CookieG

It's happened before, on several occasions. It just eggs him on.

Trust me, he's not like many people, baptist or otherwise. He's a unique character in Americana, who's carved out a niche for himself in the area of Nutsiness. I don't know if I'd put him before or after Marshall Applewhite, but they'd be close.

I get to see the group's antics nearly every day (and yes, they picket nearly every day). He was actually a pretty good civil rights lawyer before he got disbarred. (A federal judge I knew claimed he was the best lawyer that had ever been before him). People have tried to run him out of town, he almost always wins in court though. Those who handle the group the best are those that just ignore them, which is most people here now. Its a good test of the first amendment. A good series of articles: http://cjonline.com/indepth/phelps/ Check out the photo gallery, you'll get to see what we see nearly every day.

Do you know how recent the cost per vehicle figures are? I'm wondering because GM''s sales are off about 15-17% this year, so there would be obviously fewer vehicles to factor into the cost-per-vehicle approach. Nonetheless, the 5.2 billlion they pay in health costs is staggering. But I think health care costs are only a part of their problem. Both GM and Ford concentrated their efforts in the more profitable SUV-Light truck market, and now they've seen it dip in popularity. It reminds me of the 1970's, when the US makers were all making muscle cars with huge engines, and then all got caught in the '73 energy crisis. Let's hope they can pull themselves out of it faster than they did in the '70's.

Unless the administrative judge in the district where the nominee is to be appointed is a complete incompetent, there shouldn't be a single accused released on speedy trial grounds. If the judiciary withstood the Hatch bureaucracy during the '90's, it can withstand the failure to confirm 7.

Yeah, you're right, the guy in the example might not be able to keep alot of what he just bought, because even if his other bills were wiped, he might not be able to afford the payments on the car and boat anyways. But the new law, even though its very creditor friendly, doesn't absolutely prevent someone from filing for bankruptcy. First, as I said before, it doesn't apply to those who are in the bottom 1/2 of the median family income of their state. Second, it only applies to those whose net income exceeds their monthly budget. Third, even if that is the case, people aren't barred from bankruptcy, they are only required to use a Chapter 13 repayment plan. Their plan is, in large part, based on the excess of their net income over their monthly expenses. Rarely, if ever, would they be required to pay off something like catastrophic medical costs in full, even through a Ch. 13 plan. Its based on what they can afford. Sure, there's little, if any money left at the end of the month, but its not overwhelming. Besides, most bankruptcy courts have loosely been following this principle for years. Courts have long had the ability to deny Ch 7 protection to someone that will show a large monthly surplus at the end of the month after a bankruptcy. The new law basically codifies it.

It goes by the median family income of the state in which the debtor resides, based on the number in the debtor's family.

That's basically true. The forced Chapter 13 provisions only apply to those debtors above a median income.

Exactly, its also why some of the board members aren't attending. (This is only a subcommittee anyways, not the entire Board).

Two State Board of Education members acknowledge they haven't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Board members Kathy Martin of Clay Center and Connie Morris of St. Francis said Friday they'd merely scanned the proposed standards. Martin's acknowledgment elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members. During a break, Martin said she's ``not a word-for-word reader'' of this type of technical information. http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1551417.html And they wonder why the scientific community boycotted the hearings.

A partial solution could be this: Currently, generally, traditional IRA contributions are limited to $4,000 or ($4,500 if older. ) People who are covered through an employer retirement plan aren't provided the tax deduction for a traditional IRA. Rather than diverting money from the trust fund to create private accounts, create a new form of IRA that is tied into the receipt of SSA benefits. In other words, the contributions to the new IRA would be a present tax deduction, but in exchange, the person receives a reduction in their eventual SSA benefits. For most workers, the chances are that they won't end up receiving any SSA benefits, but an IRA funded at 4k per year should dispense with the need for an SSA benefit. The more people that enroll, the less burden there is on the SSA trust fund. People obtain the benefits of their private accounts and no one soaks the rich by increasing their contributions.

One one psychiatrist that is forced to use false evidence as the basis for his conclusions is ....right?

The testimony of the doctor providing the false testimony was the only expert testimony that she understood that what she did was wrong.

Nice post. 2 things that really stick out from the decision, in my mind: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opini...OpinionId=81309 first, " Generally, if a witness has testified to material, inculpatory facts against a defendant and, after the verdict but before a motion for new trial has been ruled upon, the witness makes an affidavit that he testified falsely, a new trial should be granted. In our case, Dr. Dietz did not make an affidavit that he testified falsely. However,because the State stipulated that Dr. Dietz would testify that his testimony was in error, thereis no credibility issue requiring an affidavit. See Dougherty v. State, 745 S.W.2d 107, 107(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988), aff’d, 773 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (stating thatState was bound by its stipulation). Close Williams v. State, 375 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). The exceptions to this rule—such as, when the recanting witness is an accomplice, or the recantation is found to be incredible in light of the evidence, or the recantation has been coerced—do not apply in the present case. See Villarreal v. State, 788 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (applying general rule to determine that, because State offered no evidence to controvert recantation or testimony, denial of motion for new trial was abuse of discretion). We note that this rule does not require that the State have knowledge that the testimony was false. We review the record to determine whether the State used the false testimony and, if so, whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. See Ramirez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 386, 394-95 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. ref’d). second "Five mental health experts testified that appellant did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. Dr. Dietz was the only mental health expert who testified that appellant knew right from wrong. Therefore, his testimony was critical to establish the State’s case. Although the record does not show that Dr. Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion. On the other hand, had the jury known prior to their deliberations in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, that Dr. Dietz’s testimony regarding the “Law & Order” episodewas false, the jury would likely have considered him, the State’s only mental health expert,to be less credible. "

And in still other news, the Kansas Board of Education again reconsiders its science standards. Back to the 1999, "de-empahasis" of evolution stuff? Dorothy's lesson plan

...

There really isn't one statute that provides for the imposition, requirement and payment of income tax, its done through several code provisions: For example, 26 U.S.C. sec. 1 imposes the tax for individuals, based on filing status: " (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" etc. etc for Head of Household, individuals, and married filing separely. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C1.txt 26 U.S.C. sec. 6012 specifies who must file returns; 26 U.S.C. sec. 6011 specifies that the form of return is to be established by the Secretary and that the taxpayer shall supply the nformation required on the forms; 26 U.S.C. sec. 6072 specifies when returns are due; There are separate code provisions for the computation of tax, when it is due, where it is due, punitive provisions for failing to file or pay, etc. The obligation itself comes from Sec. 1 however, that is thet imposition of tax provision (for individuals.).

It might have been true that the Bill of Rights at one time protected the individual from abuses by the Federal government only, the 14th Amendment changed things. With its due process clause and especially its equal protection clause, the protections afforded the individual against the federal government were then applied against state intrusions. Additionally, when you say, that the constitution was intended to spell out the precise and narrow limits of federal power, I only agree to a certain extent. There are a number of clauses contained in the Constitutiion and its amendments that are inherently vague. Prime examples are the ability of Congress to "regluate commerce among the States", "unreasonable searches and seizures", "due process of law" and even "equal protection of law" None of these clauses are precise, perhaps intentionally so. An argument that these clauses should be strictly construed begs the question...why? The founding fathers, as well as any subsequent Congress could have further defined these vague clauses through constitutional amendment but have not done so. Thus, they must be judicially defined, and that definition may change or may be applied differently over time as circumstances may require. For instance, as bright as our founding fathers were, do you think they could have envisioned a world with super secret electronic eavesdropping. As such, a definition of what constitutes an "unreasonable search and seizure" may necessarily be changed, or at least revisited.

Under sec. 2056 of the IRC, a spouse has an unlimited deduction for estate tax purposes, provided the spouse is a US citizen and the property is transfered to the spouse. (exceptions apply is the property is not transferred outright) It matters little right now, as the federal government does not recognise a gay marriage for tax purposes, Social Security purposes, etc.

There are alot of auto parts stores that will do free alternator testing. If you don't know how to do it yourself, take it to one of them. If the car died at a light, while it had been running, it very well could be the alt. as well as a bad or loose belt. Good luck