Making a federal law legalizing abortion would in no way remove the question from the purview of the SCOTUS. Row v Wade is a decision on the issue of constitutionality of such laws, be they state, local, or federal. A federal law would be just as subject to the constitutionality determination as any other law.
Noishkel pretty clearly said he thought the guy 'walked into it.' This would mean he had sex with a prostitute, presumably unaware she was a minor.
DogDude seemed offended that Noishkel implied a setup when the guy intentionally hired a prostitute. I was pointing out that slipping him a minor would be the setup part.
OK, I didn't say anything about that, but, no, it isn't:
Texas law permits individuals who have reached the age of majority (18) to get married without parental consent. However, those 14 and older may get married with the consent of their parents or legal guardians. In those instances, consent must be given within 30 days prior to applying for a marriage license. -https://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html
So, 14 with parents' consent or 18 without. Not 16.
That's irrelevant, though, because they didn't get married. They had sex.
The Texas Age of Consent is 17 years old. In the United States, the age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 16 or younger in Texas are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape. -https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/texas
There are (some) defenses available if the older party is not more than three years older than the minor, but this guy's more than three years older than her.
It's not clear to me that he was looking for a minor based on the way they hooked up. But if he had sex with a 16 year old, then he's suspicious. Maybe she really does look older. Or maybe he was really happy to hit a high-schooler.
I don't think we can know if he's a pedophile or not with the information we have.
I think he means the suspicious part is that she was underaged. There is a vast difference between solicitation and statutory rape. A solicitation charge will generally result in a fine or a very short stint in jail. Stat. rape is a felony and you will probably wind up in actual prison (not merely jail).
I think the idea seems plausible at least in part because the website supposedly screens everyone to be over 18. However, I really doubt they are trying that hard.
On the other hand, the setup theory implies an adversary that has access to a trustworthy minor willing to bang strangers for money/the cause. This seems a little too much like the plot of a John Grisham novel to me. Not that it's impossible, just that someone will need to show some real evidence before I'll pay much attention.
The (alleged) sex happened in Texas. He was traveling on business (after the (alleged) sex) when the State Dept revoked his passport. Taiwan is simply deporting a foreign national with revoked documentation.
It happened in Texas. He left for Taiwan on a previously scheduled business trip after the encounter before the cops could arrest him. It seems to be unknown if he was aware the cops were after him when he got on the plane.
However, he missed his scheduled return flight, which seems mighty similar to avoiding prosecution.
The US Dept of State reserves the right to revoke AmCit passports for fugitives. They did so in this case, which dodges the entire extradition issue. Taiwan simply arrests him for illegal presence in the country and deports him.
Many, many inmates make plans to start businesses when they get out. Unfortunately, they mostly have very poor educational backgrounds and there is a ton of basic stuff they don't understand.
I spent my entire sentence teaching anybody who was interested the basics of business. It ranged from the definition of "profit", to benefits of differentiation strategies vs cost leadership strategies.
I forgot all about how that first Walmart trip was after I got out. I just stood there against the front wall staring at the shelves. I couldn't make out individual items, it was like there was static in my head. Completely overwhelmed. F'ing ridiculous. It's been two years, I'm good at stores now, though I still get a little freaked by crowds. I have a real problem dealing with change, now, too, and that sucks. I also have a super-hard time talking to women, but, hey, don't rob banks, right?
You are conflating the monopoly-style abuses of individual companies managing their sites with the arbitrage abuses of ISPs.
The first are (at least somewhat) addressable via market mechanisms, as consumers can redirect their traffic to other sites more in line with their views.
The second are not addressable via market mechanisms because the arbitrage happens out of the sight of the consumers. This means that the ISPs get to choose winners among content providers. This is why Netflix sued Comcast. Net neutrality regulation is designed to prevent this second kind of abuse.
Mixing these two problems up just impedes the conversation.
This is a state case in the state system. It can only go to the SCOTUS if they can get into the federal system. This requires them to show some kind of federal jurisdiction or a constitutional issue.
If they can make this showing, they can go to the US District Court. If they lose there, they go to the US Appeals Court for that district. If they lose there, they appeal to the SCOTUS (and good luck with that; they decide less than 150 cases each year out of about 7000 requests).
However, the issues at play here seem pretty clean and inside state jurisdiction. This makes it hard to come up with convincing arguments that the feds should step in. That means that any of the three federal court levels listed above might refuse to hear the case, in which case, they're baked.
No, if a cop smells mj, that is probable cause all by itself. No need for a dog at that point, the officer can get everyone out of the car and search it. Period. What's more, he can pat down all passengers for 'officer safety'.
Asking for consent to search, and calling the dogs when consent is withheld is SOP for many departments.
On the other hand, the driver may have a get out of jail free card because the wait for the dog extended the duration of the stop. That's a no-no. That's an appellate issue, though, so he'll have to wait for that.
IANAL and I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that the current standard is that if the call for the drug dog does not extend the time for the purpose of the stop to be fulfilled (the ticket is written), then the drug dog search is valid. If waiting for the dog extends the duration of the stop, then it is impermissible and the results are not valid.
Once you are arrested, the appropriate recourse is through the courts. In this case, obviously, through the appeals courts.
Not because it's not concealable. It's because it is 'not testimonial'.
Disclosing "things you know", like combinations, PINs, and pass-codes is considered to be testimony. Lots of precedent about forced testimony exists.
Keys, bio-metrics, DNA, maps, etc. are things that you have, or things that you are. These are not testimonial, and therefore you can be compelled to disclose them.
In the United States the answer varies based on jurisdiction. Each of our 50 states have a complete set of laws, and many of them are strikingly different from each other. Many of the differences here are derived from the very different regional cultures. For instance, compare the gun laws in Connecticut (extremely tight) with Florida or Texas (very permissive).
Additionally, there is a Federal system that applies to all 50 states, but only for some issues. Problematically, the federal system is broken up into different districts, which sometimes decide similar issues differently, which is called a 'Circuit Split'. Some districts are defendant friendly (like the 9th - California and western states), some are prosecutor friendly (like the 6th - Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). When the circuits split badly enough, the Supreme Court may hear a case and render a decision that then becomes the law of the land for everybody everywhere all the time.
The issue in this case has not been settled, but there is a little precedent holding that you do not have to disclose combinations, PINs, and pass-codes. These are 'something that you know', which makes it testimony and we have lots of good precedent that you do not have to testify against yourself.
It rarely happens, but a defendant can object to government's motion to drop charges. Judges will only give these objections serious consideration when they believe that there is a likelihood of some governmental abuse going on (and they give a shit about it). In these cases, a judge may deny the motion to drop and the case will proceed.
The government makes the motion when they think they are likely to lose in order to 'moot' the issue, which just means to make it no longer a contested issue in this case. They can then continue using the contested behavior because there was no judicial finding that it was unconstitutional.
Federal Prison inmates object to government motions to dismiss all the time. Every once in a while they are successful. Then we get new case law.
Well, framework-wise, the warrant requirement is what stops the search. Once there is a warrant (meaning a judge has agreed there is probable cause to believe there evidence of criminal activity), LE can usually search.
In your example, the evidence of criminal activity would be found, everyone would go to trial, and the evidence would be contested for 'admissibility'. There a fact-finder (the judge) would determine if the evidence was in fact privileged.
If so, that evidence will be thrown out, as well as any evidence discovered based on the disclosure of that evidence (this is the so-called "fruit of the poison tree"). Then the government can try to get that evidence back in by claiming inevitable discovery, and a donnybrook ensues.
If the evidence is not privileged, it will be admitted, defendants will probably be found guilty, and it's off to the appeals courts to try to get it overturned. Good luck, they'll need it.
Odd thing about this case is that there is some legal precedent that pass-codes and PINs are testimonial ("something you know"), whereas keys and fingerprints are not (they are "something you possess"). Pass-codes and PINs may be 5th Amendment protected. He's in Florida, though, so I'm not sure how they have ruled.
My school didn't usually usually call it "the Standard Oil strategy". We generally referred to it as Monopoly strategy or Dominance strategy. There are lots of more recent examples to use (lookin' at you, Microsoft).
Here's the problem. You can't 'maintain' high profit margins by driving your prices 'artificially low'. When your prices are artificially low, you have low profit margins . You have high profit margins when your prices are artificially high.
I likewise assume he is trying to make a case for monopolistic behavior. Monopolistic behavior happens in two phases, one with low prices to remove competitors, one with high prices (and high margins) to realize economic profits (as opposed to accounting profits). If you're actually seeing these phases alternate, you should see a long period of high prices (profit taking) interspersed with short periods of low prices (to discourage some competitor from entering the market). What he is describing is the opposite. He then says it's 'unsustainable', which is the OPPOSITE of a monopoly market position. Monopolies are super-sustainable; free markets have no mechanism to dislodge a solidified monopoly.
As far as the reference to Proverbs, in my opinion it is discussing moving around on the demand curve, and that is fine. I prefer the differentiation strategy to cost leadership, but that's just a personal preference.
Slashdot Mirror
Making a federal law legalizing abortion would in no way remove the question from the purview of the SCOTUS. Row v Wade is a decision on the issue of constitutionality of such laws, be they state, local, or federal. A federal law would be just as subject to the constitutionality determination as any other law.
Noishkel pretty clearly said he thought the guy 'walked into it.' This would mean he had sex with a prostitute, presumably unaware she was a minor.
DogDude seemed offended that Noishkel implied a setup when the guy intentionally hired a prostitute. I was pointing out that slipping him a minor would be the setup part.
OK, I didn't say anything about that, but, no, it isn't:
Texas law permits individuals who have reached the age of majority (18) to get married without parental consent. However, those 14 and older may get married with the consent of their parents or legal guardians. In those instances, consent must be given within 30 days prior to applying for a marriage license.
-https://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html
So, 14 with parents' consent or 18 without. Not 16.
That's irrelevant, though, because they didn't get married. They had sex.
The Texas Age of Consent is 17 years old. In the United States, the age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 16 or younger in Texas are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape.
-https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/texas
There are (some) defenses available if the older party is not more than three years older than the minor, but this guy's more than three years older than her.
It's not clear to me that he was looking for a minor based on the way they hooked up. But if he had sex with a 16 year old, then he's suspicious. Maybe she really does look older. Or maybe he was really happy to hit a high-schooler.
I don't think we can know if he's a pedophile or not with the information we have.
I was just reminded that he WAS told by a friend of the victim that the police were looking for him.
I forgot that I read that, dammit. Thanks.
But the trip had already been scheduled.
I think he means the suspicious part is that she was underaged. There is a vast difference between solicitation and statutory rape. A solicitation charge will generally result in a fine or a very short stint in jail. Stat. rape is a felony and you will probably wind up in actual prison (not merely jail).
I think the idea seems plausible at least in part because the website supposedly screens everyone to be over 18. However, I really doubt they are trying that hard.
On the other hand, the setup theory implies an adversary that has access to a trustworthy minor willing to bang strangers for money/the cause. This seems a little too much like the plot of a John Grisham novel to me. Not that it's impossible, just that someone will need to show some real evidence before I'll pay much attention.
The (alleged) sex happened in Texas. He was traveling on business (after the (alleged) sex) when the State Dept revoked his passport. Taiwan is simply deporting a foreign national with revoked documentation.
It happened in Texas. He left for Taiwan on a previously scheduled business trip after the encounter before the cops could arrest him. It seems to be unknown if he was aware the cops were after him when he got on the plane.
However, he missed his scheduled return flight, which seems mighty similar to avoiding prosecution.
The US Dept of State reserves the right to revoke AmCit passports for fugitives. They did so in this case, which dodges the entire extradition issue. Taiwan simply arrests him for illegal presence in the country and deports him.
Travesty means 'misrepresentation'.
Nice
Maybe if it was the right supervillain...
Many, many inmates make plans to start businesses when they get out. Unfortunately, they mostly have very poor educational backgrounds and there is a ton of basic stuff they don't understand.
I spent my entire sentence teaching anybody who was interested the basics of business. It ranged from the definition of "profit", to benefits of differentiation strategies vs cost leadership strategies.
Heartbreaking, frustrating, and very fulfilling.
I forgot all about how that first Walmart trip was after I got out. I just stood there against the front wall staring at the shelves. I couldn't make out individual items, it was like there was static in my head. Completely overwhelmed. F'ing ridiculous.
It's been two years, I'm good at stores now, though I still get a little freaked by crowds. I have a real problem dealing with change, now, too, and that sucks.
I also have a super-hard time talking to women, but, hey, don't rob banks, right?
You are conflating the monopoly-style abuses of individual companies managing their sites with the arbitrage abuses of ISPs.
The first are (at least somewhat) addressable via market mechanisms, as consumers can redirect their traffic to other sites more in line with their views.
The second are not addressable via market mechanisms because the arbitrage happens out of the sight of the consumers. This means that the ISPs get to choose winners among content providers. This is why Netflix sued Comcast. Net neutrality regulation is designed to prevent this second kind of abuse.
Mixing these two problems up just impedes the conversation.
This is a state case in the state system. It can only go to the SCOTUS if they can get into the federal system. This requires them to show some kind of federal jurisdiction or a constitutional issue.
If they can make this showing, they can go to the US District Court. If they lose there, they go to the US Appeals Court for that district. If they lose there, they appeal to the SCOTUS (and good luck with that; they decide less than 150 cases each year out of about 7000 requests).
However, the issues at play here seem pretty clean and inside state jurisdiction. This makes it hard to come up with convincing arguments that the feds should step in. That means that any of the three federal court levels listed above might refuse to hear the case, in which case, they're baked.
The double jeopardy idea is interesting.
No, if a cop smells mj, that is probable cause all by itself. No need for a dog at that point, the officer can get everyone out of the car and search it. Period. What's more, he can pat down all passengers for 'officer safety'.
Asking for consent to search, and calling the dogs when consent is withheld is SOP for many departments.
On the other hand, the driver may have a get out of jail free card because the wait for the dog extended the duration of the stop. That's a no-no. That's an appellate issue, though, so he'll have to wait for that.
IANAL and I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that the current standard is that if the call for the drug dog does not extend the time for the purpose of the stop to be fulfilled (the ticket is written), then the drug dog search is valid. If waiting for the dog extends the duration of the stop, then it is impermissible and the results are not valid.
Once you are arrested, the appropriate recourse is through the courts. In this case, obviously, through the appeals courts.
... that was... pretty reasonable. Thanks.
Not because it's not concealable. It's because it is 'not testimonial'.
Disclosing "things you know", like combinations, PINs, and pass-codes is considered to be testimony. Lots of precedent about forced testimony exists.
Keys, bio-metrics, DNA, maps, etc. are things that you have, or things that you are. These are not testimonial, and therefore you can be compelled to disclose them.
In the United States the answer varies based on jurisdiction. Each of our 50 states have a complete set of laws, and many of them are strikingly different from each other. Many of the differences here are derived from the very different regional cultures. For instance, compare the gun laws in Connecticut (extremely tight) with Florida or Texas (very permissive).
Additionally, there is a Federal system that applies to all 50 states, but only for some issues. Problematically, the federal system is broken up into different districts, which sometimes decide similar issues differently, which is called a 'Circuit Split'. Some districts are defendant friendly (like the 9th - California and western states), some are prosecutor friendly (like the 6th - Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). When the circuits split badly enough, the Supreme Court may hear a case and render a decision that then becomes the law of the land for everybody everywhere all the time.
The issue in this case has not been settled, but there is a little precedent holding that you do not have to disclose combinations, PINs, and pass-codes. These are 'something that you know', which makes it testimony and we have lots of good precedent that you do not have to testify against yourself.
It rarely happens, but a defendant can object to government's motion to drop charges. Judges will only give these objections serious consideration when they believe that there is a likelihood of some governmental abuse going on (and they give a shit about it). In these cases, a judge may deny the motion to drop and the case will proceed.
The government makes the motion when they think they are likely to lose in order to 'moot' the issue, which just means to make it no longer a contested issue in this case. They can then continue using the contested behavior because there was no judicial finding that it was unconstitutional.
Federal Prison inmates object to government motions to dismiss all the time. Every once in a while they are successful. Then we get new case law.
Well, framework-wise, the warrant requirement is what stops the search. Once there is a warrant (meaning a judge has agreed there is probable cause to believe there evidence of criminal activity), LE can usually search.
In your example, the evidence of criminal activity would be found, everyone would go to trial, and the evidence would be contested for 'admissibility'. There a fact-finder (the judge) would determine if the evidence was in fact privileged.
If so, that evidence will be thrown out, as well as any evidence discovered based on the disclosure of that evidence (this is the so-called "fruit of the poison tree"). Then the government can try to get that evidence back in by claiming inevitable discovery, and a donnybrook ensues.
If the evidence is not privileged, it will be admitted, defendants will probably be found guilty, and it's off to the appeals courts to try to get it overturned. Good luck, they'll need it.
Odd thing about this case is that there is some legal precedent that pass-codes and PINs are testimonial ("something you know"), whereas keys and fingerprints are not (they are "something you possess"). Pass-codes and PINs may be 5th Amendment protected. He's in Florida, though, so I'm not sure how they have ruled.
Well, I don't think I selectively read his post, I think you selectively read mine. That's OK.
For the record I also have MBA on my transcript:
MBA - concentration in Computer Information Systems - Georgia State University, 2005
My school didn't usually usually call it "the Standard Oil strategy". We generally referred to it as Monopoly strategy or Dominance strategy. There are lots of more recent examples to use (lookin' at you, Microsoft).
Here's the problem. You can't 'maintain' high profit margins by driving your prices 'artificially low'. When your prices are artificially low, you have low profit margins .
You have high profit margins when your prices are artificially high.
I likewise assume he is trying to make a case for monopolistic behavior. Monopolistic behavior happens in two phases, one with low prices to remove competitors, one with high prices (and high margins) to realize economic profits (as opposed to accounting profits). If you're actually seeing these phases alternate, you should see a long period of high prices (profit taking) interspersed with short periods of low prices (to discourage some competitor from entering the market). What he is describing is the opposite. He then says it's 'unsustainable', which is the OPPOSITE of a monopoly market position. Monopolies are super-sustainable; free markets have no mechanism to dislodge a solidified monopoly.
As far as the reference to Proverbs, in my opinion it is discussing moving around on the demand curve, and that is fine. I prefer the differentiation strategy to cost leadership, but that's just a personal preference.