ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Maybe this will help you remember:

We already have a burner with stone hands. His name is T.J. Graham.

Did you even read the article? The Chinese preggoes are coming here to have "anchor babies." I have seen a few Chinese women, and most of them are itty bitty things. Even if you used the preggoe women as anchors instead of the babies they wouldn't hold anything more than one of those radio-controlled model boats in place. I think the article probably mistakes Korean women for Chinese women. They look pretty similar, and the Koreans are the ones with such a messed up economy that they have to use babies for anchors. I guess their restaurants used up all the puppies.

And here I was under the impression that: Shame on me. Thanks for setting me straight. If the law really required a jury to always find an accused defendant to be the least credible witness in a criminal trial, under all circumstances, and no matter what the result of other factors that affect credibility, wouldn't you expect to find a pattern (i.e., standardized) jury instruction that told them so? Or is there some reason why trial judges in Florida, New York, Connecticut and North Carolina are all deliberately failing to give juries a standardized instruction that you have decided would be appropriate? Apparently you speak pigeon English as well as French - - big deal. My second cousin Darryl on my momma's side says tell Tyga to take his T-rawws someplace else. Rollus Tideus.

It could be worse - - I could be a songwriter.

This may come as a shock to you, but unlike dogs, people sometimes just make stuff up. The "Roaring Twenties" were a myth. It has been well documented that they didn't actually make any noise, and Italian fishermen back then weren't any more honest about it than anybody else.

Well, if you put all the clues together, it's kind of obvious. People grew up hearing sonic booms caused by aircraft above them. Because people are generally taller than dogs, and dogs don't climb trees but people do, the sound always reaches human ears first. Upon hearing the boom, all the humans look up, and since their dogs aren't in the surrounding trees, the humans ALWAYS totally miss their dogs' reaction to the noise. But just suppose (WINK) there are a series of super-secret underground DARPA-sponsored small Hadron colliders scattered around the country to make them impervious to a first strike by the North Koeans. And let's say that one of those colliders happens to be in the general vicinity of your schnauzer. If you're gonna modify a god particle for military purposes, ya gotta smash small stuff together at incredible speeds, so the "boom" is a given. But since the speedy little suckers are all underground, the boom propagates UPWARDS. Guess whose ears hear the boom first? And by the time the humans hear the boom and look down (even if they are in trees), the dogs have already heard the boom and started to react. So humans always see dogs react to god particle modification booms, but never see dogs react to sonic aircraft booms. It just SEEMS weird. And since ground is less homogenous than air or milk, you get localized noise from the god particle modification booms with occasional acoustic dead spots (think noise cancellation headphones), whereas aircraft sonic booms spread more uniformly radially outbound and down.

No wonder they get kudos from frequent fliers: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/virgin-launch-new-jet-see-through-1795500

When did you start moonlighting as a writer for The Onion? http://www.theonion....o-sucked,31862/

Most used car salesmen would consider that a compliment. More fundamentally, attorneys don't have a monopoly on the ability to think clearly and make cogent arguments - - they just think they do, especially if they are self-proclaimed T14. As it happens, I've watched "My Cousin Vinnie" - - twice. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. My oldest brother Darryl had a prior banjo commitment, so I had to discuss the matter with my mentally challenged sister Darlene after picking her up at cosmopolitan school - - she wants to be a hairdresser. That's an attempt to shift the argument to one that you might be able to win. It's not a fair characterization of what you actually said, which was: I never disputed the idea that a jury should consider the fact, when evaluating the credibility of a defendant's testimony, that the defendant has a motive to lie to avoid conviction. You can cite all the judicial precedents you want for that proposition - - all it does is win you an argument that we weren't actually having. That is what is known as knocking down a straw man, and lawyers are especially good at doing that when the actual dispute is about an issue upon which they expect to lose. Gotta give credit where it's due, though. The magna-animus comments about being "fair" and "not cherry-picking," all made while knocking down the straw man, was a nice touch. Maybe you really did go to a T14 school. But were you actually being "fair" in choosing the parts of the 1895 US Supreme Court decision that you were primarily relying upon? This is where the Internet part comes in, which levels the playing field between self-proclaimed T14s and humans. Here's the full text of that opinion: http://supreme.justi...7/301/case.html After surveying then-existing precedents (in 1895) in other cases involving jury instructions about the credibilty of defendant testimony, the Supreme Court summarized the then-current state of the law (118 years ago) by proclaiming: "The import of these authorities is that the court is not at liberty to charge the jury, directly or indirectly, that the defendant is to be disbelieved because he is a defendant, for that would practically take away the benefit which the law grants when it gives him the privilege of being a witness. On the other hand, the court may, and sometimes ought, to remind the jury that interest creates a motive for false testimony; that the greater the interest, the stronger is the temptation, and that the interest of the defendant in the result of the trial is of a character possessed by no other witness, and is therefore a matter which may seriously affect the credence that shall be given to his testimony." Note that the Supreme Court said that (1) status as a defendant may (not must) seriously affect the credence given to a defendant's testimony, and (2) the trial court sometimes (not always) ought to remind the jury of that fact when giving jury instructions at the end of a trial. Credibility is assessed based on multiple factors, including but not limited to status as a defendant. When a non-defendant witness testifies, the credibility of that witness is likewise assessed based on multiple factors. If the non-defendant witness happens to be "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast" (presumably a hypothetical intended to portray the least credible non-defendant witness you could think of), such a witness is not automatically assumed to be more credible than a defendant merely by virtue of the fact that the defendant is accused of a crime. If you want to argue that a criminal defendant's testimony should be viewed with more suspicion than a neutral third-party witness who cannot be impeached with a prior lie, fine, but that is not even close to the position you originally took in this thread (to which I objected). Jury instructions aren't **** . They are statements of applicable law given by the judge at the end of a trial, intended to help the jury follow the applicable law when arriving at a decision. BTW, the 1895 US Supreme Court case involved a federal smuggling statute, and was tried in a federal district court in Texas. Conversely, the Zimmerman case will be tried in Florida state court, and will be governed by Florida law. In the unlikely event that it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court will decide the case based on existing Florida law, as determined by the Florida Supreme Court (in the absence of US constitutional issues). So let's take a look at what the Florida Supreme Court has to say about assessing the credibility of a criminal defendant's testimony - - the following link is to the official website of the Florida Supreme Court today (not 118 years ago): http://www.floridasu...tructions.shtml (you have to click on the hyperlink for 3.9© to open the following): 3.9©; DEFENDANT TESTIFYING The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of [his] [her] testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses. Setting aside our differences for the moment about the relative credibility of an accused defendant as compared to a witness with multiple felony convictions, I think that's admirable. I really do. But most people probably don't realize that law firms often encourage their inexperienced, cub lawyers to take on such matters on a Sonny Bono basis so that the cubs can get experience in COURT. A talented cub can get some experience dealing with judges and other courtroom personnel, and may be required to think on his feet, just like a more experienced trial lawyer. It's a win/win situation for the prisoner and the cub. The prisoner typically gets representation by a lawyer with more brains and motivation than the typical public defender to which he is accustomed, and the cub gets experience in COURT without any risk of screwing up the legal matter of one of his law firm's paying clients. Your prior rodeos may be the problem. All I know about your courtroom experience is what you've chosen to disclose in this thread, but it sounds like the vast majority of your criminal court experience has been representing (or advising) individuals who have already been found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of committing some crime by a jury of their peers. Judges understandably find the claims of such felons, who have already been convicted by a jury despite all the safeguards built into our justice system, to be inherently untrustworthy. I don't claim to be up to speed on all the details of the Zimmerman case, but as far as I know, he is not a convicted felon. That is a distinction with a difference, as compared to the people for whom you've advocated in COURT. The judges who presumably denied most of your clients' habeus petitions (that's not a knock on you, that's just what happens in the vast majority of habeus petitions) are entitled to view the claims and testimony of convicted felons with great skepticism. But rather than seeing this distinction, you attribute judicial skepticism about a defendant's credibility to (1) the status of being merely an accused defendant, rather than (2) the status of being an already convicted defendant. When you realize that the judicial skepticism about defendant credibility that you've actually experienced in COURT is partially attributable to the fact that defendants have a motive to lie, but attributable to a greater extent to the fact that your clients were already convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evaluation of your original statements in this thread radically changes. Our disagreement is about the relative credibility of (1) a defendant accused (but not convicted) of a crime, as compared to (2) "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast." It's more than a little ironic that the judicial skepticism about the credibility of convicted felons that you've undoubtedly experienced in COURT, would actually apply to the "multiple felon" that you suggest would have greater credibility than an accused (but not convicted) defendant like Zimmerman. At least we agree on something - - - - although it's hard to be concise when discussing complicated issues, and I can be long-winded myself. So you can speak French. I'm impressed. Roll Tide!

More effective countermeasures: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/marine-laser-drones/

Emblazoned across a red, white and blue tombstone logo: "On the whole, our tackles would rather be in Philadelphia"

Don't laugh - - this is real: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/15/3/033037/article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-known-surveillance-tool-raises-concerns-by-judges-privacy-activists/2013/03/27/8b60e906-9712-11e2-97cd-3d8c1afe4f0f_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

Hey T14 . . . My oldest brother Darryl didn't even go to a T300 vocational school, but he knows how to use the Internet. So he knows that criminal pattern jury instructions are published online in at least some states, and available to anyone who knows where to look. Funny thing, Darryl can't find a criminal pattern jury instruction from ANY jurisdiction that supports the notion that a witness who has lied about something should be considered more credible, when testifying about other issues, than the defendant, merely because the defendant is accused of a crime. I'm guessing that even though most T14 law school grads never go near a criminal trial because the money is better elsewhere, law schools in at least the top 15 or so teach how to find pattern (i.e., pre-approved) jury instructions. So how about it, is there anything to back up your claims? Then again, you tried to persuade us that your opinion on this matter was correct by stating "Period. End of story." So if you really went to a T14 law school, maybe you didn't get your money's worth. At least, that's what Darryl thinks. And he plays chess. Roll Tide!

I'm not up to speed on this issue, so I consulted my oldest brother Darryl (he plays chess). He had a few questions. Is it clear to you that Monsanto qualifies as "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer?" Are those terms defined elsewhere by statute? Some corporate and other "farmers" who bought Monsanto seeds would be pretty closely aligned with Monsanto's interests with respect to seeds already sold (licensed?) by Monsanto. But how does Monsanto avoid any adjudicated liability for damages if it is not "a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer?" I don't think Darryl has any grasp of how various statutory provisions here are inter-related, so I'm not suggesting he knows the answers - - he just has questions.

OK, sure, and you probably also believe that they actually just make kazoos in Eden, NY at THE ONLY KAZOO FACTORY IN THE UNITED STATES! A coincidence? I think not. Could there be a more perfect cover for alien activities? What are they hiding? http://www.nbcnews.c...370772#25370772 Roll Tide!

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/03/15/chinese-birth-tourism-booms-in-southern-california/

Thanks.

How about a Lego life-size replica of Just Jack? .com/5060455/buy-a-lego-life+size-replica-of-yourself-for-60000 Oddly enough, it can also get you a non-Lego North Korean bride: http://www.rjkoehler...-60000-buy-you/ Or you can buy this $60k bed, which apparently makes the bride unnecessary: http://technabob.com...-high-tech-bed/ Go figure.

Here Comes The Bride - - I have my reasons. If my significant other ever finds this, (1) I ain't me, and (b) it's a joke, sweetie, it's a joke.

I find it easier to spot trends when looking at a graph rather than a table: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT_Max_630_378.png I also have a few questions about the methodology for calculating "PSAVERT." A minor quibble is that the data is "seasonally adjusted." I don't like data sets that have been adjusted in ways that aren't necessarily obvious. A bigger issue is what counts as savings? For example, do principal payments on a mortgage count as savings when calculating PSAVERT? Not obvious to me, but here's one site that says yes: http://seekingalpha.com/article/48742-what-does-the-personal-savings-rate-tell-us-about-the-economy Same site also says that 401k contributions count as savings, which seems like it ought to be the right result, but its not immediately obvious to me that the government calculates the PSAVERT number that way. I'm leery of projecting my preconceived notions of what's happening to societal savings rates onto this data set. It's a shame, because it makes the rant I'd like to go on intellectually dishonest.

He just claims to dislike soccer to keep the respect of his fellow farmers - - here's a spy camera shot of how he and Bessie really spend their time: http://www.snotr.com...laying_football

Let me google that for you: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Gundlach+net+worth From the first two search "hits:" http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/gundlach-tcw-verdict.html http://www.pionline.com/article/20110822/PRINTSUB/308229941

Word of how long the Bills have been bad has spread. In a league designed to promote parity, the supposedly intelligent beings in charge of the Bills have missed the playoffs for what seems like forever. Outside our solar system, they call this the "Ralph Wilson Paradox."