[Vision2020] Facts

[Andreas Schou]

Your question was self-evidently ridiculous, and didn't deserve more than
the response it got. If you act like a pompous bully, you'll be treated like
a pompous bully.

The state is not the instrument to punish the victims of your bottomless
pique, especially not before the facts are in.

-- ACS

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

> **
> Ron,
>
> Thank you for providing an explanation with an appropriate citation.  Very
> professional, unlike the previous responder.
>
> w.
>
>  *From:* Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 2:23 PM
> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> ; Moscow Vision 2020<Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts
>
>  I think this cite from L/N explains it:
>
> [image: Return to Topic List]<http://ida.lib.uidaho.edu:6525/lnacui2api/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1314393410744&returnToKey=20_T12604077259&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.501564.00013248215#refpt_>KNOWLEDGE
> REQUIREMENT.
>    The appropriate interpretation of § 18-205<http://ida.lib.uidaho.edu:6525/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T12604077217&homeCsi=6653&A=0.2977388114459607&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=IDCODE%2018-205&countryCode=USA&_md5=00000000000000000000000000000000>regarding an accessory who harbored or protected a person charged with, or
> convicted of, a felony was that the knowledge requirement was met if the
> person had notice that the accused was charged with, or convicted of, a
> felony. State v. Teasley, 138 Idaho 113, 58 P.3d 97 (Ct. App. 2002).<http://ida.lib.uidaho.edu:6525/lnacui2api/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T12604077217&homeCsi=6653&A=0.2977388114459607&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=138%20Idaho%20113&countryCode=USA&_md5=00000000000000000000000000000000>
>
> It's not your belief that a felony may have occurred-- the person has to be
> charged with, or convicted of, the same.
>
> Ron Force
> Moscow Idaho USA
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 12:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts
>
>  Thank you for your very clear explanation.
>
> However, given your track record on Vision 2020 on legal matters, I am not
> inclined to accept your apodictic statement without citations and
> explanations.
>
>
>   18-205. Accessories defined. All persons are accessories who, having
> knowledge that a felony has been committed:
> (1)  *Willfully withhold or conceal it* from a peace officer, judge,
> magistrate, grand jury or trial jury; or
> (2)  Harbor and protect a person who committed such felony or who has been
> charged with or convicted thereof.
>
> I do not have access from home to Lexis so I can not look up the case law
> on this statute.  That's why I asked the question here.  I'd hoped that
> someone competent at law in these matters could look it up and provided us
> with citations and an explanation.  Perhaps someone will.
>
> From information presented in the media, it appears that Bushamante
> committed felony aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon.  I
> appears that Ms. Benoit reported it to a *person* at the UI thus giving
> that *person* knowledge that a felony was committed.  According to remarks
> made by Sheriff Rausch at the local Crapo rally this week, no *person*from the UI reported it to any local law enforcement agency.
>
> Can not reporting a felony be construed in ordinary language (the first
> test a court would apply if the terms are not specifically defined) as an
> act of willfully withholding or concealing?  How is "having knowledge that a
> felony has occurred" to be construed by the courts?  Is not being told by a
> victim of a felony, a victim whose credibility has not been questioned,
> amount to knowledge in the sense that it the assertion is much more likely
> to be true than not?
>
> I hope that someone competent, unbiased, and not lazy in authority will ask
> carefully research these questions, and act forcefully upon the answers.
>
> w.
>
>  *From:* Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 10:16 AM
> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts
>
> > Also, I wonder if this statute might apply:
> > http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH2SECT18-205.htm
>
> No. It certainly does not.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110826/f893f39f/attachment.html