6 ms·
Your analogy uses loaded terms (co-conspirator) and makes use of biased character portrayals (alone by a sketchy bridge at 2AM, don't wear a wire). Even in thi
by yallpendantools 4y ago
Your analogy uses loaded terms (co-conspirator) and makes use of biased character portrayals (alone by a sketchy bridge at 2AM, don't wear a wire).
Even in this case, unless the court issued an order that forbids physical meet-up/contact between the accused, I don't see anything the court can hold against them. Meeting at a bridge at 2AM is not a crime, and doesn't mean they are avoiding anything other than other people.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agolike the poster you are responding to, I can obviously see something the court can hold against them, so it seems maybe your inability to see it is more a reflection of you than the situation perhaps it bears repeating that judges aren't robots and can see someone obviously trying to evade an order and impose sanctions accordingly oh, the topic totally changed once you moved to a history free chat? got any proof? no? that's too bad, seems the judge'll have to assume the most likely scenario in their judgement