the Queen cannot veto anything because she has not had the authority to do so since 1911 (ie before she was born; in fact, the Parliament Act was the last Act signed into Law after receiving Royal Assent before the Veto was abolished by virtue of that Act, as part of a deal to allow King Edward to retain the Throne (hence keep the Royal Privilege, otherwise we would have had our own Bolshevik Revolution and we would not be having this conversation)).
I think you refer to the Royal Veto, which was last invoked by Queen Anne in 1707 when she vetoed the Scottish Militia Act, thus preventing the vassal State of Scotland from ever raising its own army.
...and like that new hit show, such an algorithm will ever remain the figment of someone's deranged imagination.
(I mean, seriously?? A plane that size doing 200mph eight feet off the ground not a: smashing engine pods to bits and/or b: flipping due to ground effect? And why couldn't they just fucking land it, they had the time and apparently the runway...)
just because the ruling is a mere speck at 22 years old doesn't diminish its importance in the current legal climate. I've used precedents set before the steam engine was invented.
bulk mailers use franking machines which have internal counters that the post office uses to bill according to the number of times the machine has been used to issue a letter, and/or prepaid envelopes with printed postage, and for those who don't want or need that kind of expense, physical stamps that they use to apply the proper postage charge prior to dispatch. Also works for occasional posters.
"State Versus..." Who do you think represents the State? That's right, Government.
An individual or collective body cannot represent or be represented in a court of Law unless they have legal personality (in the case of a collective, such representation in the form of a board of Directors or other leadership structure speaking for the Whole Person, either through themselves via public statement or in the case of a legal affair, through lawyers). Thus, the concept of corporate Personhood and the further concept of corporate liability which you cannot have without a legal person (your representation).
We're talking strawmen all over, and legitimately so (for once).
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
Assume that every vehicle you pass is a police officer ready to issue a citation for a moving violation. Call me paranoid, and I will laugh in your smug fucking face when you get a ticket tucked into your shirt pocket while the real cop's partner goes back up the road to retrieve your other foot. Meanwhile I'll be the safe driver.
Paranoid... is very often a very healthy state of mind.
would you have slowed down upon seeing the red and blues off in the distance? I sure shit bet you would, now shut the fuck up and pay the fine. You not only got caught breaking the law, you're on the dashcam breaking the law.
If you're intent on doing 90 in a 60 zone, a cop cruiser on silent running isn't going to put you off until he flashes you to the shoulder. You're going to have to take a big bite of that shit sandwich.
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
entrapment can only be proven when there is no intent on the perps part to commit the crime in the absence of the honeypot. If the perp could have committed the crime and had actually shown intent to do so in the absence of the honeypot, then any entrapment claim is invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not Canada's fault, the idiot turned left at Fort Erie.
the Queen cannot veto anything because she has not had the authority to do so since 1911 (ie before she was born; in fact, the Parliament Act was the last Act signed into Law after receiving Royal Assent before the Veto was abolished by virtue of that Act, as part of a deal to allow King Edward to retain the Throne (hence keep the Royal Privilege, otherwise we would have had our own Bolshevik Revolution and we would not be having this conversation)).
when was the Royal Veto effectively abolished in Canada? I can tell you when and by what Act it was abolished in England: the Parliament Act 1911.
I think you refer to the Royal Veto, which was last invoked by Queen Anne in 1707 when she vetoed the Scottish Militia Act, thus preventing the vassal State of Scotland from ever raising its own army.
wait, what?
The population of the world is nowhere near 24 billion.
Yet.
...and like that new hit show, such an algorithm will ever remain the figment of someone's deranged imagination.
(I mean, seriously?? A plane that size doing 200mph eight feet off the ground not a: smashing engine pods to bits and/or b: flipping due to ground effect? And why couldn't they just fucking land it, they had the time and apparently the runway...)
that's a seriously poor method to creating any type of legend.
...I was wondering what the Swedish Navy were chasing. Russian submarine, my arse.
just because the ruling is a mere speck at 22 years old doesn't diminish its importance in the current legal climate. I've used precedents set before the steam engine was invented.
yes, I was - specifically, your point #2 (of the Webster's definition). I was merely clarifying. :)
bulk mailers use franking machines which have internal counters that the post office uses to bill according to the number of times the machine has been used to issue a letter, and/or prepaid envelopes with printed postage, and for those who don't want or need that kind of expense, physical stamps that they use to apply the proper postage charge prior to dispatch. Also works for occasional posters.
Why fix what ain't broke??
"State Versus..." Who do you think represents the State? That's right, Government.
An individual or collective body cannot represent or be represented in a court of Law unless they have legal personality (in the case of a collective, such representation in the form of a board of Directors or other leadership structure speaking for the Whole Person, either through themselves via public statement or in the case of a legal affair, through lawyers). Thus, the concept of corporate Personhood and the further concept of corporate liability which you cannot have without a legal person (your representation).
We're talking strawmen all over, and legitimately so (for once).
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
prostitution isn't illegal, soliciting is.
in both cases it would be intended to remove any ambiguity or doubt as to quantity. Perfectly cromulent usage, IMHO. No sarcastic tone.
sick motherfuckers.
group chat comes close...
and I gave the legal definition with a proper citation. You're welcome.
Assume that every vehicle you pass is a police officer ready to issue a citation for a moving violation. Call me paranoid, and I will laugh in your smug fucking face when you get a ticket tucked into your shirt pocket while the real cop's partner goes back up the road to retrieve your other foot. Meanwhile I'll be the safe driver.
Paranoid... is very often a very healthy state of mind.
would you have slowed down upon seeing the red and blues off in the distance? I sure shit bet you would, now shut the fuck up and pay the fine. You not only got caught breaking the law, you're on the dashcam breaking the law.
If you're intent on doing 90 in a 60 zone, a cop cruiser on silent running isn't going to put you off until he flashes you to the shoulder. You're going to have to take a big bite of that shit sandwich.
Legal definition - complete with precedent:
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
slap that Black Lotus down, you know you want to.
entrapment can only be proven when there is no intent on the perps part to commit the crime in the absence of the honeypot. If the perp could have committed the crime and had actually shown intent to do so in the absence of the honeypot, then any entrapment claim is invalid.
wait, are we talking about phoney profiles, or are we talking identity theft?
no, it's not. Muons require OBSCENE amounts of energy to produce.