Ex-landlord says he'll "see me in court." I take him to court instead and win.

Tldr; basically the title.

Brief backstory: A couple years ago, I was in an apartment with my friend and younger sister. My sister was violent towards my friend and I, and I ended up having to get a restraining order against her. She brought in a dog without permission, which caused some damage to the unit. I informed my landlord of the incidences of violence and the damage and sent him pictures. He basically told me to deal with it myself, which I did by getting the protective order. After this, my roommate questioned the legality of holding us responsible for her portion of rent (I told her it was, but she asked our landlord for a copy of the lease to show her uncle anyway, which admittedly was pretty stupid). Up until this point, our landlord had not asked us to leave due to my sister's actions, but he did after the lease was brought into it. We were out by the date he specified on the notice to quit (the first step in the eviction process before the eviction actually occurs). My roommate was there until midnight making sure the place was spotless.

We moved to an apartment across the street. Two weeks had passed since he was informed that we had vacated the unit, and we had not gotten anything regarding our security deposit. In our state, a landlord is required by law to either return the remainder of a security deposit within two weeks, or provide a letter itemizing what the deposit was used for. If they don't, the tenant is owed the entire deposit. If the withholding is willful, the tenant is owed double the original deposit. The landlord had actually told me that he would be going on vacation immediately after we vacated, so I returned our keys to him and waited to see if he would send anything. He never did. After consulting with a tenant's rights group to be sure I was in the right, I sent a pre-formatted letter 16 days after we vacated, which stated the specific laws regarding security deposits, and gave him our current address to send either the deposit or receipt to.

The day after I sent this letter, I see him across the street, frantically running into the apartment for the first time since we moved out. I receive a text from him saying that he would return what's left of our deposit "if he could get the apartment rented by the first of next month." I respond by telling him that, as the letter I sent explained, he forfeits the right to keep any of the deposit after the two weeks is up. He responded saying that he would "see us in court" and

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 23k
💬︎
👤︎ u/bripotato
📅︎ Jul 13 2020
🚨︎ report
u/DangerousDeveloper vs All the mods of r/UnpopularOpinion for Gross neglect, letting that subreddit turn into a cesspool of popular opinions larping as unpopular opinions, and other charges of gross mismanagement and lack of innovation

That r/unpopularopinions is a sub of unpopular opinion has always been an unpopular opinion. There are multiple charges that have been raised against the mods of UnpopularOpinions.

Charge 1: Gross neglect of the true purpose of the subreddit

There are popular posts like This , This or unpopular opinion is same as popularopinion which popularly argue that

>None of the opinions that make it to the top of r/unpopularopinion are controversial or unpopular. They're just opinions that nobody really thinks about at first and typically will agree with because they make sense.

This has been a problem for quite some time. There were mechanisms implemented like an auto-bot of r/dankmemes that used votes and reply comments on it to brand a post as an unpopular opinion. I donot know what prompted them, but it seems like they just, gave up.

They could have educated their audience like mods of r/dankmemes educated their audience into downvoting to oblivion that doesn't fit the narrative of them being a brainwashed hivemind sub, by strict moderation policies.

Which leads me to the second charge

Charge 2: Gross mismanagement and dereliction of duty by implementing mega-threads

Mega threads are gay. Reddit isn't supposed to work like that, and doesn't work like that. There is barely any conversation that happens on the mega threads. Just opening the megathreads and expecting everything to sort itself out will not solve the problem.

If the mods think extremely popular topics like that need to be obscured into far away location, they should be brave enough in doubling down that they shouldn't even exist.

They have just become a tool for lazy moderation.

Which leads me to the third charge

Charge 3: Lack of innovation

There have been lots of crazy ideas like delete any post with over 1000 upvotes to delete any post with over 1000 upvotes to extremes like [delete any posts with over

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 447
📰︎ r/KarmaCourt
💬︎
📅︎ Aug 04 2020
🚨︎ report
A walkthrough of copyright law and how it pertains to fan translations of visual novels

Yesterday there was quite a lot of discussion concerning an allegedly stolen translation by a visual novel company, Lilith Soft (parent company Infini Brain Co., Ltd.). There was an understandable amount of confusion about who owned the rights to that fan translation and whether this was a legal or ethical matter in the comments. You can view the full discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/visualnovels/comments/hynr3o/lilith_ripped_off_my_fan_translation_for_taimanin/

Before we dive in, I have to establish a few things:

  • This post will pertain to U.S. copyright law because the fan translation was published on Steam (who is headquartered in Washington).
  • I'll avoid diving into the ethical side until the end of the post. I have no prior knowledge of Lilith Soft or their games, or the fan translation team, so this will be from a third-party perspective.
  • I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, so I'll be quoting quite a lot rather than providing my own interpretation.

1. Background

If you're in this subreddit, you likely know what fan translations are. Someone, or a group of people, take the original visual novel and extract the text from the game. They translate that text and release it in the form of a patch which replaces the game's Japanese text with English.

In this case, the fan translation group YukikazeACute created a translation for Lilith Soft's game Taimanin Yukikaze in 2016. Earlier this month, Infini Brain / Lilith Soft released a translation titled Taimanin Yukikaze 1: Trial on Steam.

Yesterday, RedXVII, the main translator for YukikazeACute, posted several images showing similar or exact matches of lines from YukikazeACute's translation and the translation posted on Steam and accused Infini Brain / Lilith Soft of stealing YukikazeACute's translation.

2. Copyright Law

Let's look at the definition of a translation:

>A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, ....

17 U.S. Code §101 - Definitions

Translations of works fall under the term "derivative work." Now we need to establish the difference between authorized and unauthorized derivative works.

>Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the fo

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 50
💬︎
📅︎ Jul 28 2020
🚨︎ report
Report after DJing at first ever home party (long post)

Hey guys, just woke up after DJing first ever time out of my bedroom, and wanted to share thoughts and observations on fresh memory with someone who has knowledge in field other than friends, guess this even might be interesting for someone.

So, inputs: I'm playing since this January, only 130+bpm techno, only in my bedroom, have few sets on soundcloud, have 10th of friends loving techno, have visited less than 20 raves, enjoying electronic music for just past 2 years, thats it.

Yesterday me with friends had a house party in rented villa with 20 people in total.

equipment: ddj-400, separate mixer, pair of 500W JBL speakers on stands, no sub unfortunately, 50 m2 hall with shit acoustics as a dancefloor

people: half trippin, half drinking casually

Thoughts and observations:

First of all, playing in front of people is MUCH more nervous thing. Messed up thoughts in mind, loosing focus because of distractions around, missing knobs, pausing track that was already playing because I've forgot what deck is on and what I am CUEing right now - I've had all of those mistakes this night. Only thing I did not mess up with was beatmatching, as far as I remember there were no trainwrecks.

And guess what? Apart from pausing (which was terrible but thank God it was in front of friends and I quickly resumed, hope to never do it again) people did not notice and did not give a single fuck about technical part of the job.

Everything is like lots of you said here - people cared only about flow and track selection, really. I noticed mistakes, they did not (we've had sober guys talking to me after it as well). I cared about perfect transition - they did not. Dancing or chilling\\talking - two things people at dancefloor are thinking about.

Regarding track selection - few days before I played “live” without preplanning at home with imagination of mood and atmosphere of how it will be going, and then saved this playlist to play yesterday, and then created cue points and made some order adjustments. As result I've made 1 or 2 change to track selection in prepared track list , but was not calm\\brave enough to completely improvise right there.

Because it's my friends and we have similar taste in techno, playlist was pretty much on point and tracks were delivering well. But because there were only 20 people, and techno was going hard for long time enough, when they alltogether wanted to make smoking breaks(more often than I expected tbh) almost for half an hour I was

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 95
📰︎ r/Beatmatch
💬︎
👤︎ u/TuXuuTT
📅︎ Jul 05 2020
🚨︎ report
OBGYN Med Mal Case: Preeclampsia

Interesting case in which the patient's home BP cuff was reading high but the office cuff read normal.

This is a plaintiff's opinion, so definitely take it with a grain of salt, but the symptoms sound pretty classic.

Did not realize that HELLP/Preeclampsia could cause such severe liver injury, potentially with hematoma or hemoperitoneum.

https://expertwitness.substack.com/ ---> Case #9

👍︎ 205
📰︎ r/medicine
💬︎
👤︎ u/efunkEM
📅︎ Jun 22 2020
🚨︎ report
[Bill Discussion] Abolish the constitution, convert all of MtA to private ownership by Aimuari

New constitution text:


Aimuari is the sole owner of MtA.


Stricken constitution text:


**The Constitution of Mount Augusta Wednesday, April 29th, 2020

Preamble Since its founding, the city of Mount Augusta has striven to be a guardian of fairness, justice, and democracy. It is to this end that we, the people of Mount Augusta establish, reaffirm, and solidify the rights of all persons who live and travel within our beloved city.

Mount Augusta Bill of Rights The government of the City State of Mount Augusta is obligated to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill these rights. The people of Mount Augusta demand liberties and freedoms to be afforded to all people.

I. All persons, resident and non-resident, are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

II. All persons have the right to freedom and security in their person and property unless they have committed or are suspected to have committed a crime.

III. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted shall exist in Mount Augusta, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.

IV. All persons have the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion and the right to peacefully speak, associate, assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions; peacefully and unarmed.

V. Neither the State nor its representatives shall under any circumstance seize the property of Augustan residents except through means available to all private individuals.

VI. Neither the right of every citizen of Mount Augusta to register to vote nor the right of every registered voter to vote shall be denied or abridged by anyone

VII. The right of every resident non-citizen of Mount Augusta to engage in the application process for citizenship shall not be denied or abridged by anyone, albeit applications may be rejected.

Article I. Jurisdiction of the Constitution of Mt. Augusta and Mt. Augustan Law A. Borders of Mt. Augusta i. The constitution of Mount Augusta and all future laws under it will take effect on the date of ratification in the following territory:

a. All territory formerly known as Amaryllis in accordance with Article VII Amaryllis Treaty;

b. Any overseas territories such as the Augustan Virgin Islands;

c. Any other future legal territorial acquisitions meeting the following requirements:

Must not infringe upon existing land claims by other states, groups, or individua

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 6
📰︎ r/MtAugusta
💬︎
👤︎ u/Aimuari_
📅︎ Jul 13 2020
🚨︎ report
Summary of today's court proceedings in the lawsuit against Governor John Bel Edwards COVID-19 restrictions, the plaintiff's are four Jefferson parish businesses.

Recap of Lawsuit

>The lawsuit argues Edwards’ original order requiring the masks, banning indoor gatherings above 50 people and limiting bars to takeout and delivery “is unconstitutionally vague, riddled with many exceptions” and shouldn’t be allowed to stand.
>
>Ronald Dalleo, owner of Cleary Tavern, said his bar serves food and has a similar number of tables and similar layout to a neighboring restaurant that is allowed to remain open to onsite service with alcoholic drinks. He said his business shouldn’t be treated differently because it has a different permit and he sells a few hamburgers less than that restaurant.
>
>“What I’m asking for is to be treated fairly,” Dalleo said during his testimony. “I definitely feel like I’m being discriminated against.”
>
>One of Edwards’ attorneys, James Garner, argued the government has a right to regulate businesses under normal times and courts have given even greater deference to a governor’s regulatory authority during the pandemic. Edwards is doing his best to respond to a crisis, and the plaintiffs didn’t offer any testimony to suggest the governor’s response is unwarranted or improper, Garner said.
>
>“They don’t have any medical evidence to show he’s gone off the rails,” Garner told the judge.
>
>Critics say Edwards is infringing on personal freedom and crippling Louisiana’s economy with his restrictions. At least three pending lawsuits in state and federal court are seeking to have some of the rules thrown out as overstepping the governor’s authority.

Source: Associated Press

Summary of Today's Proceedings

  • The Governor’s team is going to call Dr. Billioux as an expert witness. Dr. Billioux is the top coronavirus response official for the administration.
  • One of the plaintiffs tested positive for COVID yesterday and couldn’t be here, attorney says.
  • One of the plaintiffs, a Jefferson parish bar owner, says he “doesn’t trust the data” the state puts out on COVID. He also says bars should be treated like restaurants, which are currently allowed to open at 0%.
  • A New Orleans musician called as a witness by the plaintiffs said he was receiving $616 a week in unemployment benefits until the extra federal benefit of $600 a week expired. Now he’s getting $16 a week.
  • Governor’s counsel is citing the recent Supreme Court case where John Roberts sided with liberal justices to uphold crowd limits o
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 20
💬︎
👤︎ u/WizardMama
📅︎ Aug 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Announcing a lawsuit on behalf of my client, u/AmazingJAM.

u/AmazingJAM is suing u/memer120 for defamation under the following definition, "Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation."

My client is seeking a written apology in the #general-announcements channel, 500 tau in damages and the payment of the plaintiff’s legal fees.

Please message me with any questions, or to be shown the evidence.

👍︎ 37
💬︎
📅︎ Jul 03 2020
🚨︎ report
We need to speak up to save the ACA from the ridiculous lawsuit from Texas.

Reason's why we, the people need to speak up to save our healthcare system.

  1. As of July 2020, 37 states and DC has expanded their Medicaid program to also include low income, childless adults earning up to 138% of the FPL where as before the ACA, Medicaid was only limited to certain groups of low income people such as those under 19, elderly, disabled, blind, parents, pregnant women. Low income, childless adults usually went uninsured, because, obviously, they couldn't afford private insurance. Not everyone on Medicaid is lazy or entitled, most of them work low wage jobs, which usually don't offer benefits. Although I don't live in Missouri, but, I've heard Medicaid Expansion is on the ballet there, which MO residents should definitely vote YES on question 2, if MO expands Medicaid, there will be 38 states that have expanded health insurance for low income, childless adults, there's a Medicaid coverage gap in so far, the 13 states that haven't expanded their program, because, you need to make at-least 100% of the FPL to qualify for subsidies on the ACA marketplace, which would leave people in poverty no choice, but, to do without in the non-expansion states.
  2. Since 2010 when the ACA was signed into law, dependents can stay on their parents health insurance up to age 26, where as before, the cut off age was only 19, imagine being on your own with health insurance when you're STILL A TEENAGER, at-least 26 year old's are more capable of paying for their own insurance and are more likely to have a career with benefits than a 19 year old is. Although kids could stay on their parents insurance if they were full time students, but, the problem with that is not every 19 year old is a student and then, the minute kids graduate college, they're off their parents insurance. It's one thing prior to the ACA where nobody knew any different, you were on your parents insurance until 19, then, kids had go to school to stay on, get their own insurance, or, do without, but, now-a-days, children and parents have grown accustomed to this popular and important feature where parents can keep their dependents covered on their plan up to age 26, which gives kids plenty of time to figure out a way to stay covered when they age off their parents insurance either through their own employer, subsides on the ACA marketplace, or, Medicaid in the states that have expanded their program. Some people could argue that "19 - 26 year old's are young and healthy, they don't need health
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 15
💬︎
📅︎ Jul 17 2020
🚨︎ report
Find my mother’s beloved fur baby & won’t give it back? Oh that just won’t do!

This is my very first post on Reddit, but my second attempt at getting the mods to allow it to stay up, so please be gentle. English is my first language but I’m a born & bred southerner, so sometimes I slip & write in a southern vernacular. Also I’m on mobile, so please forgive formatting errors.

Okay friends, buckle up because this is a long one. Recently I watched a video by RSlash (love him), in which a redditor wanted to know if she was the asshole who, after finding a dog, & even after the rightful guardian of that (very loved & missed) dog contacted her, refused to give it back because she was now “attached”. This absolutely made my blood boil & made me want to scream in fury, because something similar happened to us years ago, and it still sticks in my craw, especially when I read how that redditor was so incredibly selfish, thinking only of herself & caring nothing for what other people were going through.

Here’s the story. Many years ago now, I gave my mother a Chihuahua puppy for Mother’s Day after her 18-year-old Akita passed away. This little dog (who I only spent $400 on-this is relevant later), let’s call him Mickey, was my mother’s baby, & they did EVERYTHING together. When he was about three years old, while my mom was at work, a workman accidentally let him run out the door & he disappeared. We searched for months for him. I spent several hundred dollars for a pet finder. We put up posters at all the vets and ads in the paper. Basically, we did everything we possibly could to find him, but with no luck.

Seven months after he went missing, I went to pick up my two dogs from a groomer/doggy daycare, & as I was writing the check to pay them, my son and his friend were watching the dogs in the play area, when I heard my son exclaim, “Mama, there’s grandma Susie’s dog!” Mickey had a very unique marking on his back that looked like a silhouette of a Mickey Mouse head, so I absolutely knew it was him, & when I said his name, he ran to the gate and jumped up trying to get to me. I got so excited because I THOUGHT my mom’s long nightmare was over, and through happy tears told the owner he was my mother’s dog who had gone missing, and I was so happy to find him because mom was grieving herself to death: she even slept with his bedtime toy that he loved so much. Well, imagine my heartache, anger & frustration when one of the groomers, let’s call her Skank, said it was HER dog. Then the owner of the

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 272
💬︎
👤︎ u/ladydragyn
📅︎ May 23 2020
🚨︎ report
PSA: Harvard uses an illegitimate argument to justify its actions regarding Asians

For those of you who are not unaware exactly how the case of SFFA (plaintiff) vs. Harvard (defendant) was resolved in federal court, it came down to an argument between two competing models used by the economists David Card (Harvard) and Peter Arcidiacono (SFFA).

Both models compared Asian acceptance to WHITES to establish discrimination, not against African Americans. If the model could establish that Asians are disadvantaged SOLELY BECAUSE OF RACE in regards to whites, then SFFA would win major points in the argument. Comparisons to African Americans were shown, but does not impact the outcome of the case in any way whatsoever (since African Americans are also advantaged in regards to whites).

Harvard's model includes personal score and athletics score. This means that if a white applicant who is less academically achieving than an Asian reject got in, you could look at their athletic score and say "that's why". Harvard chose to include this model because athletes are part of a diverse student body (ROFL) and make valuable contributions to student life at Harvard (their own words). Does anyone agree with this?. Regardless, same with personal score. If a white applicant who is less academically achieving than an Asian reject from Harvard got in, you could look at the personal score and say "that's why". Personal score is largely reflected in recommendations they got from high school teachers and guidance counselors. It is supposed to reflect intangible characteristics that could help them make a contribution to a strong student body at Harvard. Does anyone think personal score is NOT racially biased? Harvard doesn't think so, and chose to include it as a possible explanation of why Asian applicants were rejected (lol). Even with all this cushion around their results, Harvard's model STILL shows a slight negative bias against Asian (but statistically insignificant)

Peter Arcidiacono excluded both of these factors personal score and athletics score (because they're bogus), and when all other factors are considered, Asian applicants are less likely to get in, all other factors being equal, SOLELY due to race (statistically significant)

And the judge now has to rule based on this competing evidence, who is right. She (allison burroughs) decides to rule for Harvard, but I don't get why. Harvard justifies its policy of considering race to ensure diversity (seemingly to ensure RACIAL diversity). But then in their defense, they stretch the definit

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 48
💬︎
👤︎ u/xx13plus
📅︎ Jun 09 2020
🚨︎ report
How would future courts handle a potential "loophole" to the Bostock v. Clayton County decision?

Hi legaladviceofftopic,

The furthest my legal expertise goes is attending jury duty and reading /r/legaladvice threads on occasion. But with the most recent batch of SC opinions being released today, I had a question about the precedent and what it would and would not apply to. So I figured I would come here and ask, since it is far more likely to be seen by someone who knows what they are talking about.

To me, the obvious first thoughts were that for Title VII cases, the precedent is clear. The protection from sexual discrimination also covers sexuality discrimination. Also clear was that the same argument could be made for any laws which grant protections against sexual discrimination, even outside of Title VII. Though, I imagine that such arguments still need to be tested in a courtroom before we know "for sure."

Where I began to see a wrinkle, however, was one core theme that was used to describe the logic:

>Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking.

With that as a basis, would an employer who dismisses an employee be safe from the law if sex did not play a role in their decisionmaking? In our specific example, the opinion defined a trait such as "liking a man" and that sex is the but-for clause. Or, paraphrased as I understand it, "But for the employee's sex being male, would different behavior have occurred?" And, as Gorsuch notes, the employers agree that yes, if the employee liked men but was not male, they would not have fired him.

This leads to a fringe case, however: What if the employer would have treated both a man and a woman in that situation the same? If we find a case where an employer would fire a man for his sexuality just as he would a woman, does this logic apply? Imagine this scenario: an asexual employer fires all employees who are not themselves asexual. Sure, not very plausible. Still, it is by definition an act of sexuality discrimination. But it is not clear that this is also an act of sexual discrimination. Here, both male and female employees would be fired for being sexually attracted to men. The logic does not rely on sex at all in its decisionmaking.

If the employer in question decided to use this defense, would it even hold up? The but-for clause no longer applies. Which, according to the argument laid out in

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
👤︎ u/aeblincoln
📅︎ Jun 15 2020
🚨︎ report
Effort Post: Are Stay-at-Home Orders Constitutional?

In the United States Bill of Rights, comprised of the first tend amendments to the US Constitution, the First Amendment states this:

 

> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

With the plain language of this amendment before us, how can stay-at-home orders be considered legal? They not only prohibit the free exercise of religion, but prohibit the right of the people to peaceably assemble or protest. Word for word, these state-wide orders accomplish some of the very things that were banned in the first amendment.

 

And yet, as we'll discuss below, many legal experts anticipate that they will be seen as constitutional by the courts. Why is this the case? Keep reading. I can't answer this question until I hit at least 2,000 words!

 

Before I get into more detail, I want to touch on a misconception that is often used to defend these orders. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law", but in the case of these executive stay-at-home orders, they are coming from local and state leaders, board of commissioners and governors. The federal government has issued guidelines, but has not actually prohibited anything. Doesn't that mean these orders are exempt from first amendment prohibitions, since the amendment specifies "Congress"?

 

Not necessarily. Most, if not all states, have similar terms in their own constitutions restricting such prohibitions on assembly, free exercise of religion, and so on. And even if they did not, the rights granted in the US constitution are applicable to all states within our federal system by virtue of the incorporation doctrine. Incorporation in this sense refers to decisions made by the US Supreme Court that have continually ruled that parts of the Bill of Rights must be complied with by state governments.

 

By now, nearly every section in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated. All of the things we have discussed - free exercise of religion, assembly, and petition - have all been incorporated against the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut, DeJonge v. Oregon, and Edwards v. South Carolina, respectively. As a result, regardless of whatever a state constitution may say, state leaders are required to comply with

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 75
📰︎ r/tuesday
💬︎
👤︎ u/robloxfan
📅︎ Apr 22 2020
🚨︎ report
Link to CHOP lawsuit filed by Capitol Hill real estate LLCs, investment LLCs, and others (Hunter Capital, et al. v City of Seattle) - courtesy Seattle Times

56 page long complaint! I haven't read it in detail but just a few pages shows they are definitely telling their version of things. Happy reading:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6956581-CHOPComplaint.html

The plaintiffs say they do support the movement to keep police from killing Black people. Their lawyers are Calfo Eakes, a downtown firm of 13 lawyers, none of whom appear nonwhite, led by longtime white collar criminal defense experts.

Most of the plaintiffs are real estate investment company LLCs, including the Michael Malone Hunters Capital offshoots and Brad Augustine's various Madrona LLCs. Together they hold hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. They'll be making sure the lawyers get paid. Also plaintiffs are two individuals and some local businesses, including Richmark "sniper roof" Label, and Car "police wont' help" Tenders.

Should be an interesting lawsuit.

👍︎ 19
📰︎ r/Seattle
💬︎
👤︎ u/gharrity
📅︎ Jun 25 2020
🚨︎ report
[Verdict] IcyPenguin79 v xkevio

Trial: https://www.reddit.com/r/mtaugustajustice/comments/gy7fgp/trial_icypenguin79_v_xkevio/


On the matter of IcyPenguin vs Xkevio, I find the defendant not guilty.


It occurs to me that all members in this case are members of government -- xkevio as mayor, Aimuari as judge, ImperatorMendes as judge, and Ice as cup. Even the most casual viewer will observe that the arguments made by plaintiff and defendant implicate all members of government, including me. Therefore, I cannot recuse myself. Were it the case the the arguments levied implicated me personally, it would be prudent to self-recuse. However, since the arguments implicate all members of government and the position of any government office holder by definition, I cannot recuse since there would be nobody to take my place. Thus, I proceed with the utmost caution in acknowledgement of this conflict of interests.


The Mount Augusta Bill of Rights holds the following:

The government of the City State of Mount Augusta is obligated to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill these rights. The people of Mount Augusta demand liberties and freedoms to be afforded to all people.

IV. All persons have the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion and the right to peacefully speak, associate, assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions; peacefully and unarmed.


As such, the principal question of this cause ought to be whether xkevio was acting in his capacity as a government member when he engaged in the actions above stated, and if he was, whether his actions constituted a violation of the Mount Augusta Bill of Rights.


The plaintiff alleged initially that the discord server is owned and operated by the government of Mount Augusta, and should be treated as a public forum thereof. The plaintiff provided no evidence for either of these statements, so I shall defer to precedent by assuming that the discord server is not owned and operated by government of Mount Augusta, but is in fact a public forum affiliated with Mount Augusta, of which many members of the government are administrators of that forum.

Although the defendant rightly points out that discord is per se absent from the constitution, it is the opinion of this court that it is still covered by the bill of rights, based on what the court acknowledges as valid precedent.


Now, with acknowledgement of both the previous section and the disclaimer that I personally laid at the b

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
👤︎ u/Aimuari_
📅︎ Jul 05 2020
🚨︎ report
Is this for real?

BELL MOBILITY RELEVANT ADVERTISING PROGRAM CLASS ACTIONNOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND OPT-OUT DEADLINEThis Notice may affect your rights. Please read carefully.WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION ABOUT?This class action alleges that Bell Mobility breached some Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile Canada customers’ privacy rights by using their personal information without consent for a proposed marketing initiative called the Relevant Advertising Program. There has been no determination by the court regarding the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Bell Mobility maintains that it did not breach any privacy laws and/or obligations, and denies that any customer received a targeted advertisement pursuant to the RAP or that Bell Mobility disclosed any personal information to third parties.On May 13, 2019, the action was certified as a class action. The certification order and the reasons for certification are posted at www.strosbergco.com/class-actions/bellmobility/.HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM A CLASS MEMBER?You are a Class Member if you are a person in Canada who had a Bell Mobility or Virgin Mobile Canada consumer (non-corporate) account with data service between November 16, 2013 and April 13, 2015. Employees and directors of Bell Mobility cannot be a Class Member.HOW DO I OPT OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION?If you fall within the class definition as described above, you are automatically included in the class action and need not do anything at this time if you wish to participate. You will be bound by the judgment in this action, whether favourable or not.If you wish to be excluded from this class action lawsuit and not be bound by any order made in the action, you must complete and mail an opt-out form (found at www.relevantadsclassaction.ca) in an envelope postmarked by October 30, 2020 to the following address:Bell RAP Class Action c/o Ricepoint Administration Inc. P.O. Box 4454, Toronto Station A 25 The Esplanade Toronto, ON M5W 4B1Alternatively, you may opt-out electronically at the website www.relevantadsclassaction.ca.If you do not opt out of the class action on or before October 30, 2020, you will be part of this class action and you will be bound by the terms of any order, judgment or settlement, whether favourable or not, and will not be entitled to prosecute an independent action against Bell Mobility in relation to these allegations.Do not opt out if you wish to participate in the class action.WHO ARE THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING ME?The law firms STROSBERG SASSO SUTTS LLP and CHARN

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/Scams
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 17 2020
🚨︎ report
H.R 948 Patent Abuse Reduction Act

Whereas, the patent system of the United States has spend decades without proper update

Whereas, multiple persons and organizations abuse outdated systems to prey on small business

Whereas, it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect her citizens from these predatory forces

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives and Senate within the Congress of the United States of America assembled,

Section I. Short Title

This bill will be known as the Patent Abuse Reduction Act (PAR)

Section II. Definitions

Patent Hoarding; the action of enforcing patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Such ‘hardball legal tactics’ include but are not limited to: Frivolous litigation Vexatious litigation Strategic lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) Copyright Hoarding: the action of enforcing copyrights against accused infringers it owns for purposes of making money through litigation, generally without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Litigation tactics include but are not limited to: Frivolous litigation Vexatious litigation Strategic lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) Racketeering; a criminal activity in which a person or organization engages in a “racket.” A racket is when the criminal creates a problem for others for the purpose of solving that problem by some type of extortion. Patent; a form of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, selling and importing an invention for a limited period of years, in exchange for publishing an enabling public disclosure of the invention. Public domain; a work or subject that is not covered by individual ownership rights or laws

Section III. Findings

Studies carried out by California Litigation Dataminer ‘Lex Mechanica’ found that over 56% of patent cases are initiated by patent hoarders (Named patent trolls in report) in the year 2012. In 2011, over $29 billion USD in costs by US businesses were attributed to actions carried out by patent trolls. The median revenue for businesses affected by such actions is $10.3 Million USD

Section IV. Reuse of US Criminal Code

(US Code, Title 18 ‘Crimes and Criminal Procedure’, Part I. ‘Crimes’, Chapter 95 ‘Racketeering’, § 1951.Interference with commerce by threats or violence)[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951]; is now to be used as

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 7
📰︎ r/ModelUSGov
💬︎
📅︎ May 21 2020
🚨︎ report
Much of the accepted narrative about Rosa Parks’ life and arrest is wrong. Yes, even that Drunk History episode.

After working on the new Library of Congress exhibit about her life - I was shocked at how many people were misinformed — including myself.

Yes, there were others, like teenager Claudette Colvin, who protested on the bus before Parks and didn’t receive the same kind of notoriety. Not sure that this is a story about “who did it first” anyway, but what people don’t realize is that Parks had been a lifelong civil rights activist.

Not just an activist for a day.

She started officially working for the NAACP in 1943 (the bus protest occurred on December 1, 1955). At that time, the NAACP was considered a suspect group by law enforcement, so just being associated with them was a risk. She traveled across the South, gathering accounts from women who said they had been raped by police. She ran a student-activism group in Montgomery. She was the secretary for E.D. Nixon, then President of the NAACP Montgomery chapter.

Her grandparents were slaves. Her grandfather was the product of a white plantation owner and a slave. Though light-skinned, their family wasn’t spared from the terror of the KKK. As a child, she would stay up all night with her grandfather, guarding their home from KKK raids with a shotgun.

Due in part to history books and that Drunk History episode, many folks think her bus protest was planned, that she was sitting in the white section, and that she was “picked” to protest because of her nice old lady demeanor. None of this is true.

Parks was not sitting in the white section, but behind it. When the white section filled and a white male passenger entered the bus, the driver demanded that she move even further back. That’s when she refused to move. Most people don’t realize, Black folks were also asked to pay at the front of the bus, then get back off and enter through the back. At times, drivers would just leave before they could get back on. Parks had a bad experience with this same bus driver many years earlier and usually avoided his busses.

Her protest wasn’t planned. This is supported by myriad historical documents and even Parks’ own written accounts in her private diaries — just released to the public by the Library of Congress. She was 42 years old when she was arrested, not a weak elderly woman. And she wasn’t “chosen” by movement leaders to do anything — the movement itself was just getting started. MLK was virtually unknown outside of the Montgomery Baptist community. There had been a series of events in the summer and fall prece

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 9k
📰︎ r/history
💬︎
👤︎ u/Petrobyas
📅︎ Jan 20 2020
🚨︎ report
"Tainted Saint: Mother Teresa Defended Pedophile {Jesuit}Priest" , San Francisco Weekly (January 11th 2012)

source : https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/tainted-saint-mother-teresa-defended-pedophile-priest/Content?oid=2183718&showFullText=true

" Tainted Saint: Mother Teresa Defended Pedophile Priest

By Peter Jamison Wednesday, Jan 11 2012

Illustration by Robert Hunt.

The death of journalist and polemicist Christopher Hitchens last month gave those familiar with his work a chance to revisit one of his more controversial subjects: the Albanian nun Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, better known to the world as Mother Teresa. In his 1997 book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (link : https://archive.org/details/ChristopherHitchensTheMissionaryPositionMotherTeresaInTheoryAndPractice1995Verso ), Hitchens argued that the "Saint of Calcutta," who founded and headed the international Missionaries of Charity order, enjoyed undeserved esteem.

Despite her humanitarian reputation and 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Teresa had set up a worldwide system of "homes for the dying" that routinely failed to provide adequate care to patients, Hitchens argued — an appraisal shared by The Lancet, a respected medical journal. Mother Teresa also associated with, and took large sums of money from, disreputable figures such as American savings-and-loan swindler Charles Keating and the dictatorial Duvalier family of Haiti.

Notwithstanding these black marks on an otherwise sterling reputation, Mother Teresa — who died in 1997 and is now on the fast track to a formal proclamation of sainthood by the Vatican — was never known to have been touched by the scandal that would rock the Roman Catholic Church in the decade after her death: the systematic protection of child-molesting priests by church officials.

Yet documents obtained by SF Weekly suggest that Mother Teresa knew one of her favorite priests was removed from ministry for sexually abusing a Bay Area boy in 1993, and that she nevertheless urged his bosses to return him to work as soon as possible. The priest resumed active ministry, as well

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 7
💬︎
👤︎ u/Ainsoph777
📅︎ Jul 15 2020
🚨︎ report
Criteria for Determining Whether a Truck Owner/Driver is an Employee

Korean Labor Law and Criteria for Determining Whether a Truck Owner/Driver is an Employee

https://preview.redd.it/j2mn86a0jc751.jpg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c2c55a5935da52d9d1e30f74c7c6c88f4201d8f

I. Introduction

Understanding the criteria for determining whether employee status exists is becoming more important. There is little confusion when an employee provides work under an employment contract or if a freelancer provides a service independently. In general, there are a lot of problems when looking at those whose status lies somewhere between employee and freelancer. When a truck owner/driver who owns his delivery truck provides labor service together with his truck, this creates an issue of whether the truck owner/driver is an employee or not. In the case of a driver who is engaged in the delivery of goods with his own vehicle, he is not an employee but a self-employed person because he provides transportation services and charges service fees. However, in recent years, truck owner/drivers have often been recognized as employees if they have been registered as truck owner/drivers and provided considerable work as a driver under a company’s specific work directions. On the other hand, if a truck driver charges a service fee according to the number of transport instances, he is not recognized as an employee, even if he has been working for a long time and on an exclusive basis. In other words, this truck owner/driver can be recognized as an employee if there has been a strong subordinate relationship involving supervision and control between the employer and the service provider, but not if there have been only strong economic dependencies between them and no subordinate relationship.

Herein, I will look into the criteria for determining whether a truck owner/driver can be deemed an employee, and consider the criteria for judging their employee status based upon the details in selected cases.

II. Determining Whether a Truck Owner/Driver Has Employee Status

1. Common criteria for determining employee statusA definition of 'worker' in Article 2 paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates, "A worker means a person who provides work to a business or a workplace for the purpose of wages, regardless of the type of occupation." It is said that the employee ① receives wages in return for labor service, ② must be exclusively engaged in the employer’s business or workplace, and ③ must provide labor service. All three cri

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/Korean_Law
💬︎
📅︎ Jun 27 2020
🚨︎ report
Report: Nintendo to defend their decision to not allow preorder refunds on the European eShop as their first day of court begins. The German and Norwegian government are accusing the games company for violating EU consumer law.

Full article here: https://www.pressfire.no/nyheter/Switch/14808/i-dag-str-nintendo-skolerett-mot-tyske-myndigheter-i-forhndsbestillingssaken

Norway notified Germany of a potential breach of EU consumer rights with Nintendo. Germany agreed and started work on taking Nintendo to court. Court proceedings has taken almost a year, but today marked the start of the trial.

Summary:

  • According to Norwegian gaming website PressFire.no, who has been in contact with the court, the trial started today. Nintendo is defending, the VZBV (German consumer rights enforcer, backed by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection) is the plaintiff.
  • The trial is done behind closed doors and press is not permitted information about the case.
  • The trial is happening in the Frankfurt court.
  • A verdict is expected before christmas, but at the latest early January.
  • According to the article, which has an interview with the Norwegian Consumer Council, further escalation to the EU courts are on the table, pending the outcome here. This to get an updated definition of what "performance has begun" actually means for digital purchases.

Some other points for those that hasn't followed the case:

  • Norway is a part of the European Economic Community, which means they share many EU laws.
  • PressFire.no and Norway's Consumer Rights Council tested the eShop for consumer unfriendly practices and found Nintendo does not allow cancellation of pre-orders at all, even before the game is released, which is in violation of Norwegian and EU law.
  • Nintendo in their reply say they don't agree with the council, and that they aren't breaking any laws. They say that, because you can pre-load the game instantly after pre-ordering, the "performance has begun" (which is the wording of the law), and the sales contract is fulfilled.
  • The Council however, says you can't claim "performance has begun" until the game is playable, even though you've pre-loaded it.
  • Nintendo was promptly reported to the Norwegian authorities, who formally made an "enforcement request" to Germany, as Nintendo of Europe is based there. Germany promptly dragged Nintendo to court to make them abide by the laws.
👍︎ 2k
💬︎
👤︎ u/Fawesum
📅︎ Nov 14 2019
🚨︎ report
House Party 7/27/20 - Part One

We open our scene, as we’re in the serviceable Nashville Municipal Auditorium, as we have a rowdy southern crowd on hand in the Music City! Some crowd members living up to the city moniker, as we see a few guys in what looks like novelty country get-up with acoustic instruments. As we pan over to our commentary table.

Paisner: Hello everyone! And welcome to another edition of House Party! I’m Allen Paisner-

Woodbridge: And i’m Mark Woodbridge.

Paisner: And we got another fantastic show lined up tonight! As we see battles such as Buster Braggadocio vs Viktor Ivanov following the confrontation by Romero and Buster against Vanguard at a McDonald’s. Marshall Wheeler looking to rebound from abandonment, and Jericho Styles looking to rebound from getting fucked up as they face off! We will see the debut of the unintentionally eccentric wrestker Dexter Flux against unintentionally eccentric medical professional, Doctor Ishmael Yellowstone. We will likely see Chip Rutgers get his ass whooped by Joey McCarty. And of course our main event for #1 Contendership to Kaitlyn Casey Jone’s Independent Title, as Dick Dover and Tony Stevens square off for a huge opportunity! Plus much more! But now, there’s one match I did not mention, and it’s our opener! We send it to Javier in the ring!

We cut to the ring to see Javier, who stands at the ready for the opening bout.

Javier: The following contest is scheduled for one fall-

Crowd: ONE FALL!!

Javier: and has a 30 minute time limit, refereed by Mia So Hung!

Repent by Shaggy hits the Nashville Municipal Auditorium as Ikbal Rizwan makes his way to the ring and fans reach out to high five the former QWF superstar as he seems happy to be greeted with a warm reception at the venue.

Javier: Making his way to the ring, from Islamabad, Pakistan, weighing 310 pounds, IKBALLL RIZWAAANN!!!

Crowd: WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Woodbridge: Even the hicks out here in Tennessee know who Ikbal is and they’re hyped to see him compete tonight!

Paisner: This young man carried the entire QWF federation during its short lived existence, holding its World Title the entirety of its lineage and then bringing it over to WiR after our revival. He then held it for a few months longer before losing it in a unification match with the WiR Champion Kyle Scott, but Ikbal’s dominant reign sol

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 4
💬︎
👤︎ u/youto2
📅︎ Jul 30 2020
🚨︎ report
#jessicamartinezrecusenow

I am deeply disappointed that Whittier Councilwoman Jessica Martinez has chosen to side with anti-immigrant groups by signing on as a plaintiff against disaster relief for immigrants. She has chosen to turn her back on the immigrant community during this COVID-19 public health crisis at a time when families are losing loved ones and are having a hard time finding their next meal. I believe that immigrants work hard to provide essential services to keep our economy moving through their hard work and sacrifice. Immigrants are our coworkers, family, friends, and neighbors. We rely on them, just as much as they rely on us because that is the definition of community.

Join me in making a call or sending an email to provide public comment to the Whittier City Council no later than Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. demanding that Council Member Jessica Martinez stand by our immigrant community and recuse herself from this lawsuit. The deadline to submit public comment. Click on the link for phone script, e-mail template, and social media toolkit.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XbQC_jrTby4jDfXj5Qhrevz8e6djIxy1FqOPgUq2FMg/edit?usp=sharing

👍︎ 20
📰︎ r/Whittier
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 28 2020
🚨︎ report
Jeremy Hammond is a Real Life Hero Vigilante Hacker

Hey guys, hope you all are staying healthy and sane (as possible.)

I thought I would make this post in case people aren't aware of this. Jeremy Hammond is an anarchist hacktivist, and a decade ago during the Occupy Wall Street movement he did a really amazing thing that not many people know about, and people need to know about this stuff, and it's fitting with the culture here.

Jeremy Hammond was an anon (member of anonymous) who was active in the hacktivism culture present within anonymous. He was a member of the offshoot LulzSec, and he hacked a private American Geopolitical Intelligence Corporation called Strategic Forecasting Inc. (Stratfor) that did work for many different US government agencies and different Corporations involved in the Military Industrial Complex.

Hammond was able to retrieve a massive amount of private Stratfor emails and dumped them to Wikileaks. It was discovered that Stratfor was coordinating with the FBI to link Occupy Wall Street Community Organizers with Jihadist Ideology and terrorist organizations, in order to strip them of due process and prosecute them under new anti terrorism laws, putting them at risk of indefinite detention in places like Guantanamo Bay.

The shit that's going on right now in America politically and economically, it's just the continued crushing of the American people by Federal and State Governments and Corporations. A MASSIVE protest movement in this country was happening just a decade ago, and I fear that a lot of young people today do not know about it, and it will be lost to history.

It started in Zucatti Park in New York City. Protests regarding the crippling amount of wealth inequality in this country were happening, and it was being organized in a grass roots, decentralized, Democratic way, which was by necessity. The cops made it illegal to use bullhorns, so organizers started doing "Mic check!" and the entire crowd would respond "Mic check!" that way people far away from the speaker could be heard. So started The General Assembly, which was used to organize Occupy Wall Street protests across the country. It was Direct Democracy in its truest sense.

" General assemblies (GA) were the primary decision making bodies of the global Occupy Movement which arose in 2011. Open to all who wished to take part, general assemblies allowed for an inclusive form of direct democracy. Such assemblies

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 10
📰︎ r/MrRobot
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 06 2020
🚨︎ report
Friendly fire: “With the greatest of respect to Wigney J, some aspects of the reasoning in PDWL do not reflect the current position of the law”

Following up on last week’s Shots Fired in the FCA, Anderson J handed down McHugh v Minister for Immigration while we were all focusing on Pell, addressing Wigney’s reasons on the availability of habeas corpus as a remedy in migration decisions:

> [77] With the greatest of respect to Wigney J, some aspects of the reasoning in PDWL do not reflect the current position of the law. This follows from his Honour’s reliance (at [63] and [85] of PDWL) on the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Masri [2003] FCAFC 70; 126 FCR 54 (Al Masri) to support the conclusion that the detention of an unlawful non-citizen under Migration Act does not require a “decision”.

...

> [78] Some aspects of these passages in Al Masri, as published in 2003, do not accurately reflect the current position of the law. First, the remarks in Al Masri in relation to interrelationship between ss 189 and 196 of the Migration Act have been superseded by the High Court’s decision in Ruddock v Taylor [2005] HCA 48; 222 CLR 612 (Ruddock v Taylor). That case involved consideration of the lawfulness of two periods of detention of the respondent; the first lasting 161 days and the second 155 days: ibid at [3]. The plurality of Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ expressed at [25] that “the lawfulness of the respondent’s detention turned upon whether there was statutory or other authority to detain him” and “[t]hat required consideration of s 189”. Implicit in this analysis is that s 189(1) empowers an officer not only to initially detain a relevant person, but also to continue to detain that person. This interpretation of Ruddock v Taylor, which I follow, was applied in Plaintiff M168/10 v Commonwealth [2011] HCA 25; 85 ALJR 790; 279 ALR 1; 122 ALD 1 at [34] per Crennan J and Guo v Commonwealth [2017] FCA 1355; 258 FCR 31 (Guo) per Jagot J (see in particular [69]–[70] and [83(3)]–[83(4)]); see also Commonwealth v Okwume [2018] FCAFC 69; 263 FCR 604 (Okwume (FC)) at [165] per Besanko J; although see, contra, Okwume (TJ) at [196] per Charlesworth J. In this regard, it is important, in my view, that the s 5(1) definition of “detain”, which is picked up by s 189(1), includes to “keep, or cause to

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 15
📰︎ r/auslaw
💬︎
📅︎ Apr 07 2020
🚨︎ report
Judge Rules for Ghislaine Maxwell in Huge Setback to Victims and Boon to Epstein Accomplices

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rules-for-ghislaine-maxwell-in-huge-setback-to-victims-and-boon-to-epstein-accomplices/

by Colin Kalmbacher | 7:41 pm, February 26th, 2020

A federal judge in Manhattan has denied a media request to presume that the public should have access to an infamous and long-sought trove of documents related to dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

In a terse four-page ruling, Judge Loretta Preska ruled against reporter Julie K. Brown and The Miami Herald in what’s sure to be seen as a slap in the face to the dozens of victims ensnared by Epstein’s elite pedophile ring over the course of several years.

“[Brown and the Herald‘s] argument is ostensibly that this unsealing process requires the Court to evaluate the Aristotelian essence of a document, i.e., to decide that certain documents are imbued with an inherent, free-floating power to influence judicial decision-making that makes them necessarily subject to  the presumption of public access,” Preska wrote in a sharp and mocking decision.

“The Court has . . . already considered and rejected the exact contention [Brown and the Herald] advance here: that judicial documents can be categorized as such based on their abstract, generalized effect on judicial decisions rather than in the context of a decided motion,” the New York City judge continued. “That [Brown and the Herald] have found alternative dress for that position does not provide grounds for reconsideration.”

Preska previously made more or less the same decision, drastically limiting the number of documents that could be released from the court proceedings between Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre and Epstein’s friend and alleged groomer Ghislaine Maxwell.

Those thousands of documents are believed to contain lurid details about various world leaders and other high-profile individuals who allegedly engaged in the systematic rape of underage girls on Epstein’s private jet and island, the Lolita Express and Little St. James, respectively. Various claims of sexual abuse and coercion were made against those elites in the documents, which also contain some denials from those same powerful men.

The court battle was largely fought ove

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 65
📰︎ r/Epstein
💬︎
👤︎ u/lvcv2020
📅︎ Feb 27 2020
🚨︎ report
BirackObama v. TheCloudCappedStar, in re: AB.285—The Green New Deal: 2019 Energy Act

In re: AB.285

Your Honor-

BirackObama, investor in Consolidated Edison of New York (ConEd), the largest investor-owned energy company in the nation. ConEd is a publicly-regulated electric, gas and steam utility, with service and rates set by the Atlantic Commonwealth Public Service Commission.

Plaintiff is also a bondholder of the New York Power Authority. The New York Power Authority, created by the Long Island Power Act, is distributed by ConEd, PSEG, and LIPA/National Grid. PSEG maintains $32 billion and LIPA $3.5 billion in operating assets. Its main transmission cable alone in Long Island is valued at $500 million with $1.5 billion pledged to rebuild its infrastructure.

##Questions Presented

  • Whether the Assembly’s Green New Deal Act utility can, through the independent Public Service Commission, acquire other utilities without purchase agreements; to maintain, sell, and purchase preexisting non-stock bonds and equity; and ultimately subsume the private and private-public utilities completely — without paying those debts, dividends?

Whether the Act’s express requirement that all funding is appropriated per project, no more and no less, adheres to the Eminent Domain Law and Commonwealth prohibition on seizing labor if “fair market value” eliminates debts, including those purchases by union and company pensions?

Does Atlantic sovereign immunity apply to the Public Service Commission administering directly the utility, which legislatively in the Public Service Chapter is a gubernatorial partnership of a dozen officers merely to regulate rates, services, and operations?

Whether case law pertaining to pre-incorporation analysis has been foreclosed in Atlantic in light of recent findings, and if so, whether similar analysis of retributive fines is no longer applicable to the seizing of the Wall Street Bull, the taxation of universities with unfavorable names,the first energy seizure proved by the Supreme Court, the tobacco industry? Is it more akin to seizing a hot dog vendor’s truck and livelihood under a disproportionate New York City retributive fine as deemed by the Court before this term?

##Court Preference

New York Public Service Law § 21 requires this Court to hear and decide actions commenced by either the Assembly-Executive independent Public Service Commission referred to in the Green New Deal Act, or by any person regarding any question in the

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 29 2020
🚨︎ report
Killing vs letting it die

Many abortion advocates say abortion is not the killing of the unborn. They support this position further by saying that abortions are just the termination of a pregnancy. If you want to look at the medical definition of abortion they would be incorrect

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is a loss of pregnancy due to the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus due to any cause. An abortion may occur spontaneously (termed a miscarriage) or may be medically induced. The miscarriage of three or more consecutive pregnancies is termed habitual abortion or recurrent pregnancy loss.

Some of you still deny the fact that a miscarriage is an abortion for whatever reason. Regardless an abortion that happens spontaneously is termed a miscarriage. Abortion is literally in the definition itself. Moving back on topic, an abortion is where a unborn baby dies for whatever reason. If the baby doesn’t die it’s not an abortion. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Only when the abortion happens spontaneously, it becomes a miscarriage.

This is just the set up for the scrutinization of the claim “abortion is not killing the unborn, it’s letting it die.”

the definition

Again, the definition states

> In medicine, an abortion is a loss of pregnancy due to the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus due to any cause_.

To say “abortion is not killing the unborn, it’s letting it die.” Is incorrect by the very definition, if you kill the child it’s still an abortion, if you let the child die inside you it’s still an abortion. So to make the argument correct you would have to say “abortion is not only killing the unborn, but can also be just letting it die.” You can’t arbitrary exclude killing the child, from the definition. Next point

Letting it die is the same thing as killing it

First I’m going to go over how the law views this then go into a more philosophical approach.

The laws are very clear on how bystanders should behave when they witness a crime. These laws are ironically named Duty to Rescue laws.

The Duty to Rescue

Generally speaking, there is legally no duty to rescue another person.

The courts have gone into very gory details in order to explain this. In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a c

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 7
💬︎
📅︎ Jan 16 2020
🚨︎ report
Law: What would the consequences be of a court ruling whether or not grilling plant-meat on the same equipment as animal-meat changes the status of the plant-meat to not-vegan?

Four plaintiffs have complaints. What would the consequences be, do you think, if they brought their cases to court, and the court ruled either in favor or against them?

Plaintiff Complaint
A I ordered a plant-meat sandwich for lunch, believing it to be vegan. After I finished it, I observed that the same grill was used for both plant-meat and animal meat. The restaurant had been open for hours before I arrived so it is likely some animal-meat residue was on my sandwich.
B I was the first customer of the day. I ordered a plant-meat sandwich, believing it to be vegan. After I started eating, the second customer of the day ordered an animal-meat sandwich. I observed it being cooked on the same grill as my plant-meat sandwich. Although there was no animal-meat residue on my sandwich, because it was prepared on shared equipment I contributed to the suffering of animals because the cost of the equipment is shared between plant-meat and animal-meat.
C At my request, my plant-meat sandwich was prepared in the microwave oven. The oven is not used for any animal-meat ingredients. However, while I was eating, I observed that the plant-meat and animal-meat ingredients were delivered from the same refrigerated truck, and stored in the same restaurant refrigerator. Due to this shared cost, I contributed to the suffering of animals.
D My plant-meat sandwich was delivered in the plant-meat-factory's own truck, stored in a plants-only cooler, and prepared with plants-only equipment. I observed a leather jacket on a wooden hanger in the employees' changing room. When I asked, the restaurant confirmed the leather jacket belonged to an employee, not to a visitor. Because my payment for my meal goes toward a single payroll pool, I contributed to the suffering of animals.

Secondary question: would it be good to build up a body of case law defining "as far as possible and practicable" from The Vegan Society's definition, so that food vendors and consumers would know what was entailed?

👍︎ 23
💬︎
👤︎ u/Unbathed
📅︎ Jan 07 2020
🚨︎ report
General Guidelines for Background Equipment

This post is stemming from a discussion I had with some friends on homebrew creation. I find that when it comes to background creation the equipment is always a weird one to determine since there's no set-in-stone rules for it written anywhere. This often leads to people with homebrew backgrounds massively overpacking their background equipment or just leaving it blank and coming with less equipment than everyone else. The amount of skills are known (2 skills + a combination of tools and languages that equals two) and background features are fairly nebulous, but the rules for equipment are rather unclear. What should you have? How much should everything be valued? How much gold should you have? Well after looking through the official backgrounds I came to a few conclusions:

#The best template background

It's pretty hard to judge how much the total value of all your equipment should be, especially since all backgrounds have a varying spread of gold. However there is one background that has almost a completely clear-cut description of how much gold it should cost.

The Haunted One background from Curse of Strahd starts you with a Monster Hunter's Park (33 gp value), Common Clothes (5 sp value), an a trinket (no value.) Adding this together you come up to a total of 33.5 gp value, but if we're generous with the fact that packs are less expensive than the total value of their parts we can assume that the maximum value for all your equipment is about 35 gold. That being said very few backgrounds reach this total, and the average seems to be between 20 and 30 gold.

#Clothes

Almost every background comes with the clothes on your back. These clothes are what a person of your background would wear. There's a total of five different sets of clothes you can choose from:

##Common Clothes (5 sp)

If it's not obvious these are common clothes that the average everyday person would wear. This can be a simple work uniform, average streetwear, or some rags to cover your personal parts. The best example I can make for common clothes is Skyrim; any cloth armor that isn't labeled "fine clothes" or "robes" in that game could be classified as common clothes: a miner's outfit, a buckled tunic, or prisoner's rags. There are a lot of variations to common clothes. (Obvious example is that Criminals / Spies start with a "set of set of dark common clothes including a hood) but they all intrinsically function the same. You can flavor them however you want but they'll

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 8
📰︎ r/dndnext
💬︎
📅︎ May 15 2020
🚨︎ report
Old MTA Criminal Code as of 5/6/20

#Mount Augusta Criminal Code (unanimously adopted m d , 2016)


#100 - Griefing

##100.01 First-Degree Intentional Griefing

###1. Offenses > a. Except as provided in subsection 2, the willful destruction of property with the intent to cause destruction

> b. Except as provided in subsection 2, the willful destruction of property with the intent to cause death

> c. The coercion by force, threat of force, fraud, payment or contracting by promise of payment or reimbursement any party with the goal of causing the above shall be prosecuted as the same

> d. Materially assisting anyone via donation of goods, materials, or other aid (snitch network access, etc.) with the goal of causing the above shall be prosecuted as the same

###2. Burden of Proof > a. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (as defined in section 900: Definitions of Burdens of Proof) that the facts constituting the prosecution did exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt.

###3. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing > a. If the judge sustains a finding of guilt, the judge will deliver a sentence based upon the counts of the crime. Counts will be understood as individual instances of griefing, or prior instances in which the defendant was convicted of the same crime. Multiple counts on one occasion may be served concurrently or consecutively, as decided by the judge.

> b. One count will result in one week to two weeks Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl.

> c. Two counts will result in two weeks to four weeks Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl.

> d. Three counts and up will result in a minimum sentence of 1 week Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl per count (e.g. 3 counts would carry a minimum sentence of 3 weeks). The sentencing judge may, based on the severity of the crime and other factors, elect to give the convicted individual any length of sentence beyond that, up to and including a lifetime Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl, subject to subsection 4.

###4. Alleviating Sentencing > a. The community of Mount Augusta as a whole may decide to reduce the sentence of an individual given a lifetime sentence Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl via ⅔ vote of registered Mount Augusta voters on the subreddit if: > b. The individual has already served a minimum of two weeks Prison Pearl or Exile Pearl; and > c. The individual has paid reparations to the affected parties; and > d. The subreddit post is allowed 48 hours for votes to be posted.

###5. Reparations. > a. Re

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
💬︎
👤︎ u/robokaiser
📅︎ May 07 2020
🚨︎ report
In Re: San Francisco Resolution No. 190841

In the SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN STATE

SPACEDUDE2169 Plaintiff

V.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant

On Petition for Certiorari to the Western State Supreme Court and to the Honorable Justices of this Court. Now comes /u/Spacedude2169, Attorney in Good Standing, respectfully submitting this petition for a writ of certiorari to review the constitutionality and lawfulness of San Francisco Resolution No. 190841

Question Presented

Does San Francisco Resolution No. 190841 violate the First Amendment by discriminating in private speech against the National Rifle Association for their viewpoint?

Introduction and Background

On September 3rd, 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 190841 declared the National Rifle Association (NRA), a 2nd amendment advocacy and firearms lobby group, "a domestic terrorist organization", and used this to justify action for "the City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with the City and County of San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization". The resolution also encouraged other governments to adopt "similar positions".

On December 24th, 2019, the Sierran State Assembly passed SR-04-26, which shamed San Francisco for their resolution.

Violation of the First Amendment

This resolution seeks to discriminate against a group solely based on their political support the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It's goal is to attempt to remove the NRA from expressing it's support of the Second Amendment in the public square. It's the goal of this resolution and the defendants to chill the NRA’s and its members’ rights of free speech and association under the First Amendment.

The Resolution also seeks to target and discriminate against a lawful organization and its members and supporters because the government does not approve of their views or speech. It attempts to remove any organization, or company who does business with the NRA from being able to do business with City and County. It also placed pressure on businesses who rely on contracts with the state by threatening to "assess the financial and contractual relationships our vendors and contractors have with [

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
💬︎
📅︎ Jan 28 2020
🚨︎ report
California HOA LIE leads to Small Claims with New Buyer

It’s been a few years since we moved out of our HOA. I might share some of the other stories later on, but this is the big one. When my husband and I finally had it with the HOA, we sold it and bought a house in a HOA free neighborhood. On the morning that we closed escrow, I received a call from the HOA saying that We will need to complete the repairs on the condo listed in the letter that was mailed to us.

  1. What letter? Never received any letter from you guys.
  2. We were sent an email MONTHS ago with an attachment for another condo. Same condo number but different street with some items to fix. We wrote back and HOA responded by telling us to dismiss it. We have the paper trail showing it.
  3. We JUST CLOSED! We sold AS IS. Property is no longer ours.

HOA said sorry and quickly hung up.

A week later we get contacted by the agent of the buyer who asks that we pay to fix EVERYTHING. Uhhh..we sold “AS IS” and also under market value. Husband and I spoke about it and felt that this was the HOA’s fault and shouldn’t be ruining the joy and excitement of a new home for the buyer, so we offered to pay half of the repairs. Not good enough for the buyer. He wrote us directly threatening a lawsuit. His whole premise was that “HOA mailed you guys a letter with repairs which you ignored. If you never received it or that it was delivered to the wrong home, then the US Postal Service would ‘Return to Sender’.”

HOA then emails both parties the letter that they “sent” out to us. Husband who is in IT checks the Meta data and turns out the document was created AFTER this whole situation and showed that it WAS NEVER PRINTED. It was POST-DATED. Buyer still decides to take us AND our agent to small claims and continues to be a total dick to us. He was older and definitely was trying to intimidate us.

So court day comes. Mediation is offered. We decline and the guy acts as if we are being so unreasonable by not wanting to talk this out with him. The judge hears our case. Husband has everything documented and organized. Shows the judge the meta data. Judge immediately looks up and says “Now why do you think the HOA would do this?”

Plaintiff’s turn. He goes on his spiel about how the Postal Office would have returned mail if it was delivered to the wrong address. He knows this because he used to work there...Judge stops him. “We are not here to discuss the failings of the USPS.”

And that was it. Judge finished and the next day we received a ruling in our fav

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 100
📰︎ r/fuckHOA
💬︎
👤︎ u/RealLeeSD
📅︎ Feb 26 2020
🚨︎ report
"Starfleet has always had it in for androids" --my response

>A post over at Daystrom makes an argument I've seen often since STPic has come out, that Starfleet and by extension the Federation as a whole discriminate against / are repressive against androids. As typical, the episode "Measure of a Man" is cited as prime evidence, followed by "The Offspring". This argument, like so many others which make the same claim, either ignore or miss entirely a certain nuance that completely changes the equation.
>
>I: Is Data a Person?
>
>In the trial which we could call Data v Maddox, as we all know the goal of Maddox was to secure the right to disassemble Data for study. This is framed by Picard's side and the narrative itself as "treating a person as property" and compared to slavery and human experimentation and such. The thing is though, the legal right to do so is not what the plaintiff sought to establish, and the court was never willing to grant such. The core question was Data's sentience itself. The plaintiff sought to establish that "this machine is not a sentient person but is merely programmed to act like one", and that claim is what the court sought to make a ruling on.
>
>There is no debate whatsoever, not at any point, that if Data is a sentient person then he has the same rights as any other sentient person. Absolutely nobody argues otherwise. There is no moral question at play, everyone agrees on the correct morality. The disagreement is based on a question of fact, not morals. Those who "mistreat" Data do so based on their belief that he is an unconscious machine that has no self-awareness or ability to experience.
>
>What many people fail to realize is, these characters have no way to know otherwise! Nobody, except perhaps Dr Soong himself who isn't available to testify, can prove Data has consciousness. Even at trial's end, the court can can come to no definitive conclusion. Picard admits he cannot prove nor can he know for certain that Data is in fact a conscious self-aware being. Given that nobody not even Data himself has a full grasp on how he functions, proving that is impossible by any means available to Starfleet or the Federation.
>
>Allow me to emphasize: *None of the characters, not even those we are meant to side with as right, have certain knowledge whether their position is correct or not. The facts remain unclear to them

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 15
📰︎ r/Star_Trek
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 16 2020
🚨︎ report
[Verdict] Vah v Scramble0

Trial thread

The Facts:

1- Vah made developed a piece of land into a farm, which later had reinforced fences added to it, alongside some of the wheat being potentially being reinforced under a different group- an allusion to something I will reference later.

2- The farm’s groups were given to Scramble0. There was an unbroken period in which the farms remained satisfactorily in his hands.

3- Scramble0 attempted to reclaim the property and was killed in doing so.

4- FTC Farms are an explicitly public good, for the metaphorical children as it were as supported by reliable witness testimony.

The Questions Posed:

Was the land owned in a legal sense by the FTC, or in asking Vah to build in the Southwest was Vah acting as an agent of the FTC?

No proof has been provided as to the state of the land prior in regards to ownership, development being required to assert property rights. In saying that Vah could build farms in the Southwest, I cannot construe any attempt to establish a legal relationship, merely a suggestion in terms of arable lands available. I do find that the interaction more likely than not happened however, in this regard I cannot find Vah to have been building on FTC land nor acting as a direct agent of the FTC. Furthermore the implication of saying that Vah could “develop” the land in regards to the law which states property is “i. Any structure or development of land that does not conflict with existing ownership of property,” was that the land was undeveloped. As a public servant I have no reason to believe that Scramble0 would press Vah to press development against developed land, unless said land was owned by the FTC and again, I have seen no evidence of this. In this regard I dismiss any implied notion that Vah was somehow in confliction with other property or that he was acting on behalf of the FTC.

Did the farms originate as a private venture?

Operating off the assumption that the land was unowned and reinforced by the plaintiff I was originally going to rule in his favour. However inspection of the screenshot provided by both parties (https://gyazo.com/0310fe045be4eb2b842eb336cd0c8d13) provides a compelling support to the notion on behalf of the defendant that in fact “evidence provided by Vah does nothing aside from corroborate [his] side of the story”. There is clearly a dispute over the fact that the property has been demarcated as

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 5
💬︎
📅︎ May 30 2020
🚨︎ report
I am combing through all of the Epstein files. You asked for it. Here it is. Part 2 - The next 300+ page breakdown.

Well, I didn’t get much sleep and [posting this goes against the recommendation of my doctor](https://nypost.com/2019/08/15/jeffrey-epsteins-gal-pal-ghislaine-maxwell-spotted-at-in-n-out-burger-in-first-photos-since-his-death/ “Epstein Gal pal found at IN-N-OUT reading book on Deaths of CIA Operatives”), but I finished it and just in time for Friday morning.

First, I would just like to say thank you to everyone who upvoted, shared this and gave me an award. You guys really motivated me to keep reading this stuff and broke my Reddit with all the comments. Last night we reached 17th on the front page. I almost died when I saw that (just shock don't worry). So many people must have seen it and that is my biggest hope for this work. The more eyes the better. We need to bring an end to this international pedo sex operation. The first step is being informed.

Second, for all of you asking, no I do not intend to kill myself by shooting myself in the back of the head twice, [strangling myself in a way more common with murder then suicide](https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Autopsy-finds-broken-bones-in-Epstein-s-neck-14305473.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Desktop)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral “Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said”) , or any other way to be clear? I am a little exhausted, grossed out, stopped following a few people, broke my Reddit, but not my neck thankfully in a mysterious fall, but other then that I am great.

Third, there is one section of pages, 34-90, exhibit E through K, that you might want to skip over, if you are trying to save time. I feel this section is important because it shows the lengths Maxwell would go try to discredit Giuffre, even though in the first dump it appears the lawyers for Giuffre argued that very little of this was used in the defenses case in their motion to dismiss, and what is going on in the underlining proceedings involved in with the documents. Lawyers will probably e

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 7k
📰︎ r/JoeRogan
💬︎
👤︎ u/pinner52
📅︎ Aug 16 2019
🚨︎ report
Class Action Lawsuit Deadline 2/21 CALIFORNIA

Reminder if you worked in california

https://www.grovesshoppersettlement.com/Home/FAQ

  1. Why did I get a Notice?The Plaintiffs and the Defendant in the Groves et al. v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart case have reached a settlement.
    The Settlement Class is defined as the following:
    All individuals who performed Covered Services for Instacart during the time period of September 1, 2017, up to and including May 9, 2019.
    “Covered Services” are services performed through the Instacart platform in California, while being classified as an independent contractor of Instacart, that consist of any of the following: (i) in-store services, including but not limited to, accepting a customer’s order, retrieving a customer’s selected items from a retail store, taking a customer’s order through checkout, ringing up a customer’s order at a checkout station, and/or preparing the order for delivery (“In-Store Services”); or (ii) transporting a customer’s order from the retail store to a location specified by the customer (“Delivering Services”).
    The Notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement of that lawsuit, and your legal rights. It is important that you read the Notice carefully, as your rights may be affected by the Settlement.
    Back To Top
  2. What is this class action lawsuit about?On December 18, 2017, Plaintiffs Kyra Groves, Catherine Hammons, and Timothy Pierce filed a complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Javier Cortez, Donna Burks, and Seth Blackham were later added as Named Plaintiffs. This case is entitled Groves et al. v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart**, Case No. BC695401.**
    The lawsuit claims that Instacart violated California and federal laws, including by misclassifying Shoppers as independent contractors, failing to provide equipment or reimburse Shoppers’ expenses, failing to pay wages and overtime, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to provide accurate records of hours and pay, requiring false time statements, improperly pooling tips, and related damages and penalties.
    **Instacart denies that it violated the law in any way, denies Shoppers were, or are, employees, and further denies that the lawsuit is appropriate for class treatment for any purpose other than this Settlement. Instacart has and will assert numerous defenses to these claims. Nothing in t
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 5
💬︎
👤︎ u/stopdrop1
📅︎ Feb 19 2020
🚨︎ report
John Redwood's Quick and Fast Essay about 'The Montana Supreme Court - Child Sex Abuse - Jehovah's Witnesses Organization.'

The Montana Supreme Court

I would like to thank everyone with their patience in getting some information about what happened in Billings Montana today. The Supreme Court arguments only took two hours, but the rest of my day was spent with the attorneys and the plaintiffs.

And I must say, when I have the opportunity to choose between spending time with these fine people and writing up a summary, I choose to be with these incredible people every single time.

The summary, the analysis, the social media posts- all of that can come later. I know others have watched the proceedings online, and there has also been some media coverage of this event. But let me say this- it's is a very complex case, and it will not be decided for a minimum of 4-6 months- although resolution can come sooner or later.

That being said I will offer a few observations.

Today was a special day for the State of Montana. The Capitol of Montana is Helena, but for a number of important reasons, the Supreme Court for the State heard oral arguments today in a conference room at the Northern Hotel in Billings.

Unlike the small courtroom in Thompson Falls Montana one year ago, today there were hundreds of attorneys present. Most were there to attend the Montana Trial Lawyers conference. The Nunez v Watchtower appeal was the focal point of the day.

Professor Cynthia Ford opened up the appeal hearing by discussing the details of the case. She explained upfront that this is a very complicated case, but summarized the key components very well.

Because of the complexity of this case I am only going to mention a few points, then discuss what happened in greater detail in the near future.

This is not an open and shut case. It involves many issues, from things which happened before, during and after the trial which took place a year ago next week.

Watchtower attorney Joel Taylor lied to the Montana Supreme Court.

Taylor was asked whether the Watchtower or CCJW organization would penalize someone (an elder) who decided to follow his own conscience and report allegations of child sexual abuse to the authorities.

Taylor said such persons would make their own "conscience-based decision on whether to report and that they would not be penalized. He said that would be a decision between them and God. [We all know how God treats elders who disobey]

Not only was this an outright lie, but it contradicts testimony from the trial itself, where Watchtower representative Doug Chappel acknowledged

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 281
📰︎ r/exjw
💬︎
👤︎ u/Balcacer
📅︎ Sep 14 2019
🚨︎ report
i don't like doing this but here we are

this should be 10 thousand words

nuance
inn
abundant
dough
firefighter
crutch
separate
impress
thank
appointment
pure
cunning
tiptoe
win
pedestrian
routine
evening
sunrise
alarm
period
pole
sculpture
raise
architecture
authorise
fire
nest
want
remunerate
flawed
restaurant
pen
soar
intensify
nature
country
atmosphere
lock
nonremittal
doubt
category
obese
wing
seal
aunt
withdraw
flock
score
father
champion
outlet
suspect
painter
explain
treatment
first-hand
feminine
radiation
go
disco
game
frozen
pigeon
lodge
contrary
telephone
relinquish
feast
pilot
road
policy
curriculum
hour
tension
sharp
recovery
resignation
explode
snub
solve
cotton
face
branch
vein
complain
government
jungle
see
spare
grant
experience
ground
appreciate
portion
food
husband
adoption
capital
journal
gravel
brag
projection
praise
equation
surround
salt
screen
welcome
settlement
volcano
federation
thirsty
basic
clash
tread
twist
sodium
settle
thick
agency
snatch
display
look
belong
ignorant
eject
folk
highway
march
charismatic
review
industry
chord
secure
visual
ideal
flush
block
height
horizon
wrist
glass
leaf
detail
attractive
coat
pause
instal
convenience
flat
white
van
jaw
advertising
steam
artist
theft
recommendation
care
define
program
engineer
requirement
knife
award
survivor
soldier
standard
disgrace
sick
pottery
escape
hotdog
vegetarian
tourist
veil
quiet
class
straw
innocent
essay
calendar
compose
parallel
burn
bat
holiday
spider
decorative
viable
dome
glance
bold
soft
belly
raid
slow
extraterrestrial
spill
undertake
cross
egg
particular
acceptable
flour
leash
spell
factor
cafe
offender
establish
assault
faithful
domestic
gas pedal
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 72
📰︎ r/OneWordBan
💬︎
📅︎ Nov 24 2019
🚨︎ report
Gavin's Deposition and Dustin Trammel's are the deposition's I'm most looking forward to hearing about

Gavin's been famously cagey about his stance on CSW these days. However, in deposition format he has immunity to NDA violations and he is under oath. I'm very curious about what new things we might learn about the magic show Craig put on for Gavin and about Gavin's current stance regarding CSW.

I did a whole Tweet storm on Dustin Trammell. The TLDR is he's an early miner who was mining as early as January 11th at least.

Every time Craig has tried to produced a list of what Bitcoin addresses were his he's fucked up in some way. He told the NSW court about his addresses and ended up claiming to control an address that not only didn't belong to him, but which has signed recently calling him a liar and a fraud, but he also accidentally claimed an address known to belong to the person who robbed Mt. Gox.

More recently he claimed he "definitely controlled" an address known to belong to Mike Hearn. In an effort to guard against self-incrimination he desperately enlisted the services of his bumbling CTO over at nChain, Shadders, and aforementioned CTO fucked up that "very careful analysis," which was rejected on principle as inadequate. There's little question that somewhere in the "Tulip Trust documents" delivered by his "bonded courier" there's an egregious mistake where he misattributes some address to Satoshi that can be proven not to belong to Satoshi and/or omits known addresses. The question is can the plaintiffs demonstrate that. If so the penalty will likely be additional sanctions against him from Bloom.

👍︎ 17
📰︎ r/bsv
💬︎
👤︎ u/Zectro
📅︎ Mar 06 2020
🚨︎ report
Man registers apartment as his wife’s so he can avoid paying alimony. The backfire brought me tears of joy.

I’m a clerk on a civil court in Brazil and man I love an instant karma.

Here are my previous stories if you’re interested:

The establishment | The archive drama | Barabbas & Barabbas Associated Lawyers | The theater of eviction | Public hospital is mad with social media | Choosing beggar plaintiffs

In Brazil, the incomes are low and the real estate prices are high, so the most common way to buy property is by getting the bank to buy it to you, then you pay to the bank through 5-30 years. It’s similar to a lien or a mortgage, but the property legally belongs to the bank until you pay the whole debt. This part is important.

Of course this is a dumb system and a lot of people can’t afford to pay the whole thing, then the bank sues them, gets the property back, blah-blah. This kind of thing is at least 15% of my job.

But sometimes things get interesting!

The characters here are SG (Screaming Gentleman) and Me (yours truly).

This started a few weeks ago. It’s my counter shift. Things are quiet – too quiet.

SG shows up. Looks like our classic troublemaker: a stubby man on his late 30s, ugly polo shirt and too much cologne.

SG: Hey lady, I got a letter and this thing just can’t fly! I’m being evicted from my apartment!

Me: Just a moment, I’ll check it up for you.

He’s not only being evicted, he’s being kicked out for illegally living in someone else’s property without even having a rent contract. I explain that to him.

SG: No, no, no. That’s not it. This is MY apartment.

Me: Sir, who is Madame Blahblah?

SG: That’s my ex-wife!

Me: Okay, so Madame Blahblah stopped paying for this apartment and the bank reclaimed it.

SG: No! That’s not right! That apartment is MINE. I paid almost R$100,000 on it! (this is AT BEST 2/5 of the price of any property these days)

Me: It is right. The apartment was auctioned and the new o

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 517
💬︎
📅︎ Dec 10 2019
🚨︎ report
I attended SCOTUS arguments today and I'm confused about when the government can change a law after getting sued

First off, I highly recommend attending Supreme Court oral arguments if you have the chance. Get in line by 5am and make friends with the other people in line.

Today, the court heard New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. Basically, New York City had a restrictive gun law that the Association thought was unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the state legislature passed a new law that addressed the problems raised by the plaintiffs. The government attorney argued that the case shouldn't be heard because the offending law is no longer in effect.

Is there a standard approach for what to do when a government changes a policy after a lawsuit has been filed? I have an MPA and I've had this question since grad school. It seems like this kind of thing would happen often. Yet today, the justices didn't seem to have a definite answer about mootness.

👍︎ 327
💬︎
👤︎ u/TrueBirch
📅︎ Dec 03 2019
🚨︎ report
Kupperman case: "one of the most consequential separation of powers cases in American constitutional history'

UPDATE: Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee to the Federal District Court in D.C., has fast-tracked this case because it is a “matter of great public interest and a matter of great urgency for the country.”

The judge set a Dec. 10 date for oral arguments.

Leon chafed when an attorney for the Justice Department, which represents Trump in the matter, asked for more time to reply to Kupperman’s filing because it conflicted with the holiday calendar.

“When it's a matter of this consequence to this country,” Leon said, “you roll up your sleeves and get the job done."

----

Charles Kupperman, who served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton, is seeking a judicial ruling on whether he should comply with a subpoena from the House or follow WH instructions not to appear.

>“Plaintiff obviously cannot satisfy the competing demands of both the Legislative and Executive Branches, and he is aware of no controlling judicial authority definitively establishing which Branch’s command should prevail”

Read the filing here.

This case could become the major test of what has emerged as a top constitutional dispute of the Trump era: whether the WH can prevent Trump’s top advisers from testifying before Congress.

>“If this case is ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, it will be one of the most consequential separation of powers cases in American constitutional history— however it is decided,” former federal judge J. Michael Luttig told The Washington Post.

Executive privilege on steroids

“Constitutional immunity” is essentially executive privilege on steroids. Kupperman said in the lawsuit that WH counsel Pat Cipollone ordered him not to comply with the subpoena. This is the same advice given other former WH aides including Don McGahn: they are absolutely immune from being forced to testify to Congress about their official duties; they do not even have to show up.

The outcome of this case could also guide whether Bolton, who has not been subpoenaed, will face House investigators as part of the impeachment inquiry. Both had access to private WH deliberations involving Tr

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 756
📰︎ r/Keep_Track
💬︎
📅︎ Oct 26 2019
🚨︎ report
Both Entitled Land Lord and Entitled Lawyer Attempts to Lie in a Court Case.

So, It's been 9 Months since the Court Case. We've won the case. My memory's been a bit fuzzy since it took place long ago. I am still surprised it haven't closed down. The crazy thing is that we barley have any evidence and still won the court case. Almost a year ago, We sued (Insert Apartment Name) for $3,000. It's due to both negligence and tenant fraud. Here's the story; M - My Mom S - Sister 1 S2 - Sister 2 Me - My Emperor EL - El Entitled Lawyer ELL - Entitled Land Lord Bil - Bro in Law J - The Savior of this Story GL - Good Lawyer

It's a June Friday and we're pretty tired after waking up early to head to the local courthouse. The Class Action Lawsuit is a State Matter. Therefore, It takes place in the State Courthouse. Me and S2 are sitting in the back, watching the ordeal. Here what I witnessed; J; Court is in Section. Please proceed to state your case. M; Your Honor, We would argue that ELL is responsible for negligence and fraud charges. To be honest, It's mainly due to the issue regarding the Pet Deposit and how we returned the key on Monday. EL; Well, Your Honor. I argued that she haven't called us about returning the key and she probably still have it. M; Your Honor, I returned the key to the office on Monday on the Dropbox. The office was closed at that time. The due date is clearly on a Monday. She argued that she got charged the late fee for returning the key on time. EL argued that ELL got the key the next day around the time. But the thing is that J realized that the key was returned on Monday Morning, right before it opened. J; M, What time did you claimed to returned the key? M; In the morning, Your Honor. J; (Turns to EL) You said that she got the key on Tuesday Morning. Is that true? EL; Certainly, Your Honor. She's confident that she will definitely win the case since she knows that we don't have any evidence. J; Why did you say that the key is returned on Tuesday when it clearly shows that the key is reported to be returned on the dropbox on Monday? Both EL and ELL were becoming pale in their faces, realizing their mistake. J; You clearly understand the issue regarding returning the key on the due date. Apparently, The form states that the key is returned via dropbox on Monday. ELL is clearly lying about the key being returned on Tuesday instead of Monday as justification for charging her the late fee. J; Anyways, It's time to discuss the pet deposit and the carpet issue. M argued that ELL is charging them extra for the

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 10
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 02 2020
🚨︎ report
Amicus brief filed to Supreme Court by LDS Church regarding LGBT

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1618/113408/20190823135252781_Bostock%20Amicus%20Brief%20Final%20Version%20CORRECTED.pdf

The issue here is the legal definition of "sex." Federal law makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against people based on sex. To this point, "sex" has meant gender. It's illegal for an employer to discriminate against you just because you're a woman or a man.

What this case would do, if the plaintiffs win, is add SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) to the definition of "sex." If it's illegal to discriminate against people based on their "sex," then, if the plaintiffs win this case, it will be illegal to discriminate against people based on gender, as before, AND ALSO based on SOGI.

Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws have religious exemptions built into them. TSCC's argument is that the religious exemptions are not strong enough and not broad enough. They say that if SOGI is added to the definition of "sex," that then the TSCC will be forced to hire people who are of sexual orientations and/or gender identities that are against their teachings. TSCC believes that if they don't hire someone based on their SOGI, that due to this case they will now be considered illegally discriminating against them.

Here's some highlights.

  • Emphasis mine: "Placing sexual orientation and gender identity on the list of protected classes, with no corresponding accommodation for religion, will in the minds of millions elevate those classes to the same level of moral sensitivity as race—rendering those with traditional religious beliefs on sexuality and gender morally suspect if not bigots."
  • "The right of a religious organization to control the make-up of its workforce is fundamental to achieving its religious mission, promoting its religious beliefs, and being a true faith community."
  • "Church employment will cease to reflect the faith and mission of the sponsoring religious organization, with devastating effects for that faith community."
  • "Many faith-based social service providers operate with small budgets. For them, the prospect of serious conflict with federal law may force them to close their doors and cease their vital work."
  • "Amici and other major faiths share the belief that God determines a person’s status as male or female: gender is divinely given and i
... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 59
📰︎ r/exmormon
💬︎
👤︎ u/kitan25
📅︎ Oct 12 2019
🚨︎ report
H.R. 600: Conversion Therapy Eradication Act

Sponsored by /u/centrist_marxist (Soc-List); co-sponsored by Fmr. Sen. Zairn (D-SR). Written by Fmr. Sen. /u/dewey-cheatem (S-AC)

H.R.

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be known as the “Conversion Therapy Eradication Act.”

Section 2. Definitions.

(a) “Conversion therapy” means any practices by any health provider, including but not limited to any counselor, therapist, or any other provider of mental health services, that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

(i) “Conversion therapy” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) are non-coercive; (B) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation- and gender identity-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (C) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

(ii) The subjection of any person to conversion therapy shall, for the purposes of any motion for injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, be presumed to constitute irreparable harm.

(b) “Sexual orientation” means an individual's actual or perceived romantic, physical or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.

(c) “Gender identity” means an individual's internal sense or expression of being male or female or an identity other than the traditional definitions of male or female, or the perception by others thereof.

Section 3. Declaration of Rights.

Congress declares as a privilege and immunity of all citizens of the United States the ability to be free from any forcible or non-consensual subjection to so-called ‘conversion therapy.’

Section 4. Enforcement of Rights.

(a) The use of the authority of any government or agent or officer thereof to enforce the terms or conditions associated with so-called ‘conversion therapy,’ including but not limited to the forcible transportation, carrying-away, or return to any ‘conversion therapy’ facility any person by any person acting under color of law, is deemed unlawful and is prohibited to the full extent permitted under the Fourteenth Amendment;

(b) If, through the use of any government authority or by any person acting under color of law, any person

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 6
📰︎ r/ModelUSGov
💬︎
📅︎ Nov 05 2019
🚨︎ report
Second Impeachment Incoming? Federal Court Orders Release of Mueller’s Secret Grand Jury Materials

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 61%. (I'm a bot)


> "The courts cannot tell the House how to conduct its impeachment investigation or what lines of inquiry to pursue, or how to prosecute its case before the Senate," Judge Rogers noted-in reference to the plaintiffs and victors in the ongoing legal spat between House Democrats Attorney General William Barr.

> DOJ argued for a very limited understanding of that term-claiming that impeachment hearings and trials didn't qualify and that releasing the materials would irreparably harm the agency's legal interests.

> To wit, DOJ argued that an impeachment proceeding was not a judicial proceeding but failed to account for their prior argument-also made under President Trump-in the prior year that an impeachment proceeding was considered a judicial proceeding under a precedent/definition established by legendary D.C. Circuit Judge Learned Hand in 1958.

> "Courts must take care not to second-guess the manner in which the House plans to proceed with its impeachment investigation or interfere with the House's sole power of impeachment," the decision notes.

> Democrats have long maintained that the Mueller-focused investigation and legal battle was separate and distinct from their failed Ukraine-based impeachment effort-previously argued before the lower court that the contents of Mueller's secret grand jury materials may very well lead them toward a second round of impeachment hearings.

> "A reasonable observer might wonder why we are deciding this case at this time. After all, the Committee sought these materials preliminary to an impeachment proceeding and the Senate impeachment trial has concluded. Why is this controversy not moot?" Rao asked rhetorically.


Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: impeachment^#1 proceed^#2 House^#3 court^#4 material^#5

Post found in [/r/po

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 2
📰︎ r/autotldr
💬︎
👤︎ u/autotldr
📅︎ Mar 10 2020
🚨︎ report
发点干货,CNN国际关系专家谈美国不应对中国过度恐慌

Friday, December 6, 2019 - 12:00amThe New China ScareWhy America Shouldn’t Panic About Its Latest ChallengerFareed Zakaria

FAREED ZAKARIA is the host of Fareed Zakaria GPS, on CNN, and the author of The Post-American World.

In February 1947, U.S. President Harry Truman huddled with his most senior foreign policy advisers, George Marshall and Dean Acheson, and a handful of congressional leaders. The topic was the administration’s plan to aid the Greek government in its fight against a communist insurgency. Marshall and Acheson presented their case for the plan. Arthur Vandenberg, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, listened closely and then offered his support with a caveat. “The only way you are going to get what you want,” he reportedly told the president, “is to make a speech and scare the hell out of the country.”

Over the next few months, Truman did just that. He turned the civil war in Greece into a test of the United States’ ability to confront international communism. Reflecting on Truman’s expansive rhetoric about aiding democracies anywhere, anytime, Acheson confessed in his memoirs that the administration had made an argument “clearer than truth.”

Something similar is happening today in the American debate about China. A new consensus, encompassing both parties, the military establishment, and key elements of the media, holds that China is now a vital threat to the United States both economically and strategically, that U.S. policy toward China has failed, and that Washington needs a new, much tougher strategy to contain it. This consensus has shifted the public’s stance toward an almost instinctive hostility: according to polling, 60 percent of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the People’s Republic, a record high since the Pew Research Center began asking the question in 2005. But Washington elites have made their case “clearer than truth.” The nature of the challenge from China is different from and far more complex than what the new alarmism portrays. On the single most important foreign policy issue of the next several decades, the United States is setting itself up for an expensive failure.

Let’s be clear: China is a repressive regime that engages in thoroughly illiberal policies, from banning free speech to interning religious minorities. Over the last five years, it has intensified its political control and economic statism at home. Abroad, it has become a competitor and in some places a rival of the Uni

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 7
📰︎ r/China_irl
💬︎
👤︎ u/jwang274
📅︎ Dec 06 2019
🚨︎ report
Audible settlement approved!

TL;DR: Keep an eye on your email for any Audible account you used between March 10, 2013 and August 17, 2018. You may be able to redeem for anywhere from 1-4 new books.

Just received this email from Audible re: Class Action Settlement being approved.

> Notice of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement > This notice relates to a final class action settlement. Please read this notice carefully. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. > > A class action settlement was approved by the court on August 8, 2019 in the following lawsuits: Grant McKee et al. v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01941 (C.D. Cal.), and Eric Weber et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Services LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-08868 (C.D. Cal.). The purpose of this notice is to inform settlement class members about the final settlement and steps to take to participate in the benefits of the settlement. > > > > What was the lawsuit about? These two lawsuits challenged the sufficiency of information provided to Audible customers about how membership credits work, claiming that customers may not understand that unredeemed credits are lost upon cancellation of a membership plan or upon reaching rollover limits and, for gift memberships, that credits expire following the end of the gift membership term. The lawsuits also challenged the adequacy of information provided to Audible customers related to Audible’s practice of charging other credit or debit cards on file with a customer’s Amazon account if a customer’s primary card is declined. Audible and its parent company, Amazon, dispute the claims in each of the lawsuits and believe that their business practices, and the information provided about them, are clear and understandable to customers and comply with all applicable laws. > > > > Why was there a settlement? No court decided in favor of either side in any of the lawsuits. Plaintiffs and their lawyers believe that the settlement is fair and in the best interest of the class because it provides appropriate recovery for class members now, while avoiding the risk, expense, uncertainty, and delay of continuing to pursue the lawsuits. Audible and Amazon do not believe that the claims against them had merit, but they agreed to settle because they believe that it is in the best interests of both the Audible business and Audible’s customers to enter into the settlement. > > > > Who is in the settlement class? You are a member of the cla

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 43
📰︎ r/audible
💬︎
👤︎ u/JDBAZ
📅︎ Oct 11 2019
🚨︎ report
Sudden bombshell: should I do long distance or breakup? I’m so conflicted M26 & F22

Breaking up because BF (26M) has to move away for job while I (22F) still have school — I’m devastated & conflicted

TLDR: BF has to move away for greater job opportunity while I still have school. I feel abandoned and conflicted as to what I should do: long distance or just end things? We were in love and things were going fine before this bombshell.

CONTEXT — my friends say I’m making excuses for him when I try to give context but I need unbiased advice so I feel like I need to represent his side as best as possible.

  • He is a second year associate working at internationally renowned “Big Law” Firm. He is amazingly talented and excel at what he does. He’s an associate but is already given partner level responsibilities at work. Cases that were falling apart got sustained when he gets a put on them; he carried the team with herculean efforts with two SUPER high profile securities cases (judge cited his language from his filings). Yet, he is grossly underpaid and under appreciated at his current job. He works under terrible bosses with no workflow management and is constantly, constantly the one all the partners give work to because he’s their greatest weapon against opposing counsel. He’s been with this firm for almost two years straight out of law school (where he was groomed and handpicked by their named partner) and we’ve been together for almost 1.5yrs. I’ve seen his mental and physical health decline immensely. A quick google of “big law associate life” could tell you why. He’s incredibly anxious and stressed when he’s chased by impossible deadlines, depressed every other moment. You get the point.
  • I’m a recent college grad who’s switching tracks to medicine & has to complete post-bac prereqs to go to med school. I’m currently applying to programs that’ll let me take structured prereqs courses.

OUR PROBLEM: We’ve talked pretty extensively about our plans for the future. We both hate the city we live in and both planned to GTFO as soon as I finish school. He was going to either find another job in the city or tough it out one-ish year at current Firm. He had his leasing application filled out to move in with me; I renewed my $2500/mo apt for 20mo and he chose to not renew because we were going to move in together. We talked about all the places we want to live in, planned to use any little free time he may have upcoming to tour those cities.

Fast forward to January, he randomly told me he got a job lead in the One City I said

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 4
💬︎
📅︎ Feb 17 2020
🚨︎ report
OBGYN Med Mal Case: Preeclampsia [cross posted]

Interesting case in which the patient's home BP cuff was reading high but the office cuff read normal.

This is a plaintiff's opinion, so definitely take it with a grain of salt, but the symptoms sound pretty classic.

Did not realize that HELLP/Preeclampsia could cause such severe liver injury, potentially with hematoma or hemoperitoneum.

https://expertwitness.substack.com/ ---> Case #9

👍︎ 12
📰︎ r/Residency
💬︎
👤︎ u/efunkEM
📅︎ Jun 22 2020
🚨︎ report
House Party 7/13/20 - Part One

We open our scene, as we get a panning shot of Manchester Music Hall in Lexington, Kentucky! A rabid, excited, and boozed up crowd on hand as we cut to our commentary team.

Paisner: Hello WiR Viewers, and welcome to our first House Party post Gayniversary, as we tour through the south of the United States! I’m Allen Paisner-

Woodbridge: And i’m Mark Woodbridge.

Paisner: And a show we have in store for you tonight! As we see Hippie John get a likely futile chance at revenge against Jim Baker for his previous actions, and it maye be July, but pride keeps rolling on as two famous gays in Tony Stevens and Kat Anavae-Emery clash. A match with potential title implications as Stevens has issued a challenge to independent champion Kaitlyn Casey Jones, and now must back it up! A re-match in a very unhappy, and hopefully not sue-happy for my sake’s, Austin Balandran against Cam’Ron West, and one hell of a banger in the main event! As 7 years of history collide again, as Mark Dutch and Big Money Maverick tear each other apart! But enough about the old for now, we got some new with a double debut match! Lets send it to Javier!

We cut to Javier Babaganoush, as he stands in the middle of the ring ready to announce the coming match.

Javier: The following contest is set for one fall!

Crowd: ONE FALL!

Javier: And is set for a 30 minute time limit. Your referee is Ivan Itchicock.

Badass music has descended upon the Manchester Music Hall, and the crowd doesn’t yet know how to react as the sinister notes progress, but as the guitar kicks in, a man covered in dark tattoos with black hair and facial hair has entered the building, walking with a slow pace towards the ring looking unflinching.

Paisner: We our now gonna be treated to two debuting talents in the following match, and the first of which has just entered the building. Seth Blackheart, a man who some people have described as “The Devil Himself”.

Woodbridge: I don’t know who “some people” is, but include me as one of ‘em, cause this man looks like something summoned out a satanic ritual. Gives me heebie jeebies.

Blackheart ignores fans

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 9
💬︎
👤︎ u/youto2
📅︎ Jul 19 2020
🚨︎ report
Found my mom’s beloved dog but won’t give him back? Think again!

This is my first post on Reddit (I put it in r/regularrevenge also), but my second attempt at getting the mods to allow it to stay up, so please be gentle. English is my first language but I’m a born & bred southerner, so sometimes I slip & write in a southern vernacular. Also I’m on mobile, so please forgive formatting errors. Also, Ripe (love ya) has my permission to use this story.

Okay friends, buckle up because this is a long one. Recently I watched a video by RSlash (love him), in which a redditor wanted to know if she was the asshole who, after finding a dog, & even after the rightful guardian of that (very loved & missed) dog contacted her, refused to give it back because she was now “attached”. This absolutely made my blood boil & made me want to scream in fury, because something similar happened to us years ago, and it still sticks in my craw, especially when I read how that redditor was so incredibly selfish, thinking only of herself & caring nothing for what other people were going through.

Here’s the story. Many years ago now, I gave my mother a Chihuahua puppy for Mother’s Day after her 18-year-old Akita passed away. This little dog (who I only spent $400 on-this is relevant later), let’s call him Mickey, was my mother’s baby, & they did EVERYTHING together. When he was about three years old, while my mom was at work, a workman accidentally let him run out the door & he disappeared. We searched for months for him. I spent several hundred dollars for a pet finder. We put up posters at all the vets and ads in the paper. Basically, we did everything we possibly could to find him, but with no luck.

Seven months after he went missing, I went to pick up my two dogs from a groomer/doggy daycare, & as I was writing the check to pay them, my son and his friend were watching the dogs in the play area, when I heard my son exclaim, “Mama, there’s grandma Susie’s dog!” Mickey had a very unique marking on his back that looked like a silhouette of a Mickey Mouse head, so I absolutely knew it was him, & when I said his name, he ran to the gate and jumped up trying to get to me. I got so excited because I THOUGHT my mom’s long nightmare was over, and through happy tears told the owner he was my mother’s dog who had gone missing, and I was so happy to find him because mom was grieving herself to death: she even slept with his bedtime toy that he loved so much. Well, imagine my heartache, anger & frustration w

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 11
💬︎
👤︎ u/ladydragyn
📅︎ May 23 2020
🚨︎ report
Stranger won’t return Mom’s lost dog? Watch this!

This is my very first post on Reddit, so please be gentle. English is my first language but I’m a born & bred southerner, so sometimes I slip and write in a southern vernacular. Also I’m on mobile, so please forgive formatting errors & RSlash has my permission to use my story on YouTube.

Okay friends, buckle up because this is a long one & I first put it in r/prorevenge because I thought it fit best there, but it was removed by a bot because it was my 1st post & I guess didn’t think it would qualify. So I posted in r/regular revenge & I’m curious what y’all think?

Recently I watched a video by RSlash (love him), in which a redditor wanted to know if she was the asshole who, after finding a dog, & even after the rightful guardian of that (very loved & missed) dog contacted her, refused to give it back because she was now “attached”. This absolutely made my blood boil & made me want to scream in fury, because something similar happened to us years ago, and it still sticks in my craw, especially when I read how that redditor was so incredibly selfish, thinking only of herself & caring nothing for what other people were going through.

Here’s the story. Many years ago now, I gave my mother a Chihuahua puppy for Mother’s Day after her 18-year-old Akita passed away. This little dog (who I only spent $400 on-this is relevant later), let’s call him Mickey, was my mother’s baby, & they did EVERYTHING together. When he was about three years old, while my mom was at work, a workman accidentally let him run out the door & he disappeared. We searched for months for him. I spent several hundred dollars for a pet finder detective. We put up posters at all the vets and ads in the paper. Basically, we did everything we possibly could to find him, but with no luck.

Seven months after he went missing, I went to pick up my two dogs from a groomer/doggy daycare, & as I was writing the check to pay them, my son and his friend were watching the dogs in the play area, when I heard my son exclaim, “Mama, there’s grandma Susie’s dog!” Mickey had a very unique marking on his back that looked like a silhouette of a Mickey Mouse head, so I absolutely knew it was him, & when I said his name, he ran to the gate and jumped up trying to get to me. I got so excited because I THOUGHT my mom’s long nightmare was over, and through happy tears told the owner he was my mother’s dog who had gone missing, and I was so happy to find him be

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 9
📰︎ r/rSlash_YT
💬︎
👤︎ u/ladydragyn
📅︎ May 22 2020
🚨︎ report
[Korean Law][Korean Labor Law] Determination of Employee Status, with a Checklist ... who is an Employee and who is an "Independent Contractor"

This Article is republished on this Reddit Sub with the permission of the Author. If found on other Social Media i.e. FB, please notify the moderator. Any questions should be sent here, social media platforms to not provide any expectation of confidentiality or privacy. After the Gmail Servers scan for spam and viruses your inquiry will be responded too as soon as possible.

Korean Law how to determine if you are an Employee or Independent Contractor?

Various new occupations have been created, and while a number of intermediate occupations for both workers and the self-employed have surfaced, the criteria for determining employee status have also expanded. There has been a tendency for companies to reduce direct employment by outsourcing marginalized tasks in order to reduce labor costs and generate more profit. These outsourced services include owner-operated truck drivers, onsite after-service technicians, delivery people, shop operators, call center employees, debt collectors, commissioned delivery contractors, car sales personnel, and freelancers. Companies are directly involved in the performance of their outsourced and subcontracted tasks in order to gradually expand their operating profit. The main characteristic of subcontracting or of individual business owners is that they accomplish their tasks independently. If the employer directly manages and supervises them, this can be considered a form of illegal contract or dispatch. In such cases, the company would immediately bear additional labor costs such as employment obligations, severance pay and social insurances premiums.

Judgment on the characteristics of employee status is based on a 2006 court ruling, although it can be difficult to judge employee status because issues have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and judgments vary depending on the intuition and inclination of the judges. Therefore, it could be said that it is necessary to establish a quantification standard that will take into consideration the characteristics of the work involved and the relevant issues for various individual situations, within the standard principles of the judgment. In the following paragraphs, a checklist for the determination of employee status is presented to assist in the understanding of employee status.

Criteria for Determining Employee Status

To look at employee status as it relates to the standard court ruling on this issue requires concentrati

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 3
📰︎ r/Korean_Law
💬︎
📅︎ Mar 16 2020
🚨︎ report
I am combing through all the Epstein files. You asked for it. Here it is. PART 2 - The next 300+ page breakdown.

Well, I didn’t get much sleep and [posting this goes against the recommendation of my doctor](https://nypost.com/2019/08/15/jeffrey-epsteins-gal-pal-ghislaine-maxwell-spotted-at-in-n-out-burger-in-first-photos-since-his-death/ “Epstein Gal pal found at IN-N-OUT reading book on Deaths of CIA Operatives”), but I finished it and just in time for Friday morning.

First, I would just like to say thank you to everyone who upvoted, shared this and gave me an award. You guys really motivated me to keep reading this stuff and broke my reddit with all the messages. Last night we reached 17th on the front page. I almost died when I saw that (not by two shots to the back of the head either just shock). So many people must have seen it and that is my biggest hope for this work. The more eyes the better.

Second, for all of you asking, no I do not intend to kill myself by shooting myself in the back of the head twice, [strangling myself in a way more common with murder then suicide](https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Autopsy-finds-broken-bones-in-Epstein-s-neck-14305473.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Desktop)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral “Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said”) , or any other way to be clear? I am a little exhausted, grossed out, stopped following a few people, broke my reddit, but not my neck thankfully in a mysterious fall, but other then that I am great.

Third, there is one section of pages, 34-90, exhibit E through K, that you might want to skip over, if you are trying to save time. I feel this section is important because it shows the lengths Maxwell would go try to discredit Giuffre, even though in the first dump it appears the lawyers for Giuffre argued that very little of this was used in the defenses case in their motion to dismiss, and what is going on in the underlining proceedings involved in with the documents. Lawyers will probably enjoy this the most and go read those sources directly, otherwise you can skip that content if you want. Personally, I would still read it. There are some names you might want.

Since many of you also keep asking, yes you can share this content. Do what ever you want with it. Copy and paste, save it, put it on your own blogs, use it for your own research, make a video out of it, make fun of it. A

... keep reading on reddit ➡

👍︎ 1k
📰︎ r/Epstein
💬︎
👤︎ u/pinner52
📅︎ Aug 16 2019
🚨︎ report

Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.