Comment Re:Surprise level: 0 (Score 1) 135
You're right: it's not tampering with evidence, it's manipulating the media.
Surely the first time that has ever happened.
You're right: it's not tampering with evidence, it's manipulating the media.
Surely the first time that has ever happened.
How long does the fusion need to last to constitute a star? Arguably, the US and Russia have produced a number of stars quite close to Earth indeed, if only briefly.
How would you prosecute a rape case without the jury assuming the accused was male and the victim female?
How would you prosecute a child abuse case without admitting that the victim is, indeed, a child?
How would you prosecute an aggravated assault case without showing the disparity of force between assailant and victim (or, conversely, how would you defend a the case without allowing the accused to present disparity of force as justifying his defensive actions)?
The estate is a separate legal entity from any person. Contracts that flow into the estate remain binding upon the estate. Ergo, she doesn't need to have signed it; it's still binding upon the estate.
The distinction that people seem to be missing is that nobody is squelching her freedom of speech as an individual, but rather as a beneficiary of the estate. Again, remember that the estate is its own legal entity. She's not being sued as J. Random Person, but rather as somebody who profits from that estate. As a beneficiary, she's also subject to its contracts. If she breaches those contracts, she's subject to suit in her capacity as beneficiary, and can be forced to disgorge her profits from the estate.
(Note: I practice in probate law.)
" If she doesn't want to abide by the terms of the contract, she should at least be compelled to disgorge the money she was paid."
Certainly doable, but then that would generally void the contract on both sides and the movie itself is lost. So no, the company doing the suing doesn't want that.
I'd like to know if she herself signed the contract. From the sounds of it, she's being bound by it the actions of the Estate itself. So... did she promise to keep her mouth shut, or did someone else promise she'd keep her mouth shut?
If she wants to enjoy the profits of the estate she should also abide by its constraints. Nothing it preventing her from completely disclaiming her rights in same.
Dawn will become a permanent man-made moon of the dwarf planet.
That's no space station...that's a moon!
As a pilot, I was always taught that my priorities were "aviate, navigate, communicate." As a CFI, I tried to always impart the same lesson.
Taking self-portraits somehow never made the list.
Not an FFL, just a $200 tax stamp (which won't be issued without a background check, but still). It takes a Type 03 FFL to transfer an NFA item, but not to own one. And yes, Obama's ATF will issue it as long as the paperwork comes back clean, just as it will with a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or any other NFA item.
There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it
But neither is protected by any concept of "rights".
Really? So none of the warhawks are covered by the First Amendment?
You're sitting in front of a terminal that gives you access to information in a way that makes the great library at Alexandria look like a comic book store, and you can't be arsed to look up what the 17th Amendment says before commenting on it?
The 17th Amendment does not give two senators to each state. That was written into the original Constitution; the bicameral system was a compromise between those who wanted population-proportional representation (i.e. the House of Representatives) and equal-state representation (i.e. the Senate).
The 17th Amendment changed the method for choosing senators from selection by the state legislature (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1) to a popular vote by the people of the state. The Founders had very specific reasons for having the state legislatures choose senators instead of the people; the 17th Amendment changed the balance of power significantly.
The newspaper will still have a right to freely express its opinions; it's just going to have to repair its presses first.
Damaging the property of another--whether physically or operationally--is also a violation of rights.
That's not the way do to it. The camera should be recording for the whole shift, but if the officer doesn't unholster a weapon, that day's footage gets erased at the end of the shift. If a weapon is drawn, footage around that event would be saved. Less privacy worries for the officers, and more incentive for them to resolve situations without firing.
Like, for example, choking the victim to death. Cf. Eric Garner, etc.
I'm not seeing the problem either way.
Truth is its own virtue.
They would get them back and then punish them and then separate them.
Exactly. If that's what he deserves, then truth will out.
And I have seen an awful lot of people saying that he wasn't worth any particular effort to get back, which is pretty close to "let him rot." That's just mind-boggling to me.
Heh. Yeah.
I was at Minot for five years, which seemed particularly like exile after having been in England, about an hour away from London, for two years before that. I will say that it wasn't quite as bad as I expected it to be when I got my orders.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
