Lunch break until 2:15

Paciocco continuing with main argument, describing "persons in authority" as it pertains to charges.

Paciocco says law doesn't catch "pointless impotent exchanges between private individuals" not in a position to influence.

Incredibly, Paciocco is citing in some detail a precedent involving influence peddling and the British East India Company.

(Do you like Kipling?)

The offence would not catch two members of the marijuana debating who will run where, and what appts. they would give, Paciocco says...

... and neither would it catch O'Brien. There is no evidence that O'Brien has such a substantial link to government - not an "authority."

Paciocco says law requires that the actions be made by individuals in position to influence the outcome.

It would be "senseless" to extend the influence peddling law to two people who can't influence government.

Paciocco says the law is about protecting the office, and no need to protect them from people who have no influence over them.

Paciocco again refers to "pointless, impotent negotiations."

Judge asks what if money was exchanged in this scenario. Paciocco says you charge him with fraud -- don't need to protect the office.

Paciocco says interpreting law to catch pointless discussions between individuals would affect liberty.

Paciocco now calling these "Larry-Curly-Moe conversations."

The conduct of Larry-Curly-Moe will not affect the conduct of government, he says.

Paciocco says law was not written to include people who do not have actual influence.

Paciocco: "You need evidence that somebody could affect government."

"There is no evidence Mr. O'Brien had significant nexus to government," he says.

Paciocco cites Dave Penner, John Reynolds testimony that Kilrea would have had to put in a c.v., go through screening.

Paciocco notes that Reynolds was a former politician; made it clear he couldn't influence this appointment.