TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:...Why do this? It also seems obvious the the point of making this endurance is to allow you to effective comply with the prohibition in 46.035. Now, if this is true...it follows that if a prosecutor can prove that you were already in a state of knowledge of the 51% status of the business then the violation of 46.035 was committed while in that state of knowledge. This might negate the defense offered in .204.

Again, the defense to prosecution in .204 is that you were not informed. But if you were in fact informed already and that can be proven then the question becomes, "did you or did you not know that you were violating 46.035 at the time. The fact that notification is required in .204 implies that failure to notify gives you a defense. The reverse implication is that if one is already informed, that the foreknowledge implied in .204 requires is essentially present and the defense offered therein is non-effectual.

In fact, this might be applicable in any situation where there is a requirement of notification such as 30.05, .06, and .07...and any other statutes where there is notification required in any code.

This would explain why a judge might not accept a defensive argument "I'm not guilty because I wasn't notified properly" even though it was PROVEN that the defendant actually knew.

This is the difference between defense to prosecution and exception to prosecution or affirmative defense to prosecution.

tex