|
im glad the rape guy is cooler than expected
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
shame about all the rape tho
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Don't worry, rape beer helped eviscerate precedent later today.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Yeah, I had a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that this was even a case. I don't know anything about antitrust outside the standards essential patents stuff, but it seemed like a stretch to say that people don't buy apps from Apple. The argument almost makes sense in these 3 sentences: quote:The problem is that the 30% commission falls initially on the developers. So if the commission is in fact a monopolistic overcharge, the developers are the parties who are directly injured by it. Plaintiffs can be injured only if the developers are able and choose to pass on the overcharge to them in the form of higher app prices that the developers alone control.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Never-mind the Epic store, who wants to join my class action against steam?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
lol it turns out florida can't manage to make a prostitution charge stick when they have not one but two videos of the handjobbing
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:lol it turns out florida can't manage to make a prostitution charge stick when they have not one but two videos of the handjobbing Pretty much. I want to see the language of the order, but the case is basically done at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Pretty much. I want to see the language of the order, but the case is basically done at this point. looks like it's the same as the previous ruling, lack of minimization, plus the traffic stop was also suppressed quote:Judge Hanser agreed in his ruling, writing, "The Court finds that the search warrant does not contain required minimization guidelines, and the minimization techniques employed in this case did not satisfy constitutional requirements ... all evidence against the Defendant obtained through and connection with the search warrant is suppressed." http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26740141/judge-suppresses-video-kraft-solicitation-case
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
The stop is suppressed as a result of the video being suppressed. The stop was legal only if they have PC of an offense or reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. They only had the former because of the officer watching the video. Without that, the stop has no predicate. The lawfulness of the stop is predicated on the legality of the video evidence. e: my personal guess is the attorneys assigned the misd division got cocky after kraft's attorneys had to file four motions or so each just to get their pro hac vice in order and got taken to the woodshed at the hearing by not being properly prepared. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 23:04 on May 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
So now the handy video can be released, right? Charges will be dismissed, so no need for confidentiality?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:So now the handy video can be released, right? Charges will be dismissed, so no need for confidentiality? Apparently if the charges are dropped it won’t be released.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:So now the handy video can be released, right? Charges will be dismissed, so no need for confidentiality? No, the opposite— the video will be destroyed unless there’s a successful appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:So now the handy video can be released, right? Charges will be dismissed, so no need for confidentiality? No. He'll get a protective order pending expungement once the charges get nolle prossed.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
They were arguing that releasing it could taint the jury pool. No jury, no taint. lol I thought the wording of the order was the release was stayed pending: a. Trial juries being sworn in each [criminal] case; b. The cases resolving by plea agreement; c. The State no longer pursuing the charges against Defendant. d. At any other time at which the Court finds the fair trial rights of Defendant are not at risk, after notice to the parties and hearing thereon.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:No, the opposite— the video will be destroyed unless there’s a successful appeal. Video is a public record and Florida law requires it to be released.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Publicly releasing video illegally obtained by violating a person's 4th Amendment rights. As if Kraft wasn't rich enough already.Mr. Nice! posted:The stop is suppressed as a result of the video being suppressed. The stop was legal only if they have PC of an offense or reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. They only had the former because of the officer watching the video. Without that, the stop has no predicate. joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:38 on May 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
The law’s the law man
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
The people of Florida deserve to see the basis for the government deciding to bring charges. Let the disinfecting light of disclosure shine on this affair so that hahahbabab
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Florida lets him assert a possibility of others' privacy invasion as a grounds to suppress against himself? Or was he asserting that the police used a drag net and he was a bycatch? How does he even have a REP in a surveillance video in someone else's business? I want to read this order. Anyone have a link to it? That ESPN article has nothing. This whole thing smells fishy. Much like he must have smelled after visiting that place.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Florida lets him assert a possibility of others' privacy invasion as a grounds to suppress against himself? Or was he asserting that the police used a drag net and he was a bycatch? How does he even have a REP in a surveillance video in someone else's business? I want to read this order. Anyone have a link to it? That ESPN article has nothing. dude, no.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
I was quoting the original order staying release of the video. I have no idea about the order suppressing evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Florida lets him assert a possibility of others' privacy invasion as a grounds to suppress against himself? Or was he asserting that the police used a drag net and he was a bycatch? How does he even have a REP in a surveillance video in someone else's business? I want to read this order. Anyone have a link to it? That ESPN article has nothing. The order isn't public yet as the clerk hasn't finished review. It'll probably be up early in the AM. From the article it seems the judge's bases for suppression were an inadequate warrant and insufficient minimization procedures. This was Kraft's argument. The potential hook on appeal is this is essentially a first impression when it comes to this type of warrant for Florida law. Otherwise, no, this video is never going to come to light. It's under a temporary protective order right now, and that will be made permanent barring any appeal as it's fruit of the poisonous tree. The judge didn't rule on the privacy invasion because Kraft has no privacy expectation when he's committing an offense. E: Just thought of something - this is at the county court level. This is the absolute lowest trial level. If the state appeals, this may just go to circuit court down the hall to one of the other local judges. They have to go through that first before they get to an actual appellate panel. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:22 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Cool search law that you can claim that a search is illegal based on the breach of someone else's rights
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
If only.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The order isn't public yet as the clerk hasn't finished review. It'll probably be up early in the AM. They've fleshed out the article on espn since my post. It looks like it was a surreptitious video recording of the inside of the business. I thought it was something else. Like if you rob a Target, you can't move to suppress Target's surveillance video (well, you can, but I'd oppose and you'd lose). This was a more of a wiretap. Still, I didn't know "did not do enough to minimize the invasion of privacy of other customers," could be a valid path to suppression. Invading the privacy of others is the whole point of a search warrant! Because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy! There must be more to it. Maybe there are special wiretap rules, I bet that's it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
It's so interesting to see what kind of procedural buggery actually matters to your courts. Over here, procedure fuckups usually tie in to time limits, procedural fuckups with the courts (such as selecting lay judges from a non-random pool) and issues of prosecutorial authority (three part system in which police prosecutors have this complex and dumb system to determine where prosecutorial authority lies). The policemen themselves can pretty much do whatever the gently caress they want, and there's no such thing as fruit of the poison tree thing. No way would I ever get evidence from a traffic stop suppressed under any circumstances, I don't think I can even cite you a case where that's happened.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
BigHead posted:They've fleshed out the article on espn since my post. It looks like it was a surreptitious video recording of the inside of the business. I thought it was something else. Like if you rob a Target, you can't move to suppress Target's surveillance video (well, you can, but I'd oppose and you'd lose). This was a more of a wiretap. The thing is, it might not be a valid path to suppression. The prosecution dropped the ball. This is a matter of first impression in FL, and they let Kraft’s people tell the only story.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
a criminal defendant in a case I'm monitoring just made the argument that solitary confinement is unconstitutional because Jesus absolved him of all his sins I'm not redacting anything this poo poo's on Pacer and it owns. my favorite excerpts:   my only criticism is that there's only 5 pages of this poo poo, usually sovcits don't stop until they run out of paper
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
I, the living being and not the ENS LEGIS SUI JURIS ex post facto, am not subject to the laws and corporate policies and procedures of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Also putting me in jail is a violation of my rights under the US Constitution. Furthermore and hereinafter,
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:a criminal defendant in a case I'm monitoring just made the argument that solitary confinement is unconstitutional because Jesus absolved him of all his sins State's response: Render unto Caesar or go to hell, bitch! Romans 13 at 1-5.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I, the living being and not the ENS LEGIS SUI JURIS ex post facto, am not subject to the laws and corporate policies and procedures of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Also putting me in jail is a violation of my rights under the US Constitution. Furthermore and hereinafter, I, Soothing Vapors, living soul and natural person, declare that Charlize Theron refusing to date me violates my 12th Amendment rights joat mon posted:Paul is a terrible choice for 'get me out of jail.' lol that's a really good point
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:a criminal defendant in a case I'm monitoring just made the argument that solitary confinement is unconstitutional because Jesus absolved him of all his sins Curious, is it standard to not cite which translation you used in biblical quotes? I guess it doesn't really matter as it's not a legit legal argument lol
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I, Soothing Vapors, living soul and natural person, declare that Charlize Theron refusing to date me violates my 12th Amendment rights Plus, it's "Soothing: Vapors, living soul and natural person, the authorized representative for SOOTHING VAPORS ENS LEGIS" You did the spell wrong, so you get Roseanne Barr Hoshi posted:Curious, is it standard to not cite which translation you used in biblical quotes? I guess it doesn't really matter as it's not a legit legal argument lol Plus the big one: He wasn't even citing to Rom 8:28, he was citing Acts 16:26 (God breaks the jail even though Paul was in there for being a dick and disobeying Jesus. Paul stayed in jail anyway until he was released by the earthly authorities) joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:Curious, is it standard to not cite which translation you used in biblical quotes? I guess it doesn't really matter as it's not a legit legal argument lol you're supposed to cite the translation, version, editor/publisher, and year I believe but I dont think this dude is blue booking his motions
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I, Soothing Vapors, living soul and natural person, declare that Charlize Theron refusing to date me violates my 12th Amendment rights
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:you're supposed to cite the translation, version, editor/publisher, and year I believe but I dont think this dude is blue booking his motions I realized like half an hour ago there's a good chance that dude thinks the Bible was actually written in English
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
The Bible was written in English by lily white Anglo Saxons
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Plus, it's "Soothing: Vapors, living soul and natural person, the authorized representative for SOOTHING VAPORS ENS LEGIS" I want to feel Soothing Vapors En my Legis
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Defendant admits in his own pleading that there is only illusion of confinement. Illusory confinement is ipso facto not confinement. Confinement is found only in the mind of the unawakened and unsaved. Defendant claims to have been saved. Those who are saved are not, by definition, confined. The temporal, physical world is the world of the flesh and is irrelevant, for Jesus was entombed and did ascend, without necessity of appeal to the arbiters of the physical world. Those who are with Jesus are free, regardless of the state of the body. Defendant is free in the spiritual realm. Should defendant continue in defendant's whining regarding confinement, defendant shall be advised to transcend his limited understanding of the Lord, and git gud with Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Law school a good idea in 2019? I don't know any lawyers and I wasn't sure where to ask.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:29
|
|
