A foreign state which attacks Japan, attacks United States interests. The United States holds a nuclear umbrella.
What a load of utter unadulterated Bullshit!
In that case the USA should be going after the Australian people because we attacked Japan in the World court for it's Whaling practices.
You sir instead are an idiot and have no clue about anything. The US govt is stating that this is an attack on the USA for one and only one reason. It is in their current interest to make people fearful and serves THEIR and definitely no one elses agenda!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
I'll go one better.. this company figured out they needed one password but instead of keeping it they would change it every month and rotate it for the year (then revert back at beginning of year) so for january they had the password with a 01 on the end.. February had 02, March had 03.
Bet ya cant guess what December (the 12th month - HINT for the dummies) had on end of it.. go on.. go on.. guess!
Then they went back to 01, 02, etc in new year.
Oh the joys of not going insane when explaining BASIC FREAKIN SECURITY!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nit: The filenames contained the word "password"
and I can second it all.. I do Digital Forensics and part of that when not in the criminality side is consulting to companies (some multinationals) on civil actions and also for preventative training where I have discovered (as has the whole industry) that what Sony did is sadly not unique but instead the norm and is an embedded hard to get rid of practice of most blinkered executives.
Not only no reliance on the promise there was also no equitable consideration for either sides. In fact dependent on the communication that was entered into there was most likely no arbitration equity at all and more likely instead duress by Orbitz and United towards the respondent.
PE does not come into this at all though a lot of butthurt and convoluted readings of what the want the law to be because of weird ideas of "we deserve money" and other petulant attitudes on the side of Orbitz/United
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which branch of the government?
Yes but what is talked about inside the jury room is sacrosanct and whether the judge offers two or more specific options only is irrelevant if the Jury as a whole decides not to go with them.
That's why nullification is something that is verboten to bring up by any attorneys/solicitors and is contemptuous (or made out to be) if it is.
As for lying if they ask you if you know about nullification.. Yes its quite ok to lie in that regard since nullification has no relevance in voir dire and again since it is a legal ability you cannot be found contemptuous for lying about whether you know it or not.
Whether nullification is correct or not in every situation, or whether the jury should consider it except in very exigent circumstances is another discussion altogether though.
It's absolute fraud especially if used as a reference structure in any other legal ducuments asking for discoveries etc in other court cases Especially in countries within EU, Aust, NZ, etc..
My spidey sense is tingling and next week I might go searching Lexis for anything that could cause the Solicitors/attorneys major probs in the above jurisdictions (especially Australia). And yes its a form of fraud
Even knowing it was early access, still being tweaked and fixed... many of the bugs/glitches have killed my desire to play the game. Firing up a game and spending over 4 hours patching and only getting half way... kills the soul. No documentation of features... kills the soul. Logging in and nothing working like it should, trapping you in a tutorial that you have to complete to advance... kills the soul.
Easy solution.... Stop playing EA or Ubisoft games! - They 'kill the soul' :)
Which shows you have absolutely no understanding about what people with law degrees (not all of them practice law) actually do, are trained in, and what their skillset allows them an inherent ability to accomplish.
as an example: Look up "Risk Management", "Strategic Management".. and the word "Proactive" then take a giant leap forward and actually THINK about it all.
You have basically just stated Blackstone's ratio which is the principle that governments and courts MUST err on the side of presumption of innocence.
"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." - William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1765.
I believe your John Adams also stated something similar and maybe even expanded on the principle for the USA structures with:
"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever [emphasis added]
So Horace B. Edwards is now the legal guardian ad litem of the US is he?
So he wont mind being criminally charged under War Crimes and other International treaties for the crimes that the US Govt, its citizens and proxies have committed (with torture being but one of the charges) towards the rest of the populace of the planet then.
Good on him.. I hope he plans to NEVER travel anywhere else on the planet whatsoever (or any of his agents who would also be vicariously liable too)
This is a dual edged sword for the LAPD since if they have police body cam of an event from their viewpoint (and this is all about CYA) they are not allowed to release it whatsoever even if there is other video evidence shot by a third party that states another viewpoint (or part of one) that the body cam video might be able to disprove or at least show FULL context.
In any event the ubiquity of citizen video devices is at the point now that body cams are not going to be the only video evidence that will be available and the LEO's cannot control the one they never took.
The heir never sold the statue.. The heir died and their heir sold the statue.. a totally different situation and one where placing a vicarious liability on the seller (heir of the heir) is both dangerous and unconscionable (frustration) and where privity has no basis