Delusions and Ignorance, things might be different. You'd know better than me.

[ElBombero]

"Willful negligence" is an oxymoron. It's often used, however, as another term for "gross negligence," which is much more accurate and less confusing. I believe it's used more regarding business, medical, and record compliance settings than in criminal law, though I have no data to back that up. People say, "hot water heater" where I'm from, but that doesn't mean they're correct. Now, back to enjoying my jumbo shrimp, which are awfully delicious, before I become clearly confused.

[TinMan]

Originally Posted by ElBombero

"Willful negligence" is an oxymoron. It's often used, however, as another term for "gross negligence," which is much more accurate and less confusing. I believe it's used more regarding business, medical, and record compliance settings than in criminal law, though I have no data to back that up. People say, "hot water heater" where I'm from, but that doesn't mean they're correct. Now, back to enjoying my jumbo shrimp, which are awfully delicious, before I become clearly confused.

I'm obviously guilty of using "willful negligence" when I mean "negligence". SJ isn't the first to correct me in my usage of the term.