Koko78

Whoops, forgot to reply to your post yesterday when I saw it. I will point out, as an initial matter, that I do not know Florida law, so this is a general explanation: In order to suppress evidence as illegally obtained, you must have standing to challenge the illegal search or seizure. Standing means that you have a legal right that is being infringed, not simply that the evidence obtained is damning or prejudicial. Kraft does not apparently own the building that the cameras were installed in - therefore he cannot assert standing based upon the violation of his property rights. Kraft has no legal expectation of privacy in a place he neither owns nor lives in, therefore he cannot claim he had a right to be secure in his person and effects at the massage parlor. By way of an oversimplified example, let's say that you and I are standing in your living room, staring at a magnificent Tony Montana-sized pile of cocaine. The drugs cannot be seen from the outside. Suddenly the cops kick down the door and rush in, without a warrant or any other cause to be in your home. We are both arrested. You can have the drugs suppressed because your 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated. It was your home, where you have an expectation of privacy, and the police had no legal authority to enter your home. I would have a harder time challenging the drugs as evidence, because it was your home, not mine. I have no legal standing to challenge the search of your home, as I do not live there. I do not have an expectation of privacy in your home, as - again - I do not live there. There are ways around that, but I'm not interested in writing a dissertation. It may be irrelevant if it turns out that the video cameras were illegally installed, in terms of suppression of the video evidence. However, his attorneys could (and would) have a lot of fun making the cops squirm on the stand answering questions about their illegal conduct, especially if it involved acting without a court order to install the cameras, or lying to a judge in order to obtain one. Contrast this with the allegation that his vehicle was illegally stopped to confirm his identification after leaving the massage parlor on one of the days he got a rub & tug. There he does have standing, as he has an expectation of privacy in his own vehicle, free from arbitrary stops by law enforcement that occur without sufficient cause (such as the officer witnessing a traffic violation.) If the stop of his vehicle is determined to be unlawful, the identification of Kraft leaving the massage parlor would be suppressed, and the prosecutors would not be allowed to use it at trial.

What, you mean eliminating cow farts by magic isn't a plan?!?

I actually got a federal refund this year, for the first time in over a decade. Of course, after paying H&R Block to do my taxes (I did not want to try to figure out the new tax rules on my own), and paying NYS, I think I wound up a whopping $20 in the hole. Far better than the thousands I would have to pay in previous years, because my employer would never deduct the correct ***** amount out of my W-2 pay. Anyhow, I wound up paying ~3% less tax rate on a lesser adjusted gross income due to the tax reduction and doubling of the standard deduction, along with now being able to automatically deduct 20% of my Schedule C income. Life is good.

I didn't say that Brees' salary was their sole problem, but it was most definitely a problem. Clearly bad contracts with other players like Byrd, and bad drafting were the bigger problem, but those problems were compounded by only operating with ~80% of the salary cap due to Brees' salary, before accounting for the usual dead money from other contracts.

The Saints also had a number of 7-9 lost years because they couldn't afford to surround Brees with talent on offense (or have talent on defense) due to his massive salary (made worse by some piss poor spending on losers like Byrd.) It wasn't until the last two years that they worked themselves out of cap hell and were able to draft/sign some talent to get back on top, after 4 of the previous 5 years at 7-9. Don't get me wrong, Seattle had no choice but to pay Wilson; it was the correct call - but the Seahags are setting themselves up for the same problem.

I'd wager that the media pushing the accident narrative so early was to prevent (possibly unwarranted) violence against the Muslim population. I can see the French going berserk over a terrorist attack on something so important to their culture and national identity as Notre Dame.

Resistance is futile?

***** that. My ignore feature is set to kill.

Some good news: https://news.yahoo.com/live-updates-fire-at-notre-dame-cathedral-in-paris-173732973.html

It was fine. Had a decent breakfast, beat the traffic, so was at work on time. Took a nice mid-morning dump in the confessional. Had some wine and cheese for lunch. Got some work accomplished by mid afternoon. Accidentally burned down 900 years of history, culture, and art. Made it home in time to have supper with the wife. How was yours?

Here's a picture of the guy:

It's gator, do you really have to ask? Of course the answer is 'no'. The man hasn't had an original thought... ever.

Depends on whether or not they can manufacture standing for him to challenge the installation of the cameras into a building he neither owns nor has an expectation of privacy in.

Piss off, you worthless jackass. Now is not the time for your pathetic attempts at trolling.

If there's a lot of timber construction in the roof, it has to be centuries-old. Old wood that is dry as hell burns hot.

Let me rephrase: I hope they can save the stone architecture and rebuild the rest later.

Oh man, that's horrible. Such a beautiful and historic building. I hope they can put the fire out quickly and restore it.

They had the guy who wrote that article on a show I listened to last week on the way home from work. A number of callers complained that they didn't get as big a refund, or would have owed (but for the increase in the child credit). First thing the guy would ask them is if they changed how much was withheld, as the IRS rejiggered the formula. They all said no. He also pointed out numerous times that the refund was an interest-free loan to the government, and asked them if their paychecks were bigger. None of them could (or would) answer if their take-home pay was more was or not. They also discussed how the Democrats did an effective job in lying to the public about whether or not they benefited from this. 90% of taxpayers actually got a tax cut, but only ~35% thought they did. The host did point out that Bush Jr. did it right, politically, when he had the Treasury cut checks to everyone in 2001. People had something tangible in their hands to know they got a tax cut.

Horseshit! Did you know that Assmange and Putin once had TWO scoops of ice cream?!? What more proof of them being on the same team as Trump do you need?!?

No seriously, help me out here. Where I have I seen that before within the past couple years? I just can't seem to remember.

Interesting. I wonder if the courts would have ruled any different if the patent deal with the Mohawks wasn't quite obviously a sham...

Huh, quoting part of a sentence out of context, then running with that as a false narrative. Where have I seen that before? Oh well, must have been done by 'good people on both sides'.

Yeah, but what do they know? They're not woke and aren't down with the narrative.

You darn well know that the liberal narrative will be that, 'the report is worthless because of the redactions hiding the real proof of Trump being an evil obstructing colluder, therefore no one should read the report! Anyone who does is a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic actual literal super mecha-Nazi.'

The answer, by the way, is yes. It is Armageddon when your electoral plan is to create an economic situation where people are dependent on the government to provide everything for them, thus keeping the Democrats in perpetual power so that people don't lose their welfare benefits. It's funny how people suddenly think for themselves when they're capable of supporting themselves.