The person doesn’t have to take the bribe for you to be guilty of attempting to do so.
18 U.S.C § 201(b)(1) - Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses
You’re liable for bribery if you directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise anything of value with intent to:
to influence any official act; or
to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
You attempted to bribe your GM with something of value (three Arcanite Bars) in order to influence an official act (give you the next Rejuv Gem). Alternatively, the intent could be argued you attempted to induce the GM to commit to an act in violation of his duties as GM.
Either way, that’s a bribe.
There’s no difference between attempted bribe and bribe if you’ve made the offer, as the act of offering a bribe is the crime.
I’ll do a separate post here for this because this isn’t remotely accurate.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered up for the truth of the matter stated.
An example of hearsay: “My best friend says the Defendant cheated on the test”
An example of non-hearsay: “My best friend says the Defendant cheated on the test”
Confused? Reread the definition of hearsay. In the first example, it is hearsay if the statement is offered to prove that the Defendant actually cheated on the test. However, if the statement is offered up to prove how the best friend’s statement made the speaker feel about the Defendant, the statement is not hearsay and is admissible provided character evidence has been allowed in this case.
So regarding the matter at hand, we have access to your former GM as a witness. We wouldn’t need to rely upon his statements out of court since we could call him in about what he said and what he heard you say, so none of that would be hearsay. Further, anything you said to a witness would also not be hearsay because you are available for cross-examination. Hearsay is only an exclusionary rule to avoid bringing in untestable statements into the court. However, like all rules, there are exceptions where even when the witness is not present, we can still rely upon their statements out of court, like excited utterances and such.
Finally, the jury can find intent easily from such statements and recordings. All the GM would have to testify to is that he FELT like you were trying to bribe him, that’d be sufficient, which would be obvious since he kicked your fraudulent butt to the curb.
lol how could i be jealous of a paladin? And I’m not pretending anything. I bet you have like… 10 fedoras minimum. I see what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to act like you’re trolling me to make yourself feel better. As if anyone is on your side anymore.
its literally the dictionary definition of hearsay that i provided to you. this is just evidence that youre not actually interested in debating me and are just here to make fun of me
Which has nothing to do with the actual meaning of hearsay as it pertains to any legal matter. You’re a layman trying to argue, badly, that you weren’t actually guilty to trying to bribe your former GM, and you relied upon a layman’s understanding of legal terms of art to do so.
Hearsay, regardless of jurisdiction, at a minimum, is an out of court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. You can find it at literally any state rules of evidence statute, such as Texas Rules of Evidence, Art. VIII, Rule 801.
There isn’t anything to debate, you argued something was one thing when it was not. Simply put, you’re wrong.
The fact that I get a giggle out of it is purely icing on the cake.
If you’re proving intent regarding a crime or civil action, the only thing that matters is the definition of hearsay according to the jurisdiction you’re in, end of.
Black’s Law, Merriam-Webster, etc, have no weight of any kind when statutes tell you what they mean. I’m not aware of any US State without some codified rules of evidence.
The problem here is that there is nothing actionable that went on. And yes, I read his entire cringeworthy “I sent the GM something, but it wasn’t a bribe” statement. That’s neither a criminal nor a civil matter, so I am unclear why you are insisting that it is and that rules of evidence should apply.
When used in the correct context. Every field has specialized vocabulary or special definitions for words when used in that field. Just as a tomato is a vegetable in common parlance but not in a discussion in botany. In botany it’s a fruit and it would be completely wrong, meaningless actually, to call it a vegetable in a botanical discussion
Because he got into the whole “it isn’t a bribe unless they take it and its substantial” and argued we couldn’t prove intent in a legal context. That’s why.
It is when Joyson made it so.
He linked the basic dictionary definition for bribery, which does not include the word intent at any point, and yet began talking about “intent” and “hearsay” which can only be understood as a failed attempt by Joyson to utilize legal jargon he doesn’t understand.
I don’t think he’s literally guilty of legal bribery, I’m just mocking the ever-loving crap out of his exceptionally bad attempt to slyly suggest three Arcanite bars be worth him getting the next Rejuvenating Gem, which the GM clearly understood to be a failed bribe, and would be absolutely trivial to prove up in court despite his outcry about “intent” and “hearsay”
Don’t use legal terms of art poorly, especially when you’re already in the hole trying to post up a video of your own misdeeds.
If you are saying this is what turned it into a legal discussion, that’s a pretty big stretch. It is still some rando on the internet linking a dictionary definition of bribery and then defending himself against the dictionary definition of bribery by using his own interpretation of the word intent. That’s not a legal discussion nor is it an invitation to “define all future terms under their legal use.”
At worst what the guy did was no different than wealthy people giving large sums of money to politicians with the understanding that when it comes time for legislation to reduce taxes that the wealthy “donors” will receive the lion’s share of the benefit.
Is it shady? Absolutely. Does it fall under the legal definition of bribery anywhere in the US? Nope. So when discussing this situation, we aren’t going to use legal terms.
Yes, but in Vanilla not classic and it wasn’t fixed until Wrath so actually experiencing the “1s frost aura tick” did not happen often and almost every single person who did Sapphiron would have seen damage at 2s intervals except occasionally when Vanilla batching would process correctly and you’d see the 1s tick occasionally.
People were asking for the “Un-nerfed” sapphiron have no clue what they’re talking about as they never in their entire life did anything except “un-nerfed” sapphiron.
It a thread about mental gymnastics you should probably double check such a bold statement.
The frost aura seemed to mostly tick every 2 seconds, but occasionally tick once per second for a bit, before returning to ticking every 2 seconds.
