Soxbadger

Kalapse, Murder is different than cheating in a sport. The better question would be: If you could get a perfect score on the SAT and only have a 1% chance of being caught, would you?

Why do people keep thinking that if your not a US citizen you cant use our court system? The US system is designed to allow people to sue as long as the court has jurisdiction and the Plaintiff's have standing. Jurisdiction can be based where the Plaintiff or Defendant reside. In this case US jurisdiction is proper because: The Defendant's reside in the US and all of the acts alleged in the complaint occurred in the US. The Plaintiff's have standing because they can show a connection to the harm (ie they were the ones actually being hurt). The US system is created to allow almost anyone the ability to sue so long as the court has some sort of jurisdiction, this is an easier case because there is no other court that could possibly have jurisdiction. Just because some one is not from the US does not mean that we deny them access to the court system. This does not mean that they cant be deported to Mexico, it just means that even if they are in Mexico they can still sue for something that happened in the US.

How can the lawsuit be frivolous if the Judge didnt dismiss it? And the land owner could sue for: Damage to property, trespass.

They still want to make up for never giving a grammy to Led Zeppelin.

She wont be getting those free upper deck White Sox tickets for perfect payments.

The only reason they did it was because Blago's rating was like 6%. If he was more popular the reason they dont railroad him out is that they are worried in 2-4 years they wont be reelected.

Absent Blago appealing to the Supreme Court (which can review legislative action) he will basically be out of luck even if he wins his criminal case. Also, civil and criminal burdens are different so Blago may not be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" but perhaps the "preponderance of the evidence" suggests he is guilty. Thats what happened to OJ and the murders. He was found guilty in civil, even though innocent in criminal. I believe his best bet would have been to appeal to the Supreme Court on procedural/due process grounds during or right after the impeachment. The longer he sits, the less anyone is going to care.

If the estate was probated the creditors should have filed a notice of claim against the estate. Also many wills specifically state that first the estate must pay off all debts before it can pay out any of the rest of the estate.

Be careful with all debt collectors. They often buy "bad debts" for pennies on the dollar, knowing that they are not enforceable, but hoping that you will fall for it.

Which is why I said X days, as compared to X hours. If the govt isnt doing anything wrong, then it will have no problem laying out the procedures and rules that govern them. Its just like the govts argument against suspected criminals: "If youre not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide."

How is saying: "Prisoners will not be detained longer than X days without either having charges brought against them, being brought to trial or being released." If youre arrested can you be held in the police station indefinitely with out being charged? My understanding is that in the US, the general time period is 24 hours after being arrested you must be charged or released, unless certain conditions are met. I dont like the idea of letting the govt define "temporarily". But thats just my opinion.

I dont feel silly, the article doesnt address half the complaints: Notice how they have failed to address at all how they are going to "capture" the individual nor have they addressed what "temporarily" is. You have a lot more faith in govt acting good, then I do.

I think last nights game was more of a "It cant rain all the time" game for Wisconsin. They got hot, Illinois went cold, just the law of averages after losing 6 straight games where half the games Wisconsin could have won just with a little better shooting. Now if they win the next 8 games maybe theyll make the tourney.

With 2:30 down 4 you take the lead. Down 3 you could do something interesting, but down 4 you take the lead. Down less than 3 I think is where its a smart move to down it. Your still taking a risk, but as an NFL team you have to believe you can kick a 20 yard field goal to win the game.

Has anyone come up with some ideas about why they titled the episode "The Little Prince"? My first reaction was it was in reference to this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince. I am now starting to wonder if it was a reference to Aaron. {Edit} Faraday's statement led me to believe that those who had been on the island the longest would suffer the effects first.

While its an interesting idea, when you are down 4 points and can take the lead, you have to take the lead. If Fitz downs it on the 1 inch line and AZ fails to score, it goes down as one of the biggest blunders in NFL history. If Cardinals were down 3 there is a much better argument to be made, because AZ could have tied with a FG after 3 attempts at scoring. {Edit} There was 2:37 on the clock, even if he downs it at the 1, unless they run 2 plays its only taking another 30 seconds off the clock. The risk wasnt worth the reward.

I guess the reason it seems to me that he was unable to function is because a normal person with $100k in the bank wouldnt let themselves freeze to death. Im not sure any non-disabled person would make the decision of not paying their heating bill, sitting in their home as they slowly freeze to death and not make a call to the electric company. I just dont see how you could believe those choices dont show a diminished capacity to make decisions.

So even more sad news about this story is revealed: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/04/freezing....folo/index.html The reason why they were able to turn off the power was: Its just so sad.

I heard the rant this morning on the radio and during it Bale was basically saying that the guy was a "good guy" just completely "unprofessional." I actually think Bale balling him out was better than Bale telling the director to fire him, because the guy still got to keep his job and maybe will learn from this mistake. (It seems pretty obvious that if the scene is rolling people shouldnt be screwing around in the actors line of sight.)

Its not a legal argument, it was more an example of how 2 similar cases can be treated very differently by the govt. The problem with that statement is the govt is not supposed to be "vindictive". The govt should be faithfully executing the laws, not having personal grudges against people. But that is just my opinion.

I understand how prosecutions work, I just believe in this case the govt is out for spite against Bonds because he did not give them what they wanted in the Grand Jury. I think thats unjust, but its just my opinion. You will never be able to prove that they arent just "fulfilling their duty to enforce the law to the best of their ability." Right Clemens is (imo) much much worse. Bonds was forced to testify against his will. If he did not testify he could be taken to jail. He also could not plead the 5th. Clemens was not forced to testify, in fact he wanted to testify to "clear his name". He never had to answer any question. So what Clemens did (imo) is worse, because he chose to go to Congress for the specific purpose of lying. Bonds on the other hand told the govt he did not want to testify because he could not plead the 5th and he may make statements that could ruin his career. The govt promised him full immunity (except perjury) and that no transcripts would ever be released. The govt didnt keep up their end, they could have forced Book of Shadows to never be printed or to remove the illegally obtained transcripts. They didnt, they dont care about people, they just care about convictions. When Bonds was no longer useful for the Baclo conviction, they set out to ruin his life. Thats my opinion on the matter and why I am so against it. Because the govt should not be able to force people to give up their 5th amendment right, unless they can protect those people. The govt failed to protect Bonds.

I know how difficult perjury is to prove, Ive been making that argument for what seems to be years. I just think that the govt is out for spite against Bonds and that really bothers me.

I guess well see if Im right or wrong, but my guess is that Clemens never faces trial. /shrugs

No, I really dont care about the media or fans, those are just people with opinions. Itd be like complaining that the media and fans liked Sosa more than Thomas. Ill argue about the hall, and what it should be about, but at the end of the day thats just peoples opinions. Its like employment at will in Illinois, I can fire you for any reason or no reason, provided its not an unconstitutional reason. They can vote for HOF for any reason or no reason, its really their choice, thats why they are given the vote. I care how the govt acts, because they are supposed to be acting in a fair and just manner. And I have to ask, is this justice when you have 2 similar fact patterns that are treated almost completely opposite.

Well thats not exactly true. Not every prescription drug can cause immediate death due to synergistic effects with another drug. (Im not a pharmacist or dr so im starting to get into areas that are not my expertise). I agree that if there is a significant risk of drug interaction that getting a Dr's prescription for your own safety may be necessary. But, Bonds was being given the drug by Dr's with licenses who were probably monitoring his health and the interactions of the drug far better than most Dr's monitor regular patients. Im just feel that people should be able to make their own decisions on what type of risks they are willing to assume to be successful in life.