Unfortunately, everyone here also knows the FCC is going to ignore any comments regardless of merit that go against their desired corporate leech on the body politic.
What the government is actually doing:
Trump maladmin: Here's some money, go tell the judge over there the person we want to hurt is evil.
Opinion Launderer: That guy is evil.
No conflict of interest whatsoever.
There were deliveries of the Nikola Two so presumably there is something to examine both product and factory, as well as the books indicating suppliers and what was delivered.
So it is certainly resolvable. Whether it will be done well is a different question.
Don't forget South Dakota's other qualifies.
Such as (in combination with federal law) abolishing usury, abolishing the rule against perpetuities governing trusts, allowing trusts that benefits the trustor, and making trusts secret.
All things ordinary people are interested in.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/the-great-american-tax-haven-why-the-super-rich-love-south-dakota-trust-laws
Or, more accurately, give the appearance of listening.
I have long since abandoned all hope of this Supreme Court in the current composition actually ruling on merits of cases.
The USPTO is like a dog and wants to be petted by the companies that apply for trademarks.
That's why they'll approve just about anything for trademark no matter what the law says.
As much as I feel this rule is probably actually required by contract laws, and should be duplicative, judges are remarkably okay with throwing away basic tenants of contract law when it comes to hidden fees.
I fear with an all Republican controlled government they will use the Congressional Review Act to not only block this rule, but will also prevent the FTC from considering any rules regarding this forever - until Congress stops being a bunch of corporate lapdogs. Good luck with the latter.
“People are uneducated about what ShotSpotter really is,” former CPD Supt. Eddie Johnson said.
That's right, they do not. And if they were educated instead of just exposed to this terrible PR repetition they would be rather unhappy with it.
Everyone knows what is going on here.
Board of Directors and CEOs hire friends and family and get to choose their own pay.
Who wouldn't choose to pay themselves more if they had a choice?
You forgot the scammers, crammers, grifters, hornswaglers, cattlerustlers, crypto bros, white supremacists, Nazi, Neo-Nazis, bigots, misogynists, and other scum and villainy.
Sometimes you get to even mix and match the adjectives together!
If the government can do something that would earn a private citizen a restraining order for stalking without a warrant then something is very wrong with either the interpreters of the law or the law itself.
This sort of douchebaggery was the reason the justices of New York Times v. Sullivan seriously considered issuing a judgement that defamation as a tort was violation of the First Amendment outright.
Defamation as a tort only survived by one vote. The "actual malice" standard was the compromise.
I have translated the legal proceeding into Gen Z:
Google: Press F to doubt the sincerity of the defendant.
Judge: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
One of the biggest cons ever pulled is businesses representing to the public they actually like a free market.
What businesses consistently want is less regulation when they are small to make it easier to break in with less overhead regardless of the consequences.
And when they become the established major players to have the protection of law such as copyright, patent, and trademark, difficulty to lay cable as broad as possible to prevent competitors.
The 9th Circuit allows state anti-SLAPPs to be used. But it won't help here. The Starbucks Union was formed in New York, 2nd Circuit, which has ruled it won't accept New York state's new anti-SLAPP.
Unfortunately, everyone here also knows the FCC is going to ignore any comments regardless of merit that go against their desired corporate leech on the body politic.
What the government is actually doing: Trump maladmin: Here's some money, go tell the judge over there the person we want to hurt is evil. Opinion Launderer: That guy is evil. No conflict of interest whatsoever.
There were deliveries of the Nikola Two so presumably there is something to examine both product and factory, as well as the books indicating suppliers and what was delivered. So it is certainly resolvable. Whether it will be done well is a different question.
Don't forget South Dakota's other qualifies. Such as (in combination with federal law) abolishing usury, abolishing the rule against perpetuities governing trusts, allowing trusts that benefits the trustor, and making trusts secret. All things ordinary people are interested in. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/the-great-american-tax-haven-why-the-super-rich-love-south-dakota-trust-laws
I can't possibly see how this is constitutional for a criminal case. You have a right to relevant evidence for your defense.
Or, more accurately, give the appearance of listening. I have long since abandoned all hope of this Supreme Court in the current composition actually ruling on merits of cases.
The USPTO is like a dog and wants to be petted by the companies that apply for trademarks. That's why they'll approve just about anything for trademark no matter what the law says.
As much as I feel this rule is probably actually required by contract laws, and should be duplicative, judges are remarkably okay with throwing away basic tenants of contract law when it comes to hidden fees. I fear with an all Republican controlled government they will use the Congressional Review Act to not only block this rule, but will also prevent the FTC from considering any rules regarding this forever - until Congress stops being a bunch of corporate lapdogs. Good luck with the latter.
Dissenting opinions have always been dicta. Dicta is anything not relevant to the legal holding. That doesn't mean they're not important.
That was an amazing amount of wrong compressed in so few words by Jerry Nadler. I've seen compression algorithms less effective than that.
California had the right idea naming their anti-SLAPP process a "motion to strike". Strike back against SLAPPs.
“People are uneducated about what ShotSpotter really is,” former CPD Supt. Eddie Johnson said. That's right, they do not. And if they were educated instead of just exposed to this terrible PR repetition they would be rather unhappy with it.
Everyone knows what is going on here. Board of Directors and CEOs hire friends and family and get to choose their own pay. Who wouldn't choose to pay themselves more if they had a choice?
It is only a matter of time before Musk finds out about that meme and deletes it; thus truly failing to grok that post.
You forgot the scammers, crammers, grifters, hornswaglers, cattlerustlers, crypto bros, white supremacists, Nazi, Neo-Nazis, bigots, misogynists, and other scum and villainy. Sometimes you get to even mix and match the adjectives together!
If the government can do something that would earn a private citizen a restraining order for stalking without a warrant then something is very wrong with either the interpreters of the law or the law itself.
This sort of douchebaggery was the reason the justices of New York Times v. Sullivan seriously considered issuing a judgement that defamation as a tort was violation of the First Amendment outright. Defamation as a tort only survived by one vote. The "actual malice" standard was the compromise.
I have translated the legal proceeding into Gen Z: Google: Press F to doubt the sincerity of the defendant. Judge: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
One of the biggest cons ever pulled is businesses representing to the public they actually like a free market. What businesses consistently want is less regulation when they are small to make it easier to break in with less overhead regardless of the consequences. And when they become the established major players to have the protection of law such as copyright, patent, and trademark, difficulty to lay cable as broad as possible to prevent competitors.
The 9th Circuit allows state anti-SLAPPs to be used. But it won't help here. The Starbucks Union was formed in New York, 2nd Circuit, which has ruled it won't accept New York state's new anti-SLAPP.