The Ice Cream Truck, the stolen cream and chocolate eggs found in the cream like little Faberge eggs.
The Ice Cream Truck, the stolen cream and chocolate eggs found in the cream like little PRALINES AND CREAM. Do you know PRALINES?
By Warren Augustine Lyon.
So, there were ten people in an ice cream truck driving around Santos Avenue right near JN street. They did not know the truck was stolen so they put their hand in the lovely and cool tubs of coconuts and cream and enjoyed the cool, ready surgical nuclear egg devices. The driver was eventually pulled over and said "..This is rather unusual but don't worry me love!" The occupants tried to escape as they noticed the rather unusual experience of indigestion with cold cream; cold, cold cream and some of the cream had no sugar which was absolutely the best. The driver said the following to the king in the back named Soothi; "I will call you. Then I will smoothie you while I also accuse you." They ran like clowns only to be arrested and charged with possession of a weapon. The actus reus is to be in physical possession but being an occupant in a vehicle is not possession. Are they guilty of an offence? The answer is no. But, pourquoi? You must always remember that every criminal matter must have an actus reus or mens rea. The answer must state each identifiable element in the question. You must also state the defence and the penalty along with the relevant cases. According to Raymond Emson, an author of a book on evidence and a lecturer, you must tell the examiner all that you know. The answer in brief is as follows although penalties and defenses are not outlined but you can distill them in rebutting the presumption concerning possession of a weapon if you are paying attention: 1. To be guilty of an offence, it would have to be shown that the occupants were not only in possession of the vehicle but also the weapon; 2. As passengers only, they are not in immediate possession of the vehicle. If they are not in possession of the vehicle, they are not in possession of the weapon; and 3. All of the clowns cannot be in possession of the weapon generally speaking unless it could be shown that they had knowledge of the weapon and that they were involved in some joint enterprise involving the weapon. To achieve joint enterprise concerning the weapon, they did not need to know the vehicle was stolen. Even if they had knowledge the vehicle was stolen for joint enterprise in the theft of the vehicle, it would not mean that they had knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. It is a stolen vehicle and how can anyone say they were aware of all of the contents that may have been in the vehicle prior to the theft? If the only issue is possession of a weapon in a stolen vehicle, the only person who can be found guilty is usually the driver who is in immediate possession of the vehicle and who is also presumptively aware of the vehicle's contents that include the stolen weapons although there is no proof that he had knowledge of the contents. But, it is easy to say he was are the vehicle is stolen except for one other issue. What if he borrowed the vehicle? Each case will always be distinguished on its own facts and there is no evidence in this tiny case scenario to suggest the vehicle was borrowed. The weapons were in tubs of ice cream. The driver may not have known of the eggs in the naturally round and well contoured glove box in addition to the eggs in the ice cream tubs. He will suffer the consequences of the eggs if he is to make contact with them. The passengers might have had knowledge of the vehicle being stolen or of the weapons in a joint enterprise but if they did, this knowledge would have to be demonstrated so that it could be said they had sufficient mens rea to establish guilt as far as being knowingly in possession of a stolen vehicle and, more importantly, the key concern being the weapons of mass destruction. So, what can you prove concerning any one of those ten individuals so that we can all go home and enjoy our homes and our Nets that need to catch some balls? .
In any event, the Crown cannot advocate convictions without evidence at trial. It would be an error and an omission. They could advocate a resolution that involves a withdrawal of charges with community service completed up front with proof since the Crown is the only person carrying an onus to prove anything. You cannot advocate a verdict that is ultra vires in any circumstance such as advocating attempted murder as a sentence in a murder trial. It is ultra vires and will remain so unless the person is found alive before sentencing. If he is found alive, then it should not have been a murder trial but a trial for attempted murder or assault causing bodily harm but if you are a centcom assassin (formerly black friar or hotstone) and you kill under orders of the state, then you cannot be held or charged for murder since you are just following instructions. If you are not patched into the system as a local cop or priest while on assignment in a particular jurisdiction, then you may have to avoid capture by the local police service which is a redundancy and an unnecessary distraction to your work to protect the Britmilahcracy.
By Warren Augustine Lyon.
So, there were ten people in an ice cream truck driving around Santos Avenue right near JN street. They did not know the truck was stolen so they put their hand in the lovely and cool tubs of coconuts and cream and enjoyed the cool, ready surgical nuclear egg devices. The driver was eventually pulled over and said "..This is rather unusual but don't worry me love!" The occupants tried to escape as they noticed the rather unusual experience of indigestion with cold cream; cold, cold cream and some of the cream had no sugar which was absolutely the best. The driver said the following to the king in the back named Soothi; "I will call you. Then I will smoothie you while I also accuse you." They ran like clowns only to be arrested and charged with possession of a weapon. The actus reus is to be in physical possession but being an occupant in a vehicle is not possession. Are they guilty of an offence? The answer is no. But, pourquoi? You must always remember that every criminal matter must have an actus reus or mens rea. The answer must state each identifiable element in the question. You must also state the defence and the penalty along with the relevant cases. According to Raymond Emson, an author of a book on evidence and a lecturer, you must tell the examiner all that you know. The answer in brief is as follows although penalties and defenses are not outlined but you can distill them in rebutting the presumption concerning possession of a weapon if you are paying attention: 1. To be guilty of an offence, it would have to be shown that the occupants were not only in possession of the vehicle but also the weapon; 2. As passengers only, they are not in immediate possession of the vehicle. If they are not in possession of the vehicle, they are not in possession of the weapon; and 3. All of the clowns cannot be in possession of the weapon generally speaking unless it could be shown that they had knowledge of the weapon and that they were involved in some joint enterprise involving the weapon. To achieve joint enterprise concerning the weapon, they did not need to know the vehicle was stolen. Even if they had knowledge the vehicle was stolen for joint enterprise in the theft of the vehicle, it would not mean that they had knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. It is a stolen vehicle and how can anyone say they were aware of all of the contents that may have been in the vehicle prior to the theft? If the only issue is possession of a weapon in a stolen vehicle, the only person who can be found guilty is usually the driver who is in immediate possession of the vehicle and who is also presumptively aware of the vehicle's contents that include the stolen weapons although there is no proof that he had knowledge of the contents. But, it is easy to say he was are the vehicle is stolen except for one other issue. What if he borrowed the vehicle? Each case will always be distinguished on its own facts and there is no evidence in this tiny case scenario to suggest the vehicle was borrowed. The weapons were in tubs of ice cream. The driver may not have known of the eggs in the naturally round and well contoured glove box in addition to the eggs in the ice cream tubs. He will suffer the consequences of the eggs if he is to make contact with them. The passengers might have had knowledge of the vehicle being stolen or of the weapons in a joint enterprise but if they did, this knowledge would have to be demonstrated so that it could be said they had sufficient mens rea to establish guilt as far as being knowingly in possession of a stolen vehicle and, more importantly, the key concern being the weapons of mass destruction. So, what can you prove concerning any one of those ten individuals so that we can all go home and enjoy our homes and our Nets that need to catch some balls? .
In any event, the Crown cannot advocate convictions without evidence at trial. It would be an error and an omission. They could advocate a resolution that involves a withdrawal of charges with community service completed up front with proof since the Crown is the only person carrying an onus to prove anything. You cannot advocate a verdict that is ultra vires in any circumstance such as advocating attempted murder as a sentence in a murder trial. It is ultra vires and will remain so unless the person is found alive before sentencing. If he is found alive, then it should not have been a murder trial but a trial for attempted murder or assault causing bodily harm but if you are a centcom assassin (formerly black friar or hotstone) and you kill under orders of the state, then you cannot be held or charged for murder since you are just following instructions. If you are not patched into the system as a local cop or priest while on assignment in a particular jurisdiction, then you may have to avoid capture by the local police service which is a redundancy and an unnecessary distraction to your work to protect the Britmilahcracy.
By Warren Augustine Lyon.
Comments
Post a Comment