Comments on: Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik. http://houblog.com/wp/index.php/2005/7 Random rants from a civil servant in Houston, TX Fri, 18 May 2012 02:30:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: DrHeinous http://houblog.com/wp/index.php/2005/7#comment-9 DrHeinous Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:25:55 +0000 http://houblog.com/wp/?p=7#comment-9 Almost too complicated to understand now. Kind of like the blasted Tax Code. Don't worry, leave it to the professionals to sort out... -W Almost too complicated to understand now. Kind of like the blasted Tax Code. Don’t worry, leave it to the professionals to sort out…

-W

]]> By: ubu http://houblog.com/wp/index.php/2005/7#comment-8 ubu Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:45:47 +0000 http://houblog.com/wp/?p=7#comment-8 Better detail is foun in Resonant Information's post, (I'm just not patient enough to pull that much info togehter) but the whole thing still revolves around the contention that "corporate donations are illegal." If they are, then Earle's breaking the law too. Furthermore, to quote RI: "Some legal academics disagree, however, noting that the 2003 amendment was really nothing more than an explicit notation that existing law allowed prosecution of all felonies, including ones involving campaign finance." Legal academics, a.k.a Ronnie & the Dem's paid mouthpieces can disagree all they want. No federal judge is going to allow an ex post facto law, whether it calls itself a "clarification" of existing law or not. Fun excercise: Think of anything you ever did that might have been illegal, even running a red light. Now let's "clarify" that was supposed to be a felony, not a traffic misdemenor. That is why the prohibition is absolute. And in the meantime, your political masters continue to emasculate you by making up bizarre new legal theories to hang whom they please. Better detail is foun in Resonant Information’s post, (I’m just not patient enough to pull that much info togehter) but the whole thing still revolves around the contention that “corporate donations are illegal.” If they are, then Earle’s breaking the law too.

Furthermore, to quote RI: “Some legal academics disagree, however, noting that the 2003 amendment was really nothing more than an explicit notation that existing law allowed prosecution of all felonies, including ones involving campaign finance.” Legal academics, a.k.a Ronnie & the Dem’s paid mouthpieces can disagree all they want. No federal judge is going to allow an ex post facto law, whether it calls itself a “clarification” of existing law or not. Fun excercise: Think of anything you ever did that might have been illegal, even running a red light. Now let’s “clarify” that was supposed to be a felony, not a traffic misdemenor.

That is why the prohibition is absolute.

And in the meantime, your political masters continue to emasculate you by making up bizarre new legal theories to hang whom they please.

]]> By: Resonant Information http://houblog.com/wp/index.php/2005/7#comment-7 Resonant Information Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:29:05 +0000 http://houblog.com/wp/?p=7#comment-7 <strong>The second DeLay indictment</strong> On Monday, Tom DeLay was issued a second indictment (PDF copy courtesy of the Jurist), this time for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering (the first was for conspiracy to circumvent Texas campaign finance laws). The maximum penalty The second DeLay indictment

On Monday, Tom DeLay was issued a second indictment (PDF copy courtesy of the Jurist), this time for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering (the first was for conspiracy to circumvent Texas campaign finance laws). The maximum penalty

]]>