For instance suppose Lawrence hadn't been decided yet and a statue refers to "unnatural carnal acts with mankind". The defense tries to argue that the defendants are innocent because while they committed "carnal acts with mankind" they were committing "natural carnal acts" making them not guilty of "unnatural carnal acts". The defense then seeks to ask to call forth scientists to argue in court that homosexuality has a biological basis and is therefore "natural" and since the law only prescribes penalties for the act when it is unnatural that the defendant is innocent.
Why was this strategy never tried before Lawrence (or was it?) and how would a judge react if it were tried? Would this be allowed to be argued in court at all and would it possibly work?
Only for Serious Buyer. chat me to buy or email at sabirada.123@gmail.com or @Meghareddy (Telegram For Fast Respond )
Screenshot : https://t.me/estandardebooks/
http://washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-no-rise-in-mass-shootings-despite-media-hype/article/2542118
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
Top 15 guns per capital/100
US 89.0 1 Serbia 58.2 2 Yemen 54.8 3 Switzerland45.7 4 Finland 45.3 5 Cyprus 36.1 6 Saudi 35 7 Iraq 34.2 8 Uruguay 31.8 9 Sweden 31.6 10 Norway 31.3 11 France 31.2 12 Canada 30.8 13 Austria 30.4 14 Germany 30.3 15
Bottom 15 guns per capita/100
Haiti .6 164 Japan .6 164 North Korea.6 164 Rwanda .6 164 SierraLeone.6 164 Bangladesh .5 169 Eritrea .5 169 Fiji .5 169 Indonesia .5 169 Singapore .5 169 Ethiopia .4 174 Ghana .4 174 Solomons .4 174 Timor .3 177 Tunisia .1 178
Movie source: the "squeler" from dark night rises. https://youtu.be/g3dl32LaOls
The U.S. Justice Department has launched an expansive criminal investigation into short selling by hedge funds and research firms, scrutinizing their symbiotic relationships and hunting for signs that they improperly coordinated trades or broke other laws to profit, according to people familiar with the matter.
The probe, run by the department’s fraud section with federal prosecutors in Los Angeles, is digging into how hedge funds tap into research and set up their bets, especially in the run-up to publication of reports that move stocks.
Authorities are prying into financial relationships between hedge funds and researchers, and hunting for signs that money managers sought to engineer startling stock drops or engaged in other abuses, such as insider trading, said two of the people, asking not to be named because the inquiries are confidential.
Underscoring the inquiry’s sweep, federal investigators are examining trading in at least several dozen stocks, including well-known short targets such as Luckin Coffee Inc., Banc of California Inc., Mallinckrodt Plc and GSX Techedu Inc. And they’re scrutinizing the involvement of about a dozen or more firms -- though it’s not clear which ones, if any, may emerge as targets of the probe. Toronto-based Anson Funds and anonymous researcher Marcus Aurelius Value are among firms involved in the inquiry, the people said. Other prominent firms that circulated research on stocks under scrutiny include Carson Block’s Muddy Waters Capital and Andrew Left’s Citron Research.
The U.S. probe opens yet another front in an already treacherous era for those who try to profit on stock drops. Some bearish funds threw in the towel as government stimulus buoyed prices during the pandemic. That pressure intensified as retail investors organized counterattacks on popular short targets, bidding up shares to inflict losses on hedge funds this year. By late January, Citron vowed to give up short-selling research and focus on long bets.
*Click the link for more…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-10/hedge-funds-ensnared-in-expansive-doj-probe-into-short-selling
>If you steal property, you must report its fair market value in your income in the year you steal it unless you return it to its rightful owner in the same year,"' read the provision for stolen property
What if you're dealing drugs or caught up in other crimes?
>In that case, the IRS publication says jot your earnings on line 8z, Schedule 1 of your 1040 form, "or on schedule C ... if from your self-employment activity And don't forget to report any bribes or kickbacks you took in the course of doing business.
The kickbacks also go on Schedule 1 or Schedule C, while the IRS says bribes should simply be included in your income.
At first, I thought its a joke but it's real.
Basically, IRS wouldn't share the identity of the criminal to any other law enforcement agency. In other words, as long as criminal is paying tax it's all good.The main aim is to just get more and more in tax revenue without being bothered by the crime committed.This is just extreme level of double standards,the same authorities would cry "Crypto only used by Criminals" then this tax provision.
Then why complain about Crypto being used by criminals?
Link to the article : https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/
Hello All,
I was just wondering if anyone can help; I applied/interviewed for a job at a law firm as a receptionist and found out I have got the job (yippee). However, I have been sent the contract today and it states that I must confirm 'I have no criminal convictions'.
Sadly I do have one: Traveling on Railway Without Paying Fare Regulation of Railways Act 1889 S5(3)(A); this was in 2013. I have read lots of info and found conflicting advice. One article stated it won't show up on a DBS after five years etc. I don't have any other convictions, points on driving licenses. I can't believe I might lose a great opportunity over a £4 ticket.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or know if the 5-year rule is true. I should not have received this fine and was convicted in my absence hence me now trying to get it set aside now. Do you think this is a big deal or am I just overthinking it?
The legal question is will this offence show up on an enhanced DBS or equivalent or do I need to declare it?
Many thanks for any advice offered.
I've been studying a riveting course in my masters entitled Philosophical Foundations of the Common Law, and this term we largely covered the philosophy of criminal law. Of course, in so doing, we examined theories of punishment, and then concepts such as the harm principle, moral luck, intent, etc.
However, one thing we didn't cover is sentencing and how that ties into these foundational philosophical elements underpinning criminal law. In particular, I was considering how reduced sentences for guilty pleas could fit into the overall picture. Of course, it's obvious to see the practical benefits of this - reduced pressure on the courts, quick resolution for victims etc. However, how is it philosophically justified? Would a retributivist say that someone who pleads guilty has in some way reduced their moral blameworthiness by acknowledging the wrong they have performed, and as such ought to be subject to less harsh punishment than someone who refuses to accept responsibility? I'm not a moral philosopher so am way out of my depth here, but I'd be curious to see what actual philosophers think about this!
I have no idea how most ottawa lawfirms retain staff or not fall apart with the constant turnover.
My pay ranged from 31k to 44k and that included being a law clerk billing 5x my salary annually. This was at a top 3 national firm by the way.
I moved out of Ottawa and was shocked that smaller cities in Ontario with less than half the population pay way more. In hindsight I feel stupid for not leaving way sooner after graduating college.
I managed to land a 40 percent increase with one interview.
Ottawa law firm pay is so offensive. I feel bad for my coworkers trapped in ottawa. They truly make the firms thrive but are taken advantage of with pay.
If you also feel the same way but cant move, try looking outside of law firms for big companies headquartered in Ottawa. They often have in house legal support staff. Pays way better, less stress and billables dissapear. Dont feel trapped by your specialty in law. I made the jump from the most niche law (trademarks).
So, the Ape Challenge is to figure out how Apes dispose of All these criminals without becoming them?
How do apes rid our government and our financial institutions of these corrupt POS without physical violence?
(helping locate missing persons, convicted murderers, etc…)
)