And how does that take away from my original point, that if you stop paying your taxes, you'll find out who really owns the property?
"Ownership" of land today is really just a form of usufruct. You can use it, but you have many, MANY restrictions on how, and on how you can dispose of it. That's not "ownership" in the same way as ownership of, say, a pizza, which you are free to pass on to a friend of family member w/o government involvement.
Perhaps we need a new term - "Free as in pizza," since there are restrictions on beer (age, licensing, etc).
The government can levy a tax because they are sovereign. It means, among other things, that ultimate ownership devolves to the government, even if you think you "own" it.
Think of it for a minute - your government can tax your land "ownership", same as a feudal lord - but a foreign government can't - because they cannot exert sovereignty over it. They have control of it - not you.
Especially when you consider every building will be a government building eventually.
What do you mean "eventually"? Stop paying your property tax and you'll find out who the real owner is...
Sovereign states own all the land within their confines. You have the right to "buy" some of it, but you will pay "taxes" (rent) for that "ownership privilege".
What you're really buying is the usufruct of the land. You will never own it, even if the mortgage is paid.
It's a meaningless threat. And the more people who look at the material, the more meaningless it becomes.
Would you want to hire someone so STUPID and TIMID that they can be cowed into not reading information that's available in the New York Times? These are the types who are most open to being blackmailed over the most minor stuff.
In other words, do the exact opposite if you want to be hired by the government in the future.
This makes me wonder how many people are cloning their pets and bringing them back.
I'm not sure I could do that myself. I miss some of mine, but would it be appropriate to bring them back, or should I just get another?
Don't know. But I think about it.
There are so many that need homes right now... I know that I miss my first Newfie and my St. Bernard, but I also know that when my current Newfie and mutt pass on, there will always be other large dogs that need a home...
Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, lay people ARE allowed to represent others in some jurisdictions already.
I know one of them - she practices family law. The way it works is simple - she doesn't charge, but accepts gifts. As long as the gifts are satisfactory, she will continue the representation; as long as the representation is satisfactory, they continue to give gifts.
Bonus - gifts below a certain amount are tax - free.
Precedents do not have the force of statute. The Constitution overrides all precedents, as I pointed out. This is why the US has a Constitution - so that, when precedent and the Constitution conflict, precedent yields.
As I pointed out, this was the case with slavery and abortion, and is currently the case in several states wrt same-sex marriage. Precedent ("tradition") simply does not have the force of law when the statues (law) disagrees.
Also, you are purposefully being thick-skulled when you pretend not to understand that most people simply cannot afford to pay a lawyer, so they are denied competent representation if they cannot have a person who is skilled at arguing a case, but not a lawyer, to represent them.
The precedent for THAT, since you think that precedent should over-ride statute, is that people have always been entitle to argue their own cases.
As someone who not only has successfully argued civil and criminal cases, but routinely dispenses legal advice for free, etc., I find your remarks uninformed at best, trite at worst, and boorish in either case.
Go spend 1,000 or more hours in court, get some REAL experience, then come back and argue.
And yes, I anticipate that one day I will be asked to present this argument in court, that people have the legal right to use a non-lawyer to represent them if they so choose. I'm looking forward to it.
And I can point you to hundreds of years of legal precedent that indicates a lay person is not able to give proper representation
Wrong on two points:
Precedents aren't law - just precedents. Every law that's been overturned has had precedent on its' side, from slavery to abortion to anti-gay-marriage. Precedent (or jurisprudence) has to yield to constitutional rights every time.
The denial of the representation of your choice is unconstitutional in that it violates your right to due process, because it requires you to make a less than complete defense in many cases.
#1 A car that is mostly driven by females, but is occasionally driven by the males as well.
Common examples are: beetles, sunfires, neons, miatas, civics
# 2: An automobile preferred by women, usually 'toylike', most often white in color.
Classic examples- VW Rabbit convertible, Mazda Miata, new VW Beetle.
Nice try, but a totally invalid argument.
Just because you claim something to be invalid does not make it so. So assertions that your opinion of what is an isn't a valid argument is a pompous and egotistical assertion before anyone's even bothered to read whatever drivel follows.
So show me where it says you have a constitutional right to hire unlicensed electricians.
So you're suggeting California needs to rid of hippies, allow coal and nuclear power plants to juice up the state, taxes should be lowered significantly, and electric cars should be put on the back-burner for now? Hmm.... Sounds like modern-day witchcraft to me. BURN THE WITCH!
Can't be any worse than the voodoo economics of California's budget:-)
What I'm suggesting is that the problem is self-correcting, given time. California can't afford to give out a $5,500 subsidy (atop the fed subsidy) to e-cars. So that will lessen demand.
Further, as more people leave, housing values fall further underwater, accelerating the trend of people walking away from underwater homes. Eventually, all those homes will have to be cleared out at their true market price.
At that point, two things happen:
With housing now reasonably priced, people who buy houses actually no longer end up being "house-poor". They actually have some money left over after the mortgage for things like muni and state taxes, spending at local restaurants and stores, etc.
Everyone else who was holding back in the hope of a housing price rebound finally capitulates, flushing all the bad mortgages out of the system and allowing a true recovery to start.
You have no constitutionally-protected right to do electrical work yourself, drive a car, or whatever - you DO have both a constitutional right and a right in equity to representation as well as freedom of expression, and limiting your choice of representation infringes on your ability to exercise that right.
While I can handle myself in a court pro se, someone else may not be able to. For all practical purposes, they cannot do the pro se thing, so they are forced to go without adequate representation. They do not, de facto, enjoy equal protection under the law, based on their inability, their financial situation, their lack of experience, and the laws' refusal to allow them to pick a non-lawyer to speak for them.
And that is unconstitutional, as it deprives them of the full exercise of their due process rights. It makes some people "more equal" before the law than them.
Also, if someone can represent themselves without any license, why should they not also be allowed to do the same for others. Nothing changes in the equation - in both cases, you have a non-lawyer practicing law. It could even be the exact same type of case. Or even two parties on the same side in the same case. Why can't one of them say "I'm letting her do the talking for both of us"?
The person they're asking for sanctions against was not a party;
One of the motions was successful - hence proving that a judge found the filings were NOT, in the courts judgement, frivolous;
The defendant has filed their own motion for similar sanctions, because the motion for sanctions was obviously frivolous.
And yes, he has grounds to file a lawsuit as well as ask for sanctions, since they HAVE now dragged him into a separate proceeding, as well as infringed on his constitutional rights - he should make a federal case out of it.
The request for sanctions doesn't prejudice his other rights of recourse. And since he's a lawyer, it's not like he has to go out and hire a lawyer - though he should, just to add to his damage claims.
The current lawsuit is the USCG suing over losing money because people were successfully opposing their claims.
"Gee whiz, we should be compensated because we lost!"
That's not how it works, they know that's not how it works, and if this doesn't meet the "frivolous" standard, then the standard is meaningless and should be stricken.
That's how I would attack their filing - by asking the court "if this isn't frivolous, please set the bar so we know just how much stupidity and cupidity we CAN get away with."
That's irrelevant. The point is that this is an illegitimate restriction on the constitutional right of a person to a full and complete defense, if their only possibility of such a defense rests with a non-lawyer.
The availability of public defenders also doesn't enter into it. They have a history of not providing a full and complete defense.
Further, what if you're the plaintiff in a civil case. You should be able to appoint someone else - even a non-lawyer - to act for you.
Lawyers should have to compete the same as anyone else. Most of them are hacks.
Also, the ability of the judge to not only be the one pressing the charge of contempt of court, but also the judge, is an example of something that needs to be challenged, since the judge is obviously both an interested party (being the plaintiff) and the judge. A very clear conflict of interest in what is a criminal complaint.
And now for something intelligent because your a moron....
As I did the math once on a 12 volt transformer. a 1000 watt 12 volt transformer only draws 100 watts at 120 volts( a little more due to inefficiencies actually) However you can light one room with a single 100 watt lightbulb , or you can light several at 12 volts. It isn't done often as it isn't convenient and introduces more points of failure.
I think you're confusing watts and amps.
A thousand watt transformer will draw (even assuming 100% efficiency) 8.3 amps at 120 volts. If it draws only 100 watts at 120 volts, guess what - it's a 100 watt transformer. A 1000 watt 12 volt transformer would be 83 amps. Watts = Amps * Volts.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ownership" of land today is really just a form of usufruct. You can use it, but you have many, MANY restrictions on how, and on how you can dispose of it. That's not "ownership" in the same way as ownership of, say, a pizza, which you are free to pass on to a friend of family member w/o government involvement.
Perhaps we need a new term - "Free as in pizza," since there are restrictions on beer (age, licensing, etc).
Think of it for a minute - your government can tax your land "ownership", same as a feudal lord - but a foreign government can't - because they cannot exert sovereignty over it. They have control of it - not you.
Try seceding.
Especially when you consider every building will be a government building eventually.
What do you mean "eventually"? Stop paying your property tax and you'll find out who the real owner is ...
Sovereign states own all the land within their confines. You have the right to "buy" some of it, but you will pay "taxes" (rent) for that "ownership privilege".
What you're really buying is the usufruct of the land. You will never own it, even if the mortgage is paid.
Two points:
In other words, do the exact opposite if you want to be hired by the government in the future.
wikileaks
This makes me wonder how many people are cloning their pets and bringing them back.
I'm not sure I could do that myself. I miss some of mine, but would it be appropriate to bring them back, or should I just get another?
Don't know. But I think about it.
There are so many that need homes right now ... I know that I miss my first Newfie and my St. Bernard, but I also know that when my current Newfie and mutt pass on, there will always be other large dogs that need a home ...
-- Barbie
Pass the mint jelly :-)
I know one of them - she practices family law. The way it works is simple - she doesn't charge, but accepts gifts. As long as the gifts are satisfactory, she will continue the representation; as long as the representation is satisfactory, they continue to give gifts.
Bonus - gifts below a certain amount are tax - free.
Just like you :-)
Sorry, but it's not my fault your reading comprehension or your logic (or both) isn't the best.
my wife drives the SHIT out of my Miata, so I win either way you go.
You have a funny definition of "win". Someone beating the crap out of your car hardly constitutes a win in most people's books. :-)
Well, you're obviously trolling pretty hard, but you fail. Have a nice day :-)
As I pointed out, this was the case with slavery and abortion, and is currently the case in several states wrt same-sex marriage. Precedent ("tradition") simply does not have the force of law when the statues (law) disagrees.
Also, you are purposefully being thick-skulled when you pretend not to understand that most people simply cannot afford to pay a lawyer, so they are denied competent representation if they cannot have a person who is skilled at arguing a case, but not a lawyer, to represent them.
The precedent for THAT, since you think that precedent should over-ride statute, is that people have always been entitle to argue their own cases.
As someone who not only has successfully argued civil and criminal cases, but routinely dispenses legal advice for free, etc., I find your remarks uninformed at best, trite at worst, and boorish in either case.
Go spend 1,000 or more hours in court, get some REAL experience, then come back and argue.
And yes, I anticipate that one day I will be asked to present this argument in court, that people have the legal right to use a non-lawyer to represent them if they so choose. I'm looking forward to it.
-- Barbie
And I can point you to hundreds of years of legal precedent that indicates a lay person is not able to give proper representation
Wrong on two points:
-- Barbie
Dude, you bought a girl car? That's a Miata at the top of the page.
Car Talk - "The Ultimate Chick Cars of All Time"
-- Barbie
The current lawsuit is the USCG suing over losing money because people were successfully opposing their claims.
No it's because the defendants to USCG filings were filing various motions that the USCG had to spend time - and therefore money - responding to.
Think about it. If the people opposing their claims had failed, USCG would have sued them instead.
-- Barbie
Nice try, but a totally invalid argument. Just because you claim something to be invalid does not make it so. So assertions that your opinion of what is an isn't a valid argument is a pompous and egotistical assertion before anyone's even bothered to read whatever drivel follows.
So show me where it says you have a constitutional right to hire unlicensed electricians.
Or a Wii? Wave your arms around and things happen. Move the steering wheel and crash into another car. Kids get that at an early age.
Let us know what the weather is like at Gitmo this time of year :-)
So you're suggeting California needs to rid of hippies, allow coal and nuclear power plants to juice up the state, taxes should be lowered significantly, and electric cars should be put on the back-burner for now? Hmm.... Sounds like modern-day witchcraft to me. BURN THE WITCH!
Can't be any worse than the voodoo economics of California's budget :-)
What I'm suggesting is that the problem is self-correcting, given time. California can't afford to give out a $5,500 subsidy (atop the fed subsidy) to e-cars. So that will lessen demand.
Further, as more people leave, housing values fall further underwater, accelerating the trend of people walking away from underwater homes. Eventually, all those homes will have to be cleared out at their true market price.
At that point, two things happen:
You have no constitutionally-protected right to do electrical work yourself, drive a car, or whatever - you DO have both a constitutional right and a right in equity to representation as well as freedom of expression, and limiting your choice of representation infringes on your ability to exercise that right.
While I can handle myself in a court pro se, someone else may not be able to. For all practical purposes, they cannot do the pro se thing, so they are forced to go without adequate representation. They do not, de facto, enjoy equal protection under the law, based on their inability, their financial situation, their lack of experience, and the laws' refusal to allow them to pick a non-lawyer to speak for them.
And that is unconstitutional, as it deprives them of the full exercise of their due process rights. It makes some people "more equal" before the law than them.
Also, if someone can represent themselves without any license, why should they not also be allowed to do the same for others. Nothing changes in the equation - in both cases, you have a non-lawyer practicing law. It could even be the exact same type of case. Or even two parties on the same side in the same case. Why can't one of them say "I'm letting her do the talking for both of us"?
-- Barbie
And yes, he has grounds to file a lawsuit as well as ask for sanctions, since they HAVE now dragged him into a separate proceeding, as well as infringed on his constitutional rights - he should make a federal case out of it.
The request for sanctions doesn't prejudice his other rights of recourse. And since he's a lawyer, it's not like he has to go out and hire a lawyer - though he should, just to add to his damage claims.
-- Barbie
"Gee whiz, we should be compensated because we lost!"
That's not how it works, they know that's not how it works, and if this doesn't meet the "frivolous" standard, then the standard is meaningless and should be stricken.
That's how I would attack their filing - by asking the court "if this isn't frivolous, please set the bar so we know just how much stupidity and cupidity we CAN get away with."
What do you mean by "was" the way to go? AFAIK electric heating is still the cheapest solution in Quebec.
Do you want to compare bills? It's nowhere near equal.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/compare-heating-costs.cfm?attr=4#changeSource
Gaz Mets' last bill was 28.3 cents per cubic meter (including the 4% "green fund"), for 37.3 mJ of energy in each cubic meter.
Hydro quebec rate D (domestic) is 7.5 cents/kwh. for 3.6 mJ of energy.
In other words, the same 37.3 mJ would have cost almost 80 cents, not 28.3 cents.
Hydro can be cheaper IF:
But for a straight-up resistive (baseboard) heating system. you're paying more. Lots more.
And it gets worse if you suck lots of juice, because you'll pay higher Hydro rates.
The availability of public defenders also doesn't enter into it. They have a history of not providing a full and complete defense.
Further, what if you're the plaintiff in a civil case. You should be able to appoint someone else - even a non-lawyer - to act for you.
Lawyers should have to compete the same as anyone else. Most of them are hacks.
Also, the ability of the judge to not only be the one pressing the charge of contempt of court, but also the judge, is an example of something that needs to be challenged, since the judge is obviously both an interested party (being the plaintiff) and the judge. A very clear conflict of interest in what is a criminal complaint.
-- Barbie
And now for something intelligent because your a moron....
As I did the math once on a 12 volt transformer. a 1000 watt 12 volt transformer only draws 100 watts at 120 volts( a little more due to inefficiencies actually) However you can light one room with a single 100 watt lightbulb , or you can light several at 12 volts. It isn't done often as it isn't convenient and introduces more points of failure.
I think you're confusing watts and amps.
A thousand watt transformer will draw (even assuming 100% efficiency) 8.3 amps at 120 volts. If it draws only 100 watts at 120 volts, guess what - it's a 100 watt transformer. A 1000 watt 12 volt transformer would be 83 amps. Watts = Amps * Volts.
-- Barbie