Njorls_foh
shitlord
- 0
- 0
You got to give Sam credit for something.
Nothing, but nothing, will wipe that grin off of his face.
Nothing, but nothing, will wipe that grin off of his face.
I was thinking the same thing.Njorls said:You got to give Sam credit for something.
Nothing, but nothing, will wipe that grin off of his face.
Ferris challenges criminal charges filed against him for the operation of a nude-modeling/escort service.
Ferris alleges that police officers photographed his employees in the nude and retained the photographs, that police officers assaulted his driver, that police officers and district attorneys hired nude models employed by Ferris"s service, that police officers engaged in sex with nude models while working undercover
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.Accordingly, Ferris"s request for oral argument is denied.
I fucking lolled, especially at the mental picture: "No one under 55 years of age has ever filed this many motions, ever!" Well, that was until I read:Because Ferris filedmore than thirtysingle-issue motions for reconsideration with the district court
Ferris alleged his civil rights were violated when he was arrested and convicted under state laws that proscribe certain sexual activities with minors.Ferris contends the statutes are unconstitutional
All I can say is, "Goddamn".Ferris argues that the statutes under which he was convicted deny him substantive due process, because they violate his right to engage in consensual sexual activities with females between the ages of fourteen and eighteen.In essence, Ferris argues he has a privacy right protected by the Constitution to engage in this conduct.
This argument is patently frivolous and merits no discussion.
The boy friend of Paulen daughter knocked her up when she was 16, yet I dont see him charged. And the stutory rape age in lots of states was 14 or 15 at the time of my alleged crimes.We do not address Ferris" arguments (1) that the statutes in question are unconstitutional on the ground that they violate procedural due process by creating an irrebutable presumption that females under certain ages are incapable of consenting to the sexual activities proscribed by the statutes and (2) that the statutes in question violate the privacy rights of minor females between the ages of fourteen and eighteen to engage in the specified sexual activities. As to the first argument, we note that a plurality of the Supreme Court recently held that the "irrebutable presumption" analysis is simply another way of framing a substantive due process claim. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 2340-41, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (plurality opinion). As to Ferris" argument that these laws impermissibly invade the privacy rights of minor females, Ferris lacks standing to argue the constitutional rights of third parties not represented in this appeal. See United States v. Kidder, 869 F.2d 1328, 1335 (9th Cir.1989)
I dont have a problem with a law preventing teenage pregancy either, as a taxpayer. But any law which holds that females under the age of 18, but over 15, are just plan to stupid to consent to sex is foolish.I fear that the plurality opinion and JUSTICES STEWART and BLACKMUN reach the opposite result by placing too much emphasis on the desirability of achieving the State"s asserted statutory goal -- prevention of teenage pregnancy -- and not enough emphasis on the fundamental question of whether the sex-based discrimination [p489] in the California statute is substantially related to the achievement of that goal. [n2]
Ferris was arrested and charged with violating California Penal Code ?? 261.5 (one count), 288a(b)(1) (four counts), and 288a(b)(2) (two counts).1 Ferris entered a plea of nolo contendere to all charges. He was sentenced to six months in the County jail and placed on probation. All charges resulted from Ferris" relations with two minor females, aged fifteen and seventeen.