Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Mavorpen]

No. I'm saying that the Supreme Court understands basic jurisprudence, unlike you.

Then you would be incorrect.

Considering the law ITSELF states the opposite of what you're arguing, you're lying.

No you fucking haven't. You may be confused because I've asked you to multiple times but every time I ask you bring up a general wikipedia article about illegal transactions or a section of the law that really doesn't address who has legal claim to the money.

Wait, that's really ALL you want? Proof of my original assertion that he has no grounds to claim the return of money paid for illegal services? Fine

if a court will not, on grounds of public policy, aid a promisee by enforcing the promise, it will not aid him by granting him restitution for performance that he has rendered in return for the unenforceable promise. Neither will it aid the promisor by allowing a claim in restitution for performance that he has rendered under the unenforceable promise. It will simply leave both parties as it finds them, even though this may result in one of them retaining a benefit that he has received as a result of the transaction

Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

[Linderman]

Sex is implicit in the contract given the sort of organization she works for and the traditional framework of how escort services operate in Texas...

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

You can't take someone else's money through trickery... that's ILLEGAL.

[Mavorpen]

Please, never serve in a Jury in Texas. We have enough individuals who are ignorant of the law.

You want more individuals such as myself on juries if you want justice to be done.

Not the politically-correct type of justice... but ACTUAL justice.

You mean people who don't understand jurisprudence?

[Mavorpen]

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

You can't take someone else's money through trickery... that's ILLEGAL.

It's not his money anymore if he voluntarily gives someone money for an illegal action.

[The Steel Magnolia]

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

You can't take someone else's money through trickery... that's ILLEGAL.

Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, no she didn't.

[Linderman]

You want more individuals such as myself on juries if you want justice to be done.

Not the politically-correct type of justice... but ACTUAL justice.

You mean people who don't understand jurisprudence?

People who understand you can't just walk out of someone else's house with 150 dollars when you tricked that money out of their pocket...

[The Steel Magnolia]

You mean people who don't understand jurisprudence?

People who understand you can't just walk out of someone else's house with 150 dollars when you tricked that money out of their pocket...

Or people who don't know shit about what actually happened.

[Chernoslavia]

Sex is implicit in the contract given the sort of organization she works for and the traditional framework of how escort services operate in Texas...

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

So is crack and marihuana, but dealers STILL sell them!

You: But its illegalz!

Us: ....Yes, but people still do it.

[Mavorpen]

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

So is crack and marihuana, but dealers STILL sell them!

You: But its illegalz!

Us: ....Yes, but people still do it.

Congratulations on not actually reading my post. Would you like a medal?

[Mavorpen]

You mean people who don't understand jurisprudence?

People who understand you can't just walk out of someone else's house with 150 dollars when you tricked that money out of their pocket...

The law says you're lying.

Then you would be incorrect.

Considering the law ITSELF states the opposite of what you're arguing, you're lying.

Wait, that's really ALL you want? Proof of my original assertion that he has no grounds to claim the return of money paid for illegal services? Fine



Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

[Linderman]

You can't take someone else's money through trickery... that's ILLEGAL.

It's not his money anymore if he voluntarily gives someone money for an illegal action.

Doesn't matter... if she accepts and doesn't perform the action and runs, she's a thief.

If she performed the action, then she's a criminal of a different type. However, I would dispute that because I think prostution being ''illegal'' in Texas is only theoretical law, not one that is customarily enforced.

Point is, she should not have taken the money. She did, and she ran without doing the action, thus he had every right to shoot.

[Mavorpen]

It's not his money anymore if he voluntarily gives someone money for an illegal action.

Doesn't matter... if she accepts and doesn't perform the action and runs, she's a thief.

If she performed the action, then she's a criminal of a different type. However, I would dispute that because I think prostution being ''illegal'' in Texas is only theoretical law, not one that is customarily enforced.

Point is, she should not have taken the money. She did, and she ran without doing the action, thus he had every right to shoot.

Again, the law says you're lying.

Then you would be incorrect.

Considering the law ITSELF states the opposite of what you're arguing, you're lying.

Wait, that's really ALL you want? Proof of my original assertion that he has no grounds to claim the return of money paid for illegal services? Fine



Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

[Chernoslavia]

You can't take someone else's money through trickery... that's ILLEGAL.

Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, no she didn't.

It's called robbery.....or atleast fraud. Both illegal. Where's your head at?

[Linderman]

People who understand you can't just walk out of someone else's house with 150 dollars when you tricked that money out of their pocket...

The law says you're lying.

In case you haven't noticed... THE LAW ACQUITTED THE MAN!



So as of now... the courts back my position. She tried to rob him of 150 dollars, he protected himself from theft and shot her.

[Imota]

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

So is crack and marihuana, but dealers STILL sell them!

You: But its illegalz!

Us: ....Yes, but people still do it.

If it's an illegal contract, that means the government cannot demand completion of the contract. Simple as that. The government says, "we're not touching this. This is not our issue". That's why contract killers typically demand a percentage up front.

[Mavorpen]

The law says you're lying.

In case you haven't noticed... THE LAW ACQUITTED THE MAN!

No, it didn't.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, no she didn't.

It's called robbery.....or atleast fraud. Both illegal. Where's your head at?

No, again, it's not. Stop lying about what the law is, Mav has proved you wrong repeatedly.

[Mavorpen]

Firstly, no it's not. Secondly, no she didn't.

It's called robbery.....or atleast fraud. Both illegal. Where's your head at?

And in this case, the woman did utterly nothing illegal.

[Chernoslavia]

So is crack and marihuana, but dealers STILL sell them!

You: But its illegalz!

Us: ....Yes, but people still do it.

If it's an illegal contract, that means the government cannot demand completion of the contract. Simple as that. The government says, "we're not touching this. This is not our issue". That's why contract killers typically demand a percentage up front.

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

[Linderman]

In case you haven't noticed... THE LAW ACQUITTED THE MAN!

No, it didn't.

Congratulations son...

You've just proved to me that you have not been reading the OP closely. You may have missed the part where... he was acquitted for basically saying what I was saying?

But the law still backs you right even though he was acquitted? Seems legit.

[Linderman]

It's called robbery.....or atleast fraud. Both illegal. Where's your head at?

And in this case, the woman did utterly nothing illegal.

Yes she did... she stole 150 dollars...

[Chernoslavia]

It's called robbery.....or atleast fraud. Both illegal. Where's your head at?

And in this case, the woman did utterly nothing illegal.

Yes she fucking did! It's called theft/robbery.

[Mavorpen]

If it's an illegal contract, that means the government cannot demand completion of the contract. Simple as that. The government says, "we're not touching this. This is not our issue". That's why contract killers typically demand a percentage up front.

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

Then you would be incorrect.

Considering the law ITSELF states the opposite of what you're arguing, you're lying.

Wait, that's really ALL you want? Proof of my original assertion that he has no grounds to claim the return of money paid for illegal services? Fine



Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

[Mavorpen]

And in this case, the woman did utterly nothing illegal.

Yes she fucking did! It's called theft/robbery.

Please cite the law she broke.

[Linderman]

Yes she fucking did! It's called theft/robbery.

Please cite the law she broke.

LOL... it's RIGHT above your own post in the thing you quoted