Yeah, there are some areas of law I'm willing to do a few minutes of research and make a fairly confident statement about. Gun laws intermingling state and federal issues and a multitude of administrative regulations and procedural rules is not an area I will make any guess about -- even as a semi-anonymous post on the web. I don't even want to think of the malpractice liability that could come out of anyone making a half-tested recommendation to "go ahead and try."
I note you blithely ignore the part where Weaver openly declared his intent to violently resist arrest. . . among other things. I hope you understand that ending a reply "fuck you, you boot-licking lapdog pussy" probably invalidates whatever you wrote before it for something like 95% of the population. I know it leaves me mildly amused.
Sometimes I find the quality of the response proves the validity of the argument. This is one of those times. I also appreciate your citations to sources supporting your statements. If wikipedia is reporting a "complete revisionism" then you should go to wikipedia and correct the errors with citations to the record.
Or, you know, drop an insult laden pederastic attack in anonymous comments. Whatever suits your tastes I guess.
Okay... you lose credibility when you cite to Ruby Ridge as a case of ATF coming down on a guy for a minor infraction. Dude was part of the Aryan nation, they were trying to flip him to infiltrate a group that is known to engage in acts of violence, illegal weapons trading and drug crimes. It was the U.S. Marshalls, not the ATF, that cornered him up at his home because he failed to appear for a hearing on the aforementioned "selling sawed off shotguns" charge -- this was absolutely a minor charge they were using to pressure him into working with the feds on their work with the Aryan nation. That's all pretty pro-forma "upholding the law" work. Everything went wrong when Mr. Weaver sent his teenage son and one of his friends out to shoot at US marshalls, one of whom died from a gunshot wound inflicted in that shoot-out. Mr. Weaver's son also died in that shoot-out, along with the family dog.
So yeah -- skipping a court date, advising the U.S. marshalls that you'll shoot anyone that comes on your property and then actually shooting and killing a U.S. Marshall -- that's just like getting busted for "cutting slightly too much off a gun barrel." Wiki-cite
Normally I'd cite you over to wikipedia for a clear answer, but their blurb on this topic seems to be drafted specifically to avoid saying whether a gunsmith can build a receiver for personal use without a license -- any other use specifically requires a license. Beware the trap of "every gun owner knows" view of the law. This looks grey to me.
Only appellate rulings are binding, and then only on the courts within that appellate court's jurisdiction. Other courts can look at that opinion, and choose to follow it if they find the reasoning compelling, but the court is also free to in gore said "two-bit judge."
Point of order here: criminal law is different than civil law. Criminal law and criminal procedure are far more straight forward. You cannot be charged with a "common law" crime - which means case law is less important to the key issues before the court. The rules of evidence and criminal practice also receive regular clarification and are relatively simple. The most complex/criminal/ offenses usually require knowledge of the law to impose liability for the criminal act (like campaign finance crimes, and financial management crimes). Most state criminal statues for the basics theft, murder, kidnapping, etc could be hand written out on a couple sheets of looseleaf. Civil law is more nuanced and open to interpretation. Its goal is to resolve disputes more or less fairly. There have been a number of academic studies in the goals of civil actions that argue that the cost and complexity is a benefit to the system in that it encourages settlement and arbitration, rather than the all or nothing world of a trial. Not saying I agree, just pointing out that this is something the legally community thinks about in a structured way.
At least in the U.S, a judge is always allowed to add their knowledge of the law to the analysis of the case before them. The rule is that a party cannot complain at appeal that a lower court failed to apply a rule that wasn't brought to the courts attention. The duty to raise points of law is on the parties before the court, but that's not a barrier to the judge saying "really, you're both wrong, the statute says x, so x is what I'm going to do here."
Then you should be a fan of the underlying article, and my original post, which concluded:
Anyway, I'm not saying this guy has found a "we win" button, but its good to see the academics turning their attention back to solving problems that actually happen in court/today/.
And that's really what i was celebrating about my field: the law is complicated and broad (to meet the vast diversity of issues it must meet and overcome) but there are times when the law cones into focus, gives you an answer, and you resolve the dispute in an instant. That's what tfa is trying to do with patent law. That is a good thing.
Would you rather hire an engineer who genuinely enjoys their work, so much so that they spend much of their free time pursuing their love of design and engineering work (i.e. free practice and training) or one that only ever looks at a problem when he's paid to do so and stops as soon as he finds an answer? I very rarely stop thinking about my cases, even when I've been off the clock for hours, I'm still mulling over the issues and trying to find better arguments. For me, its a passion.
Actually, that's not at all true. In my practice there have a couple of times where I've found a case that leads me to a statute that none of the attorneys or the judge involved in the case knew existed. In one case I read the statute to the court and opposing counsel nonsuited (voluntarily dismissed) his own suit.
Practicing law is fun BECAUSE it is complicated and too big a field of knowledge for any one person to know everything - you learn over time, get better, find the tools that work for you and find new ways to apply them. But sometimes, you just need to sit down and plow through a 50 page statute to find the tool you need. We've got a half-dozen competing content filtering software tools that are supposed to make the job easier, but there's just no replacement for starting with the written law.
Anyway, I'm not saying this guy has found a "we win" button, but its good to see the academics turning their attention back to solving problems that actually happen in court/today/.
Ideology again. Other countries tried "do nothing" Ireland and Britain for example. We're blowing them away. Japan "did nothing" for a decade and almost saw total economic collapse. Fear and money do NOT travel well together. Research and experience show that investing in kick starting the economy works and has lasting effects.
Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".
Yes, that's why it's down to 20 years.
The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).
This is on their radar, but it's a few generations off:
Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
An amusing concept -- given that as designed it doesn't even require a trust fund to make payments, but currently has a trust fund engineered to carry it through the next 20 years of retiring baby boomers before matching income to outflow reduces payments by... I think the current estimate is 12%. OMG, 12% cut in pay, SS is doomed!! DOOOOMED! The only thing that can kill social security, as it is presently enacted, is congress changing the way social security income is put into the system.
It is much more like a hacker/cracker / stupid child who's been around anon enough to pick up the jargon and think of using pastebin to post stuff and then he just fucking made it up.
To review, he gives speeches to Congress and can ask them nicely to do things. He can convene Congress outside its schedule, but he can only adjourn it if Congress itself is unable to reach an agreement on adjournment.
The only single person vested with more power over congress than the president is the speaker of the house.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there are some areas of law I'm willing to do a few minutes of research and make a fairly confident statement about. Gun laws intermingling state and federal issues and a multitude of administrative regulations and procedural rules is not an area I will make any guess about -- even as a semi-anonymous post on the web. I don't even want to think of the malpractice liability that could come out of anyone making a half-tested recommendation to "go ahead and try."
I note you blithely ignore the part where Weaver openly declared his intent to violently resist arrest. . . among other things. I hope you understand that ending a reply "fuck you, you boot-licking lapdog pussy" probably invalidates whatever you wrote before it for something like 95% of the population. I know it leaves me mildly amused.
Sometimes I find the quality of the response proves the validity of the argument. This is one of those times. I also appreciate your citations to sources supporting your statements. If wikipedia is reporting a "complete revisionism" then you should go to wikipedia and correct the errors with citations to the record.
Or, you know, drop an insult laden pederastic attack in anonymous comments. Whatever suits your tastes I guess.
Doubly so if you are a big-mouth punk with a "Fuck the Law" attitude.
And really, who isn't a big-mouthed punk anymore. /sigh
I appreciate you're carefully developed argument and sound logic. Please go on.
Okay ... you lose credibility when you cite to Ruby Ridge as a case of ATF coming down on a guy for a minor infraction. Dude was part of the Aryan nation, they were trying to flip him to infiltrate a group that is known to engage in acts of violence, illegal weapons trading and drug crimes. It was the U.S. Marshalls, not the ATF, that cornered him up at his home because he failed to appear for a hearing on the aforementioned "selling sawed off shotguns" charge -- this was absolutely a minor charge they were using to pressure him into working with the feds on their work with the Aryan nation. That's all pretty pro-forma "upholding the law" work. Everything went wrong when Mr. Weaver sent his teenage son and one of his friends out to shoot at US marshalls, one of whom died from a gunshot wound inflicted in that shoot-out. Mr. Weaver's son also died in that shoot-out, along with the family dog.
So yeah -- skipping a court date, advising the U.S. marshalls that you'll shoot anyone that comes on your property and then actually shooting and killing a U.S. Marshall -- that's just like getting busted for "cutting slightly too much off a gun barrel." Wiki-cite
Normally I'd cite you over to wikipedia for a clear answer, but their blurb on this topic seems to be drafted specifically to avoid saying whether a gunsmith can build a receiver for personal use without a license -- any other use specifically requires a license. Beware the trap of "every gun owner knows" view of the law. This looks grey to me.
Wikipedia's moderately bad article on point..
I can imagine a lawyer saying "interesting", which is a word you never want to hear from a lawyer if you're the one paying.
You don't want to hear that from your doctor, either.
Or any professional really.
e.g. Programer, "Hmm, this code is really interesting" crap, there goes the production schedule.
Structural engineer, "You have a really interesting set of loads on this wall." Well, that's going to need to be overhauled.
Scientist, "That's an interesting question." So, we don't know yet.
We certainly live in "interesting" times.
Not fast enough to make me go into the walled garden.
Only appellate rulings are binding, and then only on the courts within that appellate court's jurisdiction. Other courts can look at that opinion, and choose to follow it if they find the reasoning compelling, but the court is also free to in gore said "two-bit judge."
Point of order here: criminal law is different than civil law. Criminal law and criminal procedure are far more straight forward. You cannot be charged with a "common law" crime - which means case law is less important to the key issues before the court. The rules of evidence and criminal practice also receive regular clarification and are relatively simple. The most complex /criminal/ offenses usually require knowledge of the law to impose liability for the criminal act (like campaign finance crimes, and financial management crimes). Most state criminal statues for the basics theft, murder, kidnapping, etc could be hand written out on a couple sheets of looseleaf. Civil law is more nuanced and open to interpretation. Its goal is to resolve disputes more or less fairly. There have been a number of academic studies in the goals of civil actions that argue that the cost and complexity is a benefit to the system in that it encourages settlement and arbitration, rather than the all or nothing world of a trial. Not saying I agree, just pointing out that this is something the legally community thinks about in a structured way.
At least in the U.S, a judge is always allowed to add their knowledge of the law to the analysis of the case before them. The rule is that a party cannot complain at appeal that a lower court failed to apply a rule that wasn't brought to the courts attention. The duty to raise points of law is on the parties before the court, but that's not a barrier to the judge saying "really, you're both wrong, the statute says x, so x is what I'm going to do here."
Anyway, I'm not saying this guy has found a "we win" button, but its good to see the academics turning their attention back to solving problems that actually happen in court /today/.
And that's really what i was celebrating about my field: the law is complicated and broad (to meet the vast diversity of issues it must meet and overcome) but there are times when the law cones into focus, gives you an answer, and you resolve the dispute in an instant. That's what tfa is trying to do with patent law. That is a good thing.
Would you rather hire an engineer who genuinely enjoys their work, so much so that they spend much of their free time pursuing their love of design and engineering work (i.e. free practice and training) or one that only ever looks at a problem when he's paid to do so and stops as soon as he finds an answer? I very rarely stop thinking about my cases, even when I've been off the clock for hours, I'm still mulling over the issues and trying to find better arguments. For me, its a passion.
Actually, that's not at all true. In my practice there have a couple of times where I've found a case that leads me to a statute that none of the attorneys or the judge involved in the case knew existed. In one case I read the statute to the court and opposing counsel nonsuited (voluntarily dismissed) his own suit.
/today/.
Practicing law is fun BECAUSE it is complicated and too big a field of knowledge for any one person to know everything - you learn over time, get better, find the tools that work for you and find new ways to apply them. But sometimes, you just need to sit down and plow through a 50 page statute to find the tool you need. We've got a half-dozen competing content filtering software tools that are supposed to make the job easier, but there's just no replacement for starting with the written law.
Anyway, I'm not saying this guy has found a "we win" button, but its good to see the academics turning their attention back to solving problems that actually happen in court
Ideology again. Other countries tried "do nothing" Ireland and Britain for example. We're blowing them away. Japan "did nothing" for a decade and almost saw total economic collapse. Fear and money do NOT travel well together. Research and experience show that investing in kick starting the economy works and has lasting effects.
These are fears , not facts, and certainly not "math"
Its procedural?
You've offered no math and no support for your claims. You don't have "math" you have ideology.
Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".
Yes, that's why it's down to 20 years.
The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
source
As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).
Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
source
An amusing concept -- given that as designed it doesn't even require a trust fund to make payments, but currently has a trust fund engineered to carry it through the next 20 years of retiring baby boomers before matching income to outflow reduces payments by ... I think the current estimate is 12%. OMG, 12% cut in pay, SS is doomed!! DOOOOMED! The only thing that can kill social security, as it is presently enacted, is congress changing the way social security income is put into the system.
It is much more like a hacker/cracker / stupid child who's been around anon enough to pick up the jargon and think of using pastebin to post stuff and then he just fucking made it up.
Slashdot logic: Something i like: is being associated with something bad? It must be a false flag attack.
China is actively working to subvert government it systems? Irrelevant. Cyber-Command will be built on the crumbling remains of bit coin. Srsly?
To review, he gives speeches to Congress and can ask them nicely to do things. He can convene Congress outside its schedule, but he can only adjourn it if Congress itself is unable to reach an agreement on adjournment.
The only single person vested with more power over congress than the president is the speaker of the house.