In laymen's term's SHUT UP, BE QUIET Stop Posting about it.
If you keep up this making sense position Jim you'll be asked to leave. [dig]
In laymen's term's SHUT UP, BE QUIET Stop Posting about it.
If you keep up this making sense position Jim you'll be asked to leave. [dig]
get mags now and do what you need to do later...there is really no way to enforce these.
Ya, wonderful...
As stated by the Supreme Court in People v. Ward 154 Ill. 2d 272 (1992): "[a] defendant has no right to introduce portions of a statement which are not necessary to enable the jury to properly evaluate the portions introduced by the State.".... "the admission of evidence under this doctrine is limited to that which is relevant, material, and concerns the same subject at the same time." Ward, at 312.
The advice in Post #23 is accurate and smart people will heed it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I think his concern is that the whole point of the trust is that it is legally another entity so there's a transfer of ownership (prohibited by stupid poorly-written law) even when possession remains the same. That's yet another example of how poorly written the laws are so I understand why he's asking. [mop]
Your other points about the prosecutor having the burden to prove a transgression and just shutting up are valid. [Flower]
With many, based on the postings herein, the liberals have at least won the battle of instilling fear into the general populace...is that not one of the things our founding fathers opposed?
No shit i read more hand wringing and just plain bs over concerns regarding WHAT IF? WHAT NOW? WHAT SHOULD I DO
Same thing you have been doing, only with much less fanfare and INTERNET POSTINGS!
You don't record some woman fellating you, then express outrage when your SO ask "So who's this?"
I would actually agree with all of this.
But, to that point, would you or would you rather not have some sort of proof?
To Trot - yeah, OK, so let's say LATER I produce said evidence. With attorney. If they're going down to the falsified / BS / whatever road on my full press, I'm kind of screwed anyway.
I'm not trying to convince you to keep anything or not keep anything. Keep a yellow newspaper from June 30 if you want. :shrug: I'm merely agreeing keeping all these receipts seem pretty reasonable to me.
Did you or did you not have possession of this before July 1? I say I did, and this little piece of paper seems to agree. Now, what evidence shall we produce against that then?
Edit: Why would you not want to keep records for yourself anyway?
But if you take a pic print it, and priority mail said pic to your self postdated before july1st ,and don't open the letter until questioned about mags...you will have used the federal system to circumvent the stupid state mag law....make sure the pic resides in a envelope inside a sealed priority envelope.