Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2016, 11:39:30 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96077 Posts in 2315 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Legal issues
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Legal issues  (Read 70425 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #200 on: March 01, 2015, 05:54:12 PM »

Ah.

Fair enough  grin
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5732


« Reply #201 on: April 18, 2015, 11:37:22 AM »

As a coin collector when I was 8 I read this with interest.   I am ambivalent about the decision and note it reverses a jury decision.  Off the top of my head I am not aware of clearly stolen items being allowed to stay with the descendants of the thief.    On the other hand one could argue he did the world a favor by preserving 10 examples of what are now considered treasures and works of art:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/67853550/Rare-Double-Eagle-gold-coins-worth-104m-returned-to-family
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5732


« Reply #202 on: April 23, 2015, 08:26:06 AM »

Back in the late 70s I learned that hair could be used as corroborative evidence but not proof.  One could say a hair was consistent with a defendent's or suspect's hair but could not unequivocally say it was a unique match.   That was before DNA analysis.   Since one could get DNA from a hair follicle and maybe even the shaft one would think that hair analysis can make more "unique" matches.   So I don't understand what happened here.   But I am glad this article points out that flawed DNA testing doesn't necessarily mean the suspect is innocent.  One would think after hearing some speak in the media that every time there is no match of DMA therefore the suspect must have been innocent.   

That said if people are convicted and jailed for poor or wrong science that is shocking unto itself.   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #203 on: June 09, 2015, 09:57:06 AM »

Accidental Talmudist

A Jewish merchant in 19th century Ukraine had reached an understanding with a wealthy, non-Jewish landowner to buy a section of his forest for lumbering.

No contract was written, and when the price of lumber fell, the merchant wished to renegotiate the deal, claiming that he was not legally bound by the verbal agreement.

The landowner knew that according to civil law, the merchant was right, so he suggested instead that they take their dispute to the famous Rebbe of Tolna for a decision according to Jewish Law.

The Rebbe listened to both sides, then ruled that although there was no legal contract, the Talmud pronounces a severe curse upon one who breaks a verbal agreement, and that certainly the merchant would not wish to subject himself to this.

The Rebbe therefore found in favor of the landowner.

The landowner was pleased with the decision, but he had a question. ''In our courts there is a much longer process, and if a litigant is displeased with the court's decision, he can appeal to a higher court. And there are several levels of appeals beyond that. Suppose the merchant wished to appeal your decision. What recourse does he have?''

The Rebbe smiled and said, ''One time a wolf attacked a flock of sheep, and the animals dispersed. The wolf pursued one of them, but before he had a chance to seize it, a lion emerged and pounced on the sheep. The wolf protested that the prey was his, because he had caused the sheep to leave the flock, but the lion said that he had as much right to the sheep as the wolf, since neither had paid for it. They agreed to take their dispute before the fox, who was the wisest of all the animals.

"The fox ruled that the sheep should be divided equally between the two, and proceeded to cut the sheep in half. He noted, however, that one portion was larger than the other, so he nibbled away a bit. Then, seeing that the new portion was smaller, he nibbled away a bit of the other. This 'equalization' process continued until the fox had left nothing but the bones for the wolf and lion.

''In your courts,'' the Rebbe continued, ''there are indeed many appeals, with the result that the lawyers on each side nibble on the disputed assets. By the time a final decision is reached, all that is left for the litigants are the bones. We may not have an appeals process, but both litigants are likely to benefit from our judgment.''

Adapted from the wonderful book, Not Just Stories: The Chassidic Spirit Through Its Classic Stories by Rabbi Abraham Twerski M.D. (see http://amzn.to/1KQUKoj)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #204 on: January 05, 2016, 04:19:12 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostLive/videos/781606261959040/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #205 on: February 07, 2016, 11:40:13 AM »

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/03/judge-makes-government-pay-legal-fees-to-store-owner-whose-107700-was-seized-by-the-irs/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovs6%2FBZKXonjHpfsX87%2B8sW6eygYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcZqPLnYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13769


« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2016, 12:09:24 PM »


Good.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #207 on: May 10, 2016, 10:35:22 AM »



A Soldier’s Challenge to the President

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 10, 2016

Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, who is 28, is helping wage war on the Islamic State as an Army intelligence officer deployed in Kuwait. He is no conscientious objector. Yet he sued President Obama last week, making a persuasive case that the military campaign is illegal unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.

“When President Obama ordered airstrikes in Iraq in August 2014 and in Syria in September 2014, I was ready for action,” he wrote in a statement attached to the lawsuit. “In my opinion, the operation is justified both militarily and morally.” But as his suit makes clear, that does not make it legal.

Constitutional experts and some members of Congress have also challenged the Obama administration’s thin legal rationale for using military force in Iraq and Syria. The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia should allow the suit to move forward to force the White House and Congress to confront an important question both have irresponsibly skirted.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires that the president obtain “specific statutory authorization” soon after sending troops to war. Mr. Obama’s war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, was billed as a short-term humanitarian intervention when it began in August 2014. The president and senior administration officials repeatedly asserted that the United States would not be dragged back into a Middle East quagmire. The mission, they vowed, would not involve “troops on the ground.” Yet the Pentagon now has more than 4,000 troops in Iraq and 300 in Syria. Last week’s combat death of a member of the Navy SEALs, Special Warfare Operator First Class Charles Keating IV, underscored that the conflict has escalated, drawing American troops to the front lines.

“We keep saying it’s supposed to be advising that we’re doing, and yet we’re losing one kid at a time,” Phyllis Holmes, Petty Officer Keating’s grandmother, told The Times.

Asked on Thursday about the lawsuit, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said it raised “legitimate questions for every American to be asking.” The administration has repeatedly urged Congress to pass a war authorization for the war against the Islamic State. It currently relies on the authorization for the use of military force passed in 2001 for the explicit purpose of targeting the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, which paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan.

“One thing is abundantly clear: Our men and women in uniform and our coalition partners are on the front lines of our war against ISIL, while Congress has remained on the sidelines,” the White House spokesman Ned Price said in an email.

Yet, the White House has enabled Congress to shirk its responsibility by arguing that a new war authorization would be ideal but not necessary. Administration officials could have forced Congress to act by declaring that it could not rely indefinitely on the Afghanistan war authorization and giving lawmakers a deadline to pass a new law.

By failing to pass a new one, Congress and the administration are setting a dangerous precedent that the next president may be tempted to abuse. That is particularly worrisome given the bellicose temperament of Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

It is not too late to act before the presidential election in November. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and House Speaker Paul Ryan have shown little interest in passing an authorization. They should feel compelled to heed the call of a young deployed soldier who is asking them to do their job.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5732


« Reply #208 on: June 06, 2016, 06:54:33 AM »

As far as I know it was Anderson Cooper's constant war against bullying (gays) that made the word ubiquitous.

I wasn't going to post this as it is just about a lawsuit till I saw this phrase, "food allergy bullying".  Another form of micro aggression.  Should "micro aggression " be grounds for assault?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/06/05/family-allergic-child-sues-panera-for-putting-peanut-butter-grilled-cheese-sandwich/ugk2bWDfWSui6f8wSFimdO/story.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5732


« Reply #209 on: June 23, 2016, 07:05:04 PM »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-court-cast-just-majorly-200050228.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37265


« Reply #210 on: July 18, 2016, 09:55:46 AM »

Uploaded on Feb 27, 2011

Who do you Love? (Bo Diddley) video of live performance by Quicksilver Messenger Service at Winterland in 1973.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'fair use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Video excerpt all materials presented under fair use for non-profit, research, and educational purposes, copyright reserved by the original owners including but not limited to Bill Graham Archives, LLC, and Wolfgangs Vault, who I would like to thank in advance for their kindness and patience in not having their lawyers smash me and my little youtube account flatter than hammered shit.

THE USE OF ANY COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS USED UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF "FAIR USE" IN TITLE 17 & 107 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. SUCH MATERIAL REMAINS THE COPYRIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL HOLDER AND IS USED HERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF EDUCATION, COMPARISON, AND CRITICISM ONLY.

NO INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IS INTENDED

'I like Dick Dale, I could appreciate him more during the surf period....like I was like.... I was anti-surf, you know? Because they were collegiate. They would like ...like during the folk era, you know...The Kingston Trio........ I was a beatnik..... I was more into jazz....grooving, sharing, umm....that kind of stuff, and like but Link Wray, man. Link Wray affected me so much that first of all, alot of my style, alot of my chords and stuff I got by copying, you know? I saw him on TV man. I'd never played guitar, and he had his guitar that looked so offensive, it was phallic...Rumble, man.....Rumble just blew me away. That's what turned me on to playing guitar. He's the father of the power chord. I still remember it as one of my strongest memories, man. It just burned itself in my mind. I heard Rumble....it was '58. When I heard that, what I heard was, dirty, man. What he was doing was saying, f#ck man, kiss my ass, you know, real rebellious shit, you know, without saying it, you know?' -John Cipollina

Quicksilver Messenger Service initially held back from signing a record deal but eventually signed to Capitol Records in late 1967, becoming the last of the top-ranked San Francisco bands to sign with a major label. Capitol was the only company that had missed out on signing a San Francisco freak band during the first flurry of record company interest and, consequently, QMS was able to negotiate a better deal than many of their peers. Quicksilver Messenger Service had appeared on the movie and soundtrack album Revolution.

Quicksilver Messenger Service released their eponymous debut album in 1968. It was followed by Happy Trails, released in early 1969 and largely recorded live at the Fillmore East and the Fillmore West. According to David Freiberg, at least one of the live tracks was augmented with studio overdubs and the tracks Calvary and Lady of the Cancer Moon were recorded in the studio just before Gary Duncan left Quicksilver Messenger Service.

These albums, which have been hailed as two of the best examples of the San Francisco sound at its purest define the classic period in the group's career and showcase their distinctive sound, emphasizing extended arrangements and fluid twin-guitar improvisation. Cipollina's highly melodic, individualistic lead guitar style, combined with Gary Duncan's driving rhythm guitar, feature a clear jazz sound, a notable contrast to the heavily amplified and overdriven sound of contemporaries like Cream and Jimi Hendrix. In 2003 Happy Trails was rated at #189 in the Rolling Stone Top 500 albums survey, where it was described as the definitive live recording of the mid-Sixties San Francisco psychedelic-ballroom experience. Archetypal Quicksilver Messenger Service songs include the elongated, continually re-titled suite based on Bo Diddley's Who Do You Love?. Additionally QMS had a reputation for joining their fans in the use of LSD during their live shows.

QMS's guitar work shimmered with a brilliance and clarity which made other bands seem murky in comparison. Unlike most members of the other San Francisco acid rock bands, who were often folkies converted to rock, John Cipollina and Gary Duncan were rock musicians before forming their band. Gary Duncan's playing clearly had the broadest scope of any guitarist among the S. F. bands and he had an expert facility to deliver it. Equally expert was John Cipollina, who also had the clearest vision of how he wanted to sound. Cipollina's playing was so completely given over to that vision, and he presented it so well, that the question of scope never arose. John's electric guitar playing was the musical essence of electricity itself, as though he was playing the current directly and the guitar was the valve that allowed him to do that.

    Category
        Education
    License
        Standard YouTube License
    Music
        "Who Do You Love?" by Quicksilver Messenger Service Listen ad-free with YouTube Red

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!