Text 14498, 83 rader
Skriven 2008-04-24 11:03:41 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 14465 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Roy,

On Wednesday April 23 2008 17:13, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> You have the gun. That shows intent. According to this new
 MvdV>> Dutch law I am contemplating.

 RW> You just took a few breaths to make that statement, therefore
 RW> according to the law I just invented, you owe the US government $1000
 RW> for breathing. Silly?

Actually that is not as silly as it may look to you at first hand. Someday
goverments may tax brteathing...

 RW>>> For starters, guns don't have the range to reach Holland from
 RW>>> the US,

 MvdV>> So? Menno Blom could never have succeeded in carrying out his
 MvdV>> intention to have sex with a fourteen year old.

 RW> From Holland! Which is why he traveled to the US to act out his
 RW> 'intentions',

Where he could not act them out either as the girl did not exist.

 RW>  which you just admitted he had in mind.

I admitted to no such thing. I just acknowleged that was part of the charge.

 RW> It isn't against the law to phish for sexual offenders online here.

It is here and Menno Blom was here when that happened.

 MvdV>> There was no fourteen year old. It does not matter if the
 MvdV>> attempt can not succeed. it is the intent that counts....

 RW> In Blom's case, intent was proven

In the eys of the US court that judged by US rules.

And when you cross into Dutch territory you will be judged by a Dutch court hat
judges by Dutch rules. And if those rules say owning a gun and coming to The
Netherlands is sufficient proof of intent than that is it. You can then cite
NRA propaganda until you see blue in the face, the best it will get you is an
additional sentence for displaying contempot of court.

 MvdV>> You yourself have confessed to  firing guns on several
 MvdV>> occasions.

 RW> Where have I written that down and what official witnessed it? Then,
 RW> prove that I have those firearms you think I have. Hearsay does not
 RW> stand up in court, not even in Holland.

Another mistake....

 MvdV>> According to your own words in the van der Sloot case, a
 MvdV>> confession is proof.

 RW> You have no confession that I deliberately pointed a gun in the
 RW> direction of Holland.

A confession of deliberate pointing is not needed. You own a gun and fired it.
You had no way of knowing it was not in the direction of where a Dutch citizen
was standing. You confessed to owning and firing it. That is enough.

 RW>>> I have no fear of being arrested for your fairy tale on Dutch
 RW>>> soil. Any charges stemming from what I did in the US won't
 RW>>> stick. Any prosecutor who brought such charges would be laughed
 RW>>> out of court.

 MvdV>> You forget that on Dutch soil it is Dutch law that applies, not
 MvdV>> US law. And our laws are not static. We can change them. At
 MvdV>> whim. Our whim.

 RW> Yes, with the fickleness of falty premises...

Fickleness of the law is not a legal defence here.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)