Quote from: squatz1 on March 06, 2019, 04:37:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 06, 2019, 03:30:20 PM

Quote from: squatz1 on March 06, 2019, 03:02:27 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 06, 2019, 02:42:06 PM

Their family foots the bill, or, they make an agreement to pay the bill off and are forced to work it off from prison if necessary, or the bill is limited to their shallow grave when they die.

Having fines if there is no harm or damage done is against the law, really. After all, if you want to commit suicide, let friends and family warn you... but nobody can really stop you without taking your freedom away... and nobody has the right to stop you when you are serious about it and have been firmly warned.

Ross should have gotten a fair trial. But the fairness should have started with his attorney telling him that he was contracting into the court and throwing himself on their mercy, simply by hiring an attorney.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread691102/pg1
http://www.gemworld.com/US--AttorneyClient.htm
http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/attorney-client-relationship/

Cool

But this would be new legislation would have to be passed in order to have something like, the current legislative state doesn't have these sort of provisions (at least to the best of my knowledge)

Well there is harm being done, and that is the harm caused by continuing to purchase drugs from the illegal marketplace and the damage that is caused by the health damage of using these drugs.

I don't know if anyone knows this off the top of his head, but was the case of Ross a bench trial or a jury trial? Because if I was him, I would without a doubt pick a bench trial to ensure that the letter of the law is used to charge me of my crimes by an expert instead of 9 people who don't really understand the law.

Current State legislation doesn't legalize the amount of shoe polish you have on your shoes, either. Get the State out of it altogether... except for warnings about the dangers.

If a person wants to shoot himself in the foot, is there a law against it? If so, that law is taking away freedom. The State should warn, only. If there is a claim of harm or damage, it should be taken to the courts, and the jury should rule on harm being done. As it is, it is harm being done by the State in taking away freedom through certain of the laws that the State makes.

Common law jury trial is 12 jurors. The question should always be about who was harmed. Show us the injury. Prove who did the injury. Ross was simply moving money in the same way any business person does. When you spend money at Walmart, some of that money is going to be used by some people to harm others. They don't hold you or Walmart responsible because somebody else did harm or damage with money that was yours at one time. In Ross's case, was there any harm or damage even shown, or was he found guilty because some money he handled might have harmed someone? What a legal joke!

Cool

Well there's no crime about shooting yourself in the foot, only if you were the person who had owned gun legally and had done it in your home. You also must not put anyone else in danger while doing this. It would have to be 100 percent accidental.

Didn't Ross also hire a hitman or something along those lines -- I'm not sure if I'm misremembering.

You're trying to compare TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. You're attempting to compare Walmart, a public company that is at the whims of lawsuits and prosecution for their crimes. They're a company which must follow the letter of the law, and if they don't they will face the consequences (there is subjectivity to if the consequences are enough, but they do face them) You're comparing Walmart with Ross, someone who facilitated the drug sales to tens of thousands of people. Does Walmart sell drugs to people? No.

Oops, slip of the tongue by myself. But I was asking if Ross either had a bench trial or a jury trial.

Is Ross under the control of the legal or the lawful? There is a difference. By his hiring of an attorney, he came under the legal so that nobody had to determine if he was or wasn't, before.

Hitman - I am also remembering that they didn't let him say much or anything at his trial. So he might have disagreed with them all over the place.

People are dying from the legal drugs that the Walmart pharmacy sells.

If a jury thinks that it has to judge according to what the magistrate says, it is not a real jury. It is only an arm of the magistrate. Jury nullification is not allowed to be told to an ignorant jury during any part of the trial, or even the questioning by the attornys when the jury is selected. If a potential jury member is found to have knowledge of jury nullification, he is usually disqualified.

Cool