[FoRK] Re: Freakin' California...

Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> on Fri Mar 21 15:19:10 PDT 2008

On Mar 21, 2008, at 3:03 PM, Dave Long wrote:

> 6 months is even more reasonable after one considers that a  
> physical[0] court appearance isn't required.

6 months reasonable for what?  Failure to appear?  Nolo contendre,  
counselor.  If that was the issue;  I don't think it was.  Let's  
dissect the language in question:

"On Wednesday, a lawyer entered the plea on behalf of Mr LaBeouf who  
will appear again on 24 April. If found guilty, he faces up to six  
months in jail."

What was it he was pleading not guilty to?

"The 21-year-old Transformers star had failed to appear in a  
Californian court on Tuesday to face the charge of lighting up where  
he shouldn't."

The charge was lighting up where he shouldn't, NOT failure to appear.

"Actor Shia LaBeouf has pleaded not guilty in a Californian court to a  
charge of breaking a smoking ban."

Aha.

So:  is 6 months in jail reasonable for lighting up a tobacco lead  
where you shouldn't?  And in the opinion of my esteemed colleagues  
from The Golden State, would there be a difference if, say, he was  
sparking up a hemp lead instead?

Mmm hmmm.  I rest my case.

jb


More information about the FoRK mailing list