Text 34356, 49 rader
Skriven 2009-07-08 10:46:57 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Jeff,

On Saturday July 04 2009 04:57, you wrote to me:

 JS>>>  If so that leaves me a non-addict. Sorry Michiel. Here some are
 JS>>> gun collectors.

 MV>> By YOUR definition. HERE I aplly MY definition.

 JS>    And if I lived there your definition would be relevant. But I live
 JS> here Michiel where our definitions apply.

So let me get this straight... When determining if you are a gun addict, it is
US rules that apply because you - the subject of the assessment  - live in the
US.

On the other hand...

 MV>> Yes the cop presented himself as 14 year old. But why should that
 MV>> have given Blom the idea that the cop was presenting himself as a
 MV>> child when HERE a 14 year old is not a child per se.

 JS>    The cop was presenting themself as a 14 year old which IS a child
 JS> here.

When it comes to determining if Blom was a child molestor, it it US rules that
prevail because the cop - the maker of the assessment - was in the US.

It appears that whatever foot the shoe is on, it is always US rules that
prevail.

Can you think of a situation - any border crossing situation - where it would
NOT be US rules that prevail?

 JS>    Regardless of what Blom thought regarding the age of the presented
 JS> person. He traveled to this country to meet someone who IS a child
 JS> here.

You keep forgetting or ignoring that Blom should never have been the subject of
US law enforcement in the first place. He was HERE when the LEO got involved.
Had he not become the subject of US law enforcement, Blom would not have come
to that hotel in Chicago. He could not have come because he would not have
known where to go.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)