Jump to content

CDAK

Full Members
  • Posts

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CDAK

  1. 1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

    will be interesting to see if the city pursues back taxes.  you know if this were just any neighborhood, they sure as shit would.

    I don't know what the COA's claim to back taxes would be.  There was an ordinance exempting the houses from COA property taxes.  The City Council is now trying to overturn that ordinance.  

    • Like 1
  2. 8 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

    That's cause Ireland has the opposite tourism problem. They need the money the Europe in this article doesn't 

     

    7 hours ago, elfenix said:

    the irish economy consists of a bank of mailboxes which represent the irish subsidiaries of actual companies, which enable the actual companies to push all their profit into the irish subs, which then lend the profits out to their parents at easy rates, which the parents then write off their taxes in their actual jurisdiction.

    Ireland is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe.  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-will-be-europes-fastestgrowing-economies-in-2019-153026674.html

    And I'm not sure what your point had to do with Michael Knight's patently false claim that Ireland has the "opposite tourism problem" (i.e., too few tourists).  Ireland had 9.6 million tourists in 2018.  The country's population is 4.8 million. https://www.tourismireland.com/Research/Overseas-Tourism-and-Tourism-Ireland-Key-Facts.  Tourism is absolutely huge in Ireland.

    • Like 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    The courts will have to decide that, because that's a situation where law enforcement is wanting open access to a huge amount of private information on a huge amount of private (and innocent) individuals that is held by a private company. 

    Law enforcement had that open access thanks to some loopholes and shortsightedness on the part of GEDMatch.  If GEDMatch had their shit together from the very beginning, law enforcement would not have had such open access.

     

    Thanks, I think that will be an interesting line of cases to follow in the future.  On one hand, law enforcement will have a very strong interest (e.g., solving a murder or rape) and they're testing the DNA of the likely perp. But, on the other hand, the search is insanely broad.

  4. If law enforcement obtains a warrant, could they conduct the search against profiles that have opted out (or not opted in)?  That is, deliver a warrant to ancestry/23andme requiring them to conduct the search against their entire database regardless of user consent?

  5. 13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

    The window on that is closing fast - a bunch of these services are closing up their loopholes that were allowing the cops and forensic genealogists to do this.  People were/are pissed, and a lot of people that hadn't done the tests before now, were all of the sudden getting cold feet about possibly opening up a relative to charges.   From some writing and a couple of seminars I gave, I know people at some of these companies, and they are catching a lot of flak, and/or facing a lot of "I THOUGHT MY DNA DATA WAS PRIVATE, BUT YOU'RE LETTING THE FEDS/POLICE JUST SIFT THROUGH IT".

    Not helped by the fact that genealogy as a hobby skews older, and old folks can be suspicious of everything.

    Ok, do it now before the window closes.  Or do it two years ago or whenever these enhanced DNA techniques became available.  

    • Like 1
  6. 8 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:


    Most are taking a tiny leap in logic, but the dna came from a rape kit swab. Obviously there is a chance it was unrelated to the killer, but not likely (I guess?).

    If the have DNA from the possible killer, why don't they run it through ancestry, 23andme or one of the other services?  That's how they're solving most of these old cold cases (i.e., they'll find relatives of the person and investigate from there).

  7. 7 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

    Lot of chatter Frogs are going to save Lodolo for Saturday.  If true, bold move with Cal throwing Jared Horn.  That was going to be a hell of a matchup.  Of course, Williamson is good too and like you said house money and all.

    What will be interesting to watch is if TCU loses to Cal and Arkansas beats Central Connecticut, will Schloss hold Lodolo again for game 3 with the risk that he never plays his best player?

    I like the move.  I think more #2 and #3 seeds should do this.  You're in the same spot if you lose game 1 or game 2.  The goal is to win the regional, not the first game.  Save your ace for a potential matchup with the #1 knowing that it reduces your chances of winning game 1.  

    And yeah, if I was Schloss and started Williamson against Cal and lost, I would pitch King in game 2 against Central Connecticut (assuming they lose to Arkansas).  They are one of the worst teams to make the tournament.  I'd hold Lodolo for game 3 (unless Central Conn upsets Arkansas and TCU faces an 0-1 Arkansas in game 2).  If Lodolo never plays, oh well, we tried to win the regional that we probably shouldn't have been in, and Lodolo will have to console himself with being a top 10 pick in the draft.

  8. What are the Unsullied going to do in Naath?  They are going to tell the Naathers? that their captain loved a woman who was from Naath.  She's now dead.  So she won't be joining us.  But we have thousands of eunuch soldiers and we plan to chill here for a while, again because our captain loved a woman from Naath.

    • Like 2
  9. I did South Rim to North Rim in a day hike in October last year.  Started at Bright Angel and went up the North Kaibab.  It was great but tough.  I wouldn't do it again without more training.  North to South is slightly easier because the South Rim is lower.  But we did South to North for whatever reason.  Hit the trail at 6am and finished just past 6pm.

  10. I spent about $1,100 on the ring, which I know is very cheap.  It was an old ring made a hundred years or so ago and my wife is really into retro rings so it worked out well for us.  We had just bought a house at the time and we both valued other things ahead of the ring.  If my wife had pressed for the traditional engagement ring, however, we probably would have gone that direction.  I don't think there's a "right" way but my advice would be don't give in to the social pressure without at least having an open conversation about finances, goals and where the ring fits in.

  11. 3 hours ago, achooloco said:

    also, thats setting the two examples completely out of context and assuming they exist in a void. does anyone on here know aunt becky personally? probably not. but i don't think it is completely out of the realm of possibility to assume that her motivations are a tad bit more arrogant and entitled than joe schmo citizen who can't afford a private attorney in Tennessee...

    Sure, she may be a more arrogant person - I don't know.  But our due process rights are our due process rights.  Attacking her for exercising them is perverse.

    3 hours ago, Asithappens said:

     

    Equating Tennesseeans to the Loughlins is quite the stretch.

    Also, Loughlin has already acted in what most would describe as an arrogant and haughty manner (body language in court, signing autographs before the hearing) which was in marked contrast to Huffman. 

    Loughlin and indigent criminal defendants enjoy the same due process rights.  That's the extent of the comparison.  Sure, acting in a haughty manner outside courthouses could be arrogant.  I haven't followed that drama and won't comment on it.  She's not a sympathetic defendant - I get it.  But calling her entitled and arrogant for not pleading guilty is ridiculous.

    • Like 4
  12. 16 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    That's pretty much the definition of "arrogant" to me.  I realize that you have now wordsmithed your claim to "arrogant for exercising rights," so that now you're claiming that even if they were arrogant, they weren't arrogant for exercising their rights because that's impossible.  

    That's always been my claim (i.e., its never arrogant or entitled to exercise your due process rights).  Check thread history.  It's not my claim "now."

    Righteous indignation over someone pleading not guilty and forcing the government to prove them guilty is grotesque.  

  13. Lol, I'm not going to keep offering the same explanation because you can't grok it, but I'll offer some context.  It seems like a lifetime ago now, but I was a public defender in Tennessee.  I had numerous clients that thought once they were able to explain their perspective to the jury, judge or even DA, the charges would be dropped or dismissed or they'd be found not guilty.  None of them were arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  Most, but not all, simply overestimated their ability to sway others and struggled to appreciate other perspectives.

  14. 7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

     


    Then your opinion is wrong. I can think of lots of scenarios where exercising those specific rights would be done out of arrogance. Hell, we could probably come up with a dozen examples just from movies.

     

    You mischaracterized my post.  The act of exercising your due process rights is never arrogant or entitled, regardless of underlying motivations.

  15. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    "arrogant and entitled" is a motivation.  You are applying that modifier incorrectly.

    I've called it a motivation several times.  To wit.

    36 minutes ago, CDAK said:

    I'm sure I'll disagree but I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.  What are the acceptable motivations for exercising your due process rights?  And are there any other unacceptable motivations for exercising due process rights?

    22 minutes ago, CDAK said:

    What does that have to do with being arrogant and entitled?  You said, if her motivations for rejecting a plea deal are X, that's "arrogance and entitlement so grand that it overrides reason and logic."  Now you're asserting that she may not have been "intelligent[]" in rejecting a plea deal.  Your arguments are inconsistent and all over the map.

    I don't think any criminal defendant is arrogant or entitled for exercising their due process rights.  But of course, it's not always the intelligent decision to request a jury trial.  Those are two very different ideas (i.e., arrogant and entitled vs. an unwise decision).  

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...