Getting away with??

Getting away with??
Re: Re: Re: Rape OK, Assault OK ... but no dope -- cyanidefreak	Post Reply		Forum

Posted by: crossbowman
07/07/2008, 20:17:52

(About author)

Edit

So that we're all on the same page here, what specific "Jeffs cult" incidents are you talking about? My information is that Jeffs is serving time now. Has there been some change I'm not aware of?

If you're referring to the Texas thing, I understood the core charges were still working their way through the system, but I haven't been able to keep track of the news lately. Do you have more recent information?

"Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts."

WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,

Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring.

Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert

Previous | Next | Current page

Followups

Re: Getting away with?? --- cyanidefreak ( 2008-07-08 13:31 ) ( 1392 bytes ) +3
- multiple --- DWA ( 2008-07-08 14:43 ) ( 1 bytes )
- multiple --- DWA ( 2008-07-08 14:43 ) ( 1 bytes )
- Ends versus means dilemma+add. --- DWA ( 2008-07-08 14:48 ) ( 524 bytes ) +2
  - Re: Ends versus means dilemma+add. --- cyanidefreak ( 2008-07-08 15:03 ) ( 379 bytes )
  - Re: Ends versus means dilemma+add. --- cyanidefreak ( 2008-07-14 18:38 ) ( 59 bytes ) +1
    - Inconsistency implies hypocricy, or just being naive? --- DWA ( 2008-07-15 10:30 ) ( 997 bytes )