Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Not only could they indict the ham sandwich...

...but it's probably actually guilty of at least one federal felony.

Remember, kids: Ignorance is no excuse for a law!
Posted by @
Labels: , ,

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Disrespect for the law? That'll add four levels at your sentencing hearing!

Shootin' Buddy

9:22 AM, September 01, 2009
Tam said...

You'll never take me alive, coppers!

9:28 AM, September 01, 2009
Turk Turon said...

When they take me down, I want it to be for something truly obscure, like "unlawful possession of an undersize lobster", or "possession of a bonefish in violation of Honduran law pursuant to a 1961 fishing treaty."

"But your Honor, it was self-defense!"

Not too long ago a lady was convicted under federal law because she sold "dream catchers" made of owl feathers which she had collected from road-kill. She sold 'em on eBay. The Feds tracked her down and charged her with violation of the Trafficking In Protected Species Act or some such thing.

10:00 AM, September 01, 2009
MrWolf said...

What 'ham sanwich'? I get a link to a page that links to three books on Amazon. None of them concerned with porcine comestibles of any description.

10:29 AM, September 01, 2009
Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Well, after all, the foodies are trying to make possession of bacon a felony.

Mmm. Bacon.

10:47 AM, September 01, 2009
Tam said...

"What 'ham sanwich'?"

D'oh!

Typo fixed. Thanks!

12:04 PM, September 01, 2009
Billy Beck said...

Very curious fact: not one word about equal-protection implications.

This, from a law professor.

{shrug}

5:49 PM, September 01, 2009
mts1 said...

Is the ham sandwich properly tagged and registered with the FDA as per the Food Safety Act, and are its movements (including where exactly it is in the digestive system by now) reported within 24 hours as required by law? And where, my dear lady, is the tag on the mattress, the one you're never to remove?

10:10 PM, September 01, 2009

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)