But the solution will be just a more complex variant on this theme. Consider also that you might have allowed complex to become Rube Goldberg.

Yes, but it's filtered by natural processes rather than by the lowest bidder.

So you're saying Republicans drink poop water?

Thank you for that!

It's 500 feet AND they have to be able to glide to a safe landing location if their engine cuts out. 500 feet doesn't make that a good bet in a neighborhood for a manned vehicle.

Given the way the DEA is going, the question might be can you make Sudafed from meth?

In a neighborhood where a realtor might use a drone to photograph the property, a manned plane would certainly violate the safe landing requirement anywhere near an altitude suitable to photograph the home.

If there's any manned plane flying at an altitude where a realtor's drone would be, there are already larger problems, like manned planes crashing into people's homes.

So then you agree with the NRA/2nd amendment supporters that it is not now time to use their firearms in a revolution. So what's your complaint about them again? We have no idea what they might have said through channels other than the NRA (which i specifically for gun related issues).

Did you read my responses carefully? Where I expressed doubt that the prosecution would even try absent physical evidence or witnesses to a discussion of guilty knowledge to back up the theory? For example, an accountant will certainly know if they keep 2 books. A written communication indicating state of mind in the case of the adviser or at least a repeated pattern of behavior.

Because who knows what 'extras' might have been included when they were made in China.

I argue there cannot be enough evidence to discount that a person cannot recall the password. It's just too common an occurrence and there are simply too many factors that contribute to forgetting going on.

As for the examples you mention: i) Did the adviser have a professional duty to get that information right? Would getting it wrong constitute professional ma[practice? Is there an email or other document that suggests they had the correct information? Did they give other clients the correct information? Did it happen more than once?

But in general, if that's all the evidence you have, one client given wrong information once, it'll never see the inside of a courtroom.

ii. Was the car obviously beyond the means of the driver? Did the driver offer anything like a plausible explanation? Even with that, it likely wouldn't be prosecuted. OTOH, if multiple people heard them talking about it being stolen, they might actually prosecute it.

iii) If he kept two books, they'll likely prosecute. If not, it's doubtful.

More realistically, for i they won't even look in to it unless the client is wealthy. In ii they'll 'find' a baggie. In 3, they might use that as probable cause to search his files.

Note now that i would have to involve incriminating communications or a pattern of behavior. ii would likely not happen unles the cops are crooked, and 3 would involve physical evidence.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not probably. How would you feel about going to jail based on 'probably'?