midtennchip

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but the DISH internet-based service is also limited to one device at a time.  That, alone, eliminates it for my house.  We typically have at least 2, and as many as 5, devices (TVs, tablets, etc) running television shows at any given time when the whole family is in the house.

Here's the producer's (Sleeper13) Facebook page with the PSA and comments.  Very happy with the number of negative comments to their page.  Will they get the message?  NO!   https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=912076438810466&id=629051637112949

I am reading the case now.  Unfortunately, I have some concerns about this case.  Mainly, the concerns are whether the 6th Circuit properly followed Heller (in fact, it almost looks like the 6th Circuit is asking the SCOTUS to clarify Heller).  My analysis is probably too technical for most people's interest in the case, but I question what the 6th Circuit was doing here.     Specifically, the 6th Circuit states that a prohibition on possession by a mentally ill person is "presumptively lawful," citing directly from Heller.  But then questions the SCOTUS's statement by pointing out conflicting provisions in Heller (the 6th Circuit says "presumptively lawful . . . cannot be correct because . . . [that is] an option Heller forecloses.")  By saying that (and pointing out a discrepancy in Heller), I wonder if the 6th Circuit was inviting the SCOTUS to review this case.   The 6th Circuit then backtracks just a little bit, so who knows if this will go to the SCOTUS.  There have been numerous circuits who questioned different aspects of Heller's analysis.  In any event, I think the decision was a good one, but not sure it will hold up.  The basis for the decision was not the facts of the Plaintiff's mental illness (or lack of mental illness).  The entire basis for the decision was the lack of an effective system to restore gun rights to individuals who are no longer mentally ill.     However, that arises ONLY because the federal statute already has in place a mechanism for restoration of rights under 18 U.S.C. section 925.  That mechanism was cut out by Congress when it de-funded that restoration program.  Also, because the state of Michigan did not have a state program for restoration, the relief available under Section 925(c) was effectively unavailable, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.   Had the federal law not included the restoration program, or if the program existed and denied Mr. Tyler's appeal, I think this case would have ended differently.  Page 31 of the opinion basically says that the federal law probably would have been constitutional, even if the restoration provision wasn't included.  But because it was included, then the government should have a mechanism in place.  Because it doesn't, the government violated Mr. Tyler's 2nd Amendment rights.   So, in short, this is a pretty technical decision that (i) might be overturned by the SCOTUS or (ii) overturned by Congressional action.  We'll see.   Opinion is available here:   http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

There was an article a few days ago that said Black Friday is not a good time to buy a TV. According to the article, January (post-Christmas and pre-Super Bowl) was much better. Who knows these days, but I need to get a new one for the bonus room, as well.

At the risk of coming across as promoting my own services, he would suggest that using is "service" would potentially leave you with serve problems and/or not give you options would would like to take advantage of (if you knew to do so). There is no mention of whether or not the trust is set up for a specific state's law, or if if is adjusted for your specific state. There are just too many issues to cover in this thread. I won't go into the fact that providing this service would likely be considered the "unauthorized practice of law" in virtually every state (unless they have a licensed attorney in every state to advise on these).

This is probably not something that could be proven for several reasons:   1.  identifying owner (mostly mentioned above, and preponderance of the evidence would be all that is required, but it would still be disputed);   2.  although livestock must be fenced, it isn't an absolute that the owner is responsible just because the cow is out;  she would have to prove that the owner was negligent in the manner in which the fence was constructed (or the temporary measures were inadequate while repairs were being made);   3.  she would have to show that she was less at fault than the cow's owner (which might be harder than the others);   4.  Damages might not be that high.  She would only be entitled to the fair market value of the car (which would be similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the amount her insurance company would pay her).   Property damage only cases are rarely worth the time and effort to file a lawsuit.  Nevertheless, with all of these things in doubt, I think it would be a little bit difficult to prove.

Yes, that is true. But it isn't unlimited. Tennessee case law (originating out of Williamson County) holds that the CLEO does not have to sign the certification in exactly the same manner as the ATF has on its form. It the CLEO marks through some of the certification, then the ATF will not approve the transfer (which is what happened in that case). We also know that some CLEOs still will not sign. You are basically in the position of trying to force their hand through the courts.

Maybe someone more tech-savvy than me can check this, but my sources say this draft was created in August of last year, shortly before the time the Proposed Regulations were published (Sept. 9, 2013). I suspect someone who knows how to do it could check the metadata of the PDF posted on the Fed website. But in any event, I know there has been a draft of this form since at least August of 2013.

Here's the complaint:   http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/PhillipsvsLuckyGunner.pdf   It does not appear that they are asking for money damages for the plaintiffs, though.  

Bail is a payment to avoid siting in jail. If you cannot afford bail, you lose ALL rights. In some cases, bail is either too high to be afforded by most people or not available at all. The Constitution recognized this from the very beginning. I understand people thinking that losing rights before being proven guilty is wrong, but it happens in virtually all criminal cases to some degree. And it is just that, a matter of degree.

Yes, bail issues have been tested many times. The 8th Amendment prohibits "excessive" bail, so even that allows for bail (even though a conviction has not yet occurred). The issue of what is "excessive" is the focus of most cases.

It is under the Federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)( B)(viii)).  When you are under an indictment, there are all kinds of rights that are "surrendered."  Passport, travel outside certain areas, curfews, periodic reporting to the court, etc.  In many cases, you have to pay just to stay out of jail.     NOTE:  The citation will not show properly in this forum (the emoticon is NOT a proper citation)!! :pleased:

Rock Nova, give me a call next week (when I am back in the office) and I'll walk you through it.

  Including you?  I thought you were one of the witnesses.  There are also protections for those witnesses.  Sounds like no law would stop any of this is the witnesses won't come forward.  Wouldn't matter if it was at-will or not if the witnesses won't come forward.

  No, that's what witnesses are for.  

If the facts are as you state (and I don't dispute them), at will doctrine would not protect any of those employers. Title VII and ADA would prohibit those actions. Those are not legitimate at will terminations.

I wasn't necessarily referencing an employment at Will situation, but was just talking about the specific situation you described (which is the typical way employees are hired). While there are some (And from my experience, relatively few) cases where employees get "screwed," I talk to many terminated employees (usually more than a few each week) who THINK they have been screwed, but in reality, probably should have gotten fired. Most of the time, those employees refuse to believe that they weren't very good employees and want to find ANY other reason. The majority of the time, the fired employee was just a difficult person (too many complaints, didn't get along with other employees, didn't get along with customers, had a generally poor attitude, etc). It is very hard to find a definitive "cause" to point to, but the employer just gets tired of it.

No, that description is not a contract (verbal or written). It is missing a key term which all employment contracts must have. The missing term is length. At will employment, by definition, does not have a length of time. The employee does not guarantee any specific period that he'll work for and the employer does not guarantee the length of time the job will last. Both may terminate the relationship at any time.

Terrible. Wish there was an easy way to force his hand, but there really isn't. DS, let me know if you give it a try and he won't sign it.

Yes, it's for 8-year terms. Not all Justices come up at the same time, though.

  I started another thread.  Let's move it there.  We HAVE tort reform.  But what you describe is a legislative issue, not a judicial issue.

The Justices WON'T be "on the national scene." The cases you are talking about were federal cases that have NOTHING to do with the Tennessee court system. I agree with you on those cases. The Kelo case was terrible, but has no bearing on this race. What is going on is the attempt to judicially push tort reform and, more importantly, appoint a Republican AG. Tort reform is directly pointed at eliminating the public from the tort process. If you can point to one case these Justices screwed up, please point it out (maybe in a separate thread).

All depends on the prosecutor. But if an indictment came down (and my gut is that it would have), there would have been jurors who sympathized with the handicapped guy. Anything could happen (particularly if new facts came up that we don't know right now), but I think Greg was right not to engage.

Agreed with others. He had the vehicle as protection and, I am assuming, an aggressor who probably would have trouble standing up and fighting. Driving away (even as the aggressor is swinging) is the smart move. There undoubtedly would be people who would have a hard time believing that shooting was necessary.

The Founding Fathers didn't have much to say in the Constitution itself regarding those issue, and had nothing to say about state criminal courts (which was the focus of the other thread). But they certainly did envision judicial misconduct. It was specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and a SCOTUS was charged with misconduct as early as 1805. They probably didn't foresee prosecutorial misconduct because the public prosecutor was a VERY new creation and private prosecution of crimes was still more common. So, "conviction rates" didn't exist. Maybe a defendant wouldn't go bankrupt (mainly because trials occurred very quickly), but it wasn't unusual at all for victim's who had money to prosecute privately (so imagine the disparity between rich and poor in criminal actions). If you had money in early America, you certainly had a much larger advantage in criminal courts (both as defendant and victim) than exists today. That doesn't seem to be closer to a "justice" system than we have today.