Friday, March 27, 2009

earth matters

Cried out and back to say hi to my new followers gerryplanetearth and magsmadison. I've just noticed that part of my blog.
It seems that both share my fear and loathing for toxicity whether in people or in the digestive tract. I want to welcome them to my humble blog and if someone tries to tell them that it is they that this blog is meant to mock and that this blog is in fact satirical




Proudly prop per so far,
Tarra

7 comments:

the world said...

Seach away, sucker! Stef Willen is a moron and a sociopath.

the world said...

I meant search away sucker. Stef Willen is a moron and a sociopath.

Anonymous said...

posts with label stef willen is a moron sociopath. Show all posts

interest in what you have to say "world." said...

Hey world,

Drop me a line at my sister's email and tell me more. I don't check this e-mail and a few others cause they got consumed by spam.

sis't email: Lollyspitz235854@aol.com

screwedbythesystem said...

Bench Notes
Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.

In order for a defendant to be guilty of violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), the court order must be "lawfully issued." (Pen. Code, � 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366].) The defendant may not be convicted for violating an order that is unconstitutional, and the defendant may bring a collateral attack on the validity of the order as a defense to this charge. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-818; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].) The defendant may raise this issue on demurrer but is not required to. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 821, 824; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 146.) The legal question of whether the order was lawfully issued is the type of question normally resolved by the court. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-820; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 147.) If, however, there is a factual issue regarding the lawfulness of the court order and the trial court concludes that the issue must be submitted to the jury, give the bracketed word "lawfully" in element 1. The court must also instruct on the facts that must be proved to establish that the order was lawfully issued.


In element 2, if the order was not a "protective order" or "stay away order" but another type of qualifying order listed in Penal Code section 166(c)(3) or 273.6(c), insert a description of the type of order from the statute.

In element 2, in all cases, insert the statutory authority under which the order was issued. (See Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(1) & (3), 273.6(a) & (c).)

G

If the prosecution alleges that physical injury resulted from the defendant's conduct, in addition to this instruction, give CALCRIM No. 2702, Violation of Court Order: Protective Order or Stay Away—Physical Injury. (Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(2), 273.6(b).)



Willfully Defined. Pen. Code, � 7, subd. 1; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402].

Order Must Be Lawfully Issued. Pen. Code, � 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366]; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].

Knowledge of Order Required. People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967, 979 [168 P.2d 497].

Proof of Service Not Required. People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967, 979 [168 P.2d 497].

Must Have Opportunity to Read but Need Not Actually Read Order. People v. Poe (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 928, 938-941 [47 Cal.Rptr. 670]; People v. Brindley (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 925, 927-928 [47 Cal.Rptr. 668], both decisions affd. sub nom. People v. Von Blum (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 943 [47 Cal.Rptr. 679].

screwedbythesystem said...

Bench Notes
Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.

In order for a defendant to be guilty of violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), the court order must be "lawfully issued." (Pen. Code, � 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366].) The defendant may not be convicted for violating an order that is unconstitutional, and the defendant may bring a collateral attack on the validity of the order as a defense to this charge. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-818; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].) The defendant may raise this issue on demurrer but is not required to. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 821, 824; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 146.) The legal question of whether the order was lawfully issued is the type of question normally resolved by the court. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-820; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 147.) If, however, there is a factual issue regarding the lawfulness of the court order and the trial court concludes that the issue must be submitted to the jury, give the bracketed word "lawfully" in element 1. The court must also instruct on the facts that must be proved to establish that the order was lawfully issued.



In element 2, in all cases, insert the statutory authority under which the order was issued. (See Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(1) & (3), 273.6(a) & (c).)

Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with "The People must prove that the defendant knew" on request. (People v. Poe (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 928, 938-941 [47 Cal.Rptr. 670]; People v. Brindley (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 925, 927-928 [47 Cal.Rptr. 668], both decisions affd. sub nom. People v. Von Blum (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 943 [47 Cal.Rptr. 679].)

If the prosecution alleges that physical injury resulted from the defendant's conduct, in addition to this instruction, give CALCRIM No. 2702, Violation of Court Order: Protective Order or Stay Away—Physical Injury. (Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(2), 273.6(b).)

If the prosecution charges the defendant with a felony based on a prior conviction and a current offense involving an act of violence or credible threat of violence, in addition to this instruction, give CALCRIM No. 2703, Violation of Court Order: Protective Order or Stay Away—Act of Violence. (Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(4), 273.6(d).) The jury also must determine if the prior conviction has been proved unless the defendant stipulates to the truth of the prior. (See CALCRIM Nos. 3100-3103 on prior convictions.)
Authority

Elements. Pen. Code, �� 166(c)(1), 273.6.

Willfully Defined. Pen. Code, � 7, subd. 1; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 107 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402].

Order Must Be Lawfully Issued. Pen. Code, � 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366]; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].

Knowledge of Order Required. People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967, 979 [168 P.2d 497].

Proof of Service Not Required. People v. Saffell (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 967, 979 [168 P.2d 497].

Must Have Opportunity to Read but Need Not Actually Read Order. People v. Poe (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 928, 938-941 [47 Cal.Rptr. 670]; People v. Brindley (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 925, 927-928 [47 Cal.Rptr. 668], both decisions affd. sub nom. People v. Von Blum (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 943 [47 Cal.Rptr. 679].

screwedbythesystem said...

Bench Notes
Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the crime.

In order for a defendant to be guilty of violating Penal Code section 166(a)(4), the court order must be "lawfully issued." (Pen. Code, � 166(a)(4); People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366].) The defendant may not be convicted for violating an order that is unconstitutional, and the defendant may bring a collateral attack on the validity of the order as a defense to this charge. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-818; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].) The defendant may raise this issue on demurrer but is not required to. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 821, 824; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 146.) The legal question of whether the order was lawfully issued is the type of question normally resolved by the court. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-820; In re Berry, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 147.) If, however, there is a factual issue regarding the lawfulness of the court order and the trial court concludes that the issue must be submitted to the jury, give the bracketed word "lawfully" in element 1. The court must also instruct on the facts that must be proved to establish that the order was lawfully issued.

The order issued to the grotesque menace hideousness of such magnitude, Tig Notaro. was totally unlawful and all of this has been VOID.