So I'm reading Skankbeat's analysis of the court's language on whether Hendrickson is a person and basically he chalks it all up to word games. Ironically, the only person playing word games in this scenario is Skankbeat.
Skankbeat
CourtIf you read the [] excerpt carefully, you will see that both the judge and government lawyers fall short of stating that "Defendant is a 'person'".
Skankbeat... the Court... rejected the argument that... the defendant could not be a “person”...
He could be, but is he really???? That is the question. Maybe he's an alien who's inhabited the body of a person in which case he wouldn't really be a personIt is true, Hendrickson "could be" a "person", but the issue of law is whether Hendrickson "is" a "person".
Court
Skankbeat... the pertinent definitional provisions... specify that individuals such as Defendant are ‘persons’...
So Pete's an individual but does that really mean he's a person?It is true, Hendrickson is an "individual", and it is also true that "pertinent... provisions... specify" that some "individuals" are "persons". But the issue of law is whether Hendrickson "is" a "person".
Skankbeat
Because apparently the Court saying that individuals such as Pete are persons is just not enough. Had the court included the word "statutory" right before the word person that would have cleared up all the smoke-and-mirrorsBecause the judge does not declare that Hendrickson is a statutory "person", the issue of law is not addressed. Instead you have a lot of smoke-and-mirrors.
Court
Surely the court jests. . . . just because Pete works does not make him a person. Pack animals work and they aren't people. What if he were a robot who worked, would he be a person then?The defendant argues that at trial the Government failed to introduce evidence that he was a “person.” In its case in chief, the government presented evidence that the defendant worked at Edward Rose & Son... From that evidence, the jury could conclude that Hendrickson was a person.
Skankbeat
Note that the last use of "person" is without quotations. The omission of the quotation marks is not a typo. The government lawyers know full well that simply showing that Hendrickson "worked at" a company does not establish that Hendrickson is a statutory "person". So eventhough the jury "could conclude" that Hendrickson was a regular person, the issue of law is whether Hendrickson "is" a statutory "person".
And here Skankbeat shows the great flaw in the opinion. The court left off the quotation marks around the word "person." This is apparently very, very important in ferreting out the court's intentions.
Court
Further, as the defendant took the stand at trial and testified on his own behalf, the jury was entitled to conclude from his presence that, as an individual, he was a “person” for purposes of § 7206(1).
Skankbeat
Not even sure what to say about this analysis.It is true that the jury "was entitled" to guess that since Hendrickson is an "individual", and that certain "individuals" are "persons", that Hendrickson might also be a "person". But that does not satisfy the "beyond a resonable doubt" test for criminal procedure.
Skankbeat
Oh don't tease so Skankbeat. You know you won't stop here. You're just getting startedI will stop here.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... &start=150
