March 17, 2013:
Farrah gets a DUI on St. Patrick’s Day. She claims to be DDing for her sister, Ashley and says she’s sick when police ask her questions after she allegedly almost hit a police cruiser. She begins to yell at them and bites the breathalyzer multiple times. Police claim she also slammed her head against the window of the cruiser numerous times, while yelling. She eventually has a blood test, showing a .147 BAC and pleads guilty.
She must pay a $500 fine, and be on six months of probation with mandated sobriety during that time. Her car is installed with a breathalyzer before it can start.
Sometime in 2015:
Farrah assaults Teen Mom producer, Larry Musnik, on camera.
September 2015
Farrah throws a glass at “Celebrity Big Brother UK” costar, Vicki Michelle, who suffers a concussion. Charges are filed in the UK but nothing comes of them.
June 13, 2018:
Farrah is arrested at the Polo Lounge inside the Beverly Hills Hotel. She was being asked to leave because she was allegedly belligerent and struck a hotel security guard. She was arrested for battery and trespassing.
She entered a plea deal for resisting arrest. She was permanently banned from the hotel and ordered to 2 years probation, anger management courses, and 5 days community labor.
Late 2018/Early 2019:
Farrah kicks a female costar on “Ex on the Beach” in the crotch.
January-February 2019
Farrah is sued for backing out of a celebrity boxing event. She doesn’t show up to court and is ordered to pay $12,171.75.
[Sou
... keep reading on reddit ➡https://preview.redd.it/g60lsywswe081.jpg?width=1074&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33e8c3022f2b2a2e590a413e77f7f84f3b8c8f0e
lawsuit for Slander, malign and harm because someone kept his wiki up to date with all his bs!
Throwing lawsuits left and right! (\"Jk.Kite\" is the person keeping his page up to date)
Spending the day at a farm house right outside of Winnipeg would've sounded just okay to me on any regular day. But I was in a future timeline, there was a secret lab in the basement, and some secret agents were around… so it was interesting. However, a bunch of weird creatures were roaming around all over the place, so it's also scary.
I was glad there at least weren't very many huge creatures around the property of the farm house. It was only the Quads in terms of huge creatures. In terms of small creatures, however... There's a couple. There are these things called Sand Rovers. They mostly hang out under sand or gravel. You can't touch them with your hand or else they fuse themselves into it. You could kick them without any repercussions though. I watched them out the window all day. They tried to move around under the gravel. It was weirdly oddly satisfying to some extent. Arilyn told me Agent Edwards and Agent Daniels liked to kick them. Not to death though, since there was a theory going around that since Nnotz is inside the minds of billions of people, he may be allowing telepathic sympathy between humans and his own creatures. Killing these creatures would therefore get you in trouble with all the Mex Kala Cults in your area… so the theory goes.
In the afternoon, Arilyn brought me downstairs to the basement to give me some questions, as part of her experiment. All I hoped was that this experiment stayed within ethical lines the entire way through.
"Do you feel different in any way after traveling to 2071, back to 2022, then back to 2071?"
"No. Physically, I feel the same as usual. I felt the same as usual during those trips."
"Do you have any fears related to time jumping?"
"No, but there's the idea that I could be turned to mush or incinerated during a time jump."
"Does being in 2071 mean anything for synesthesia - the overlapping of two ideas in the brain?"
"No, I can't feel the vibe of April 2071 or 2071 at all. Maybe it'll take a couple more days."
"Do you have any questions for yourself?"
"What happens that makes time travel work? Ethically you have to answer this."
"We don't have a full grasp yet due to the theory we may actually be jumping to alternate realities rather than traveling through time. Of cours
... keep reading on reddit ➡I know courts are much less prominent in many European countries and that it's probably hard to pick given that constitutions have changed more often in Europe than America, but I'm sure there must be some very important legal cases that still have a big impact. In France, I know the 1971, called the Décision Liberté d'association which said a law violated the Declaration of the Rights of Man is very important.
In the US, the case is Marbury v. Madison (1803) and it's a little complicated. Basically, the 2nd president, John Adams, gave a lot of government jobs to people at the last minute before his political rival Jefferson took power. One person, Marbury, got the job before he got his paperwork to start. Marbury sued the new Secretary of State (basically the home minister) James Madison, for his commission (basically the official paperwork to start his job). The court said, while Madison was violating the law by not granting Marbury his commission, the law (Judiciary Act of 1789) that gave the Supreme Court the authority over such cases, was unconstitutional because it gave the court authority over cases that it did not have under the constitution. Therefore, the court couldn't compel Madison to comply. This was genuis because it avoided conflict with the presidential administration (Jefferson/Madison) who might've ignored a ruling in favor of Marbury, and gave the court the power to overturn laws it ruled violated the constitution.
I'm really interested to hear about other countries' jurisprudence!
This has happened in two separate occasions. I order an item through Amazon. The date of delivery is set. When the date comes, the order says that it is out for delivery. Then night comes (around 10PM) and it says that it will still arrive today. Then the next day, it says that the package is late. And then, later on, the whole order history disappears from the account without an explanation or automatic refund. I have to contact Amazon to see what has happened and ask for a refund.
To me, this does not seem legal. But I'm not a lawyer. So I would like an explanation of why or why not is this legal
Leaving a LTR this year has landed me back in the dating pool and I must admit, my picker is a bit broken, probably because I haven't dated in a while and am probably a bit naive.
A recent guy I met prompted me to do a background check (not sure why) which uncovered he had a restraining order filed against him a few years back (by another man). This made me uneasy/unsure and I stopped talking to him.
I do wonder if I was too decisive and should have given him a chance to explain himself.
Would you date someone with a criminal history?
The common pro-Israel talking-point on social media alludes to (but does not elucidate) the 1982 court case, in which a subset of the original 28 Palestinian families living in UNRWA-constructed homes reportedly 'conceded' their ownership claims in exchange for 'protected tenant' status (under the condition they pay rent to the Jewish Committees contesting their claim).
This agreement, as I'll explain below, was the result of a unilateral move by the Palestinians' lawyer, Yitzhak Toussia-Cohen.
Toussia-Cohen signed this agreement without telling his Palestinian clients and without contesting the Jewish Committees' unsubstantiated claim of ownership.
#Some background info (ie legal status of East Jerusalem)
East Jerusalem is Occupied territory, it is not Israeli territory. Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967. In June 1967, Israel passed the Municipalities Ordinance (Amendment No. 6) Law - which extended Israeli law and jurisdiction to East Jerusalem. In 1980, it illegally annexed East Jerusalem as part of the Basic Law of Jerusalem.
In response to the 1967 act, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 252, which reaffirmed that "acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible." The resolution also stated that:
>[...] all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status.
In response to the 1980 annexation, the UNSC passed resolution 478, condemning Israel. For a primer on legal and humanitarian issues concerning East Jerusalem, see the following UN document.
#Why the term 'evictions' is wrong/Why the Palestinians haven't been paying 'rent'.
In 1982,
... keep reading on reddit ➡In England.
A friend gave references to the HR department of his new prospective company and they asked his references for his salary history. One of his previous employers is still on good terms with him and mentioned to him that this was asked, which both of them were surprised about.
He's worried as he inflated his previous salary when asked about it in an interview. Is this legal, or is this standard practice?
If this information is reported on 150 years from now, how will it be reported, will those search terms be blocked on whatever replaces Google, will there be an independent media, do we have independent media now ?
If you don't know who Julian Assange is - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Barring any surprise ruling from Judge Netburn (who has proven to be a highly intelligent and adept interpreter of the law), this lawsuit is turning out to be an immense blunder on behalf of the SEC. Further, Gensler was positioned in the perfect situation to bring his broad knowledge of cryptocurrencies and technology to the agency and to reign in a lawsuit that will damage the SEC's ability to further enforce against other cryptocurrencies after all this is settled. Instead, he's chosen to keep the course set by his corrupt predecessor.
The problem with pursuing Ripple is that it has the funds to secure some of the best lawyers in the industry, and already has secured former SEC employees to assist in both its expansion of business and its legal teams. What this means is that as every day passes, Ripple is launching more effective counterattacks against the SEC. And for every one that Judge Netburn rules in favor of Ripple, it becomes another documented legal weapon for every other cryptocurrency the SEC will choose to pursue after its attack on Ripple.
The SEC had a wonderful position to be proactive on both shepherding the innovation of new technology and to provide guidance for cryptocurrencies to thrive and grow. Instead, it's been timid and cowardly, most likely influenced by the existing financial system.
Make no mistake. If the SEC loses this case against Ripple, it will only be able to pursue other cryptocurrencies from a much weaker position. And even if there is a settlement, all of these rulings will be able to referred to by new defendants and will have to be re-examined, forcing the SEC to once again attempt to protect its power and push it towards a less favorable settlement.
This entire case, the corruption by Clayton, and Gensler's dumbfounding decision to stay the course with the lawsuit against Ripple and his unwillingness to provide a tech-favorable framework to the broader crypto-sphere will be examined by law students years from now to better understand how an agency in such a prime position weakened itself immensely through a series of blunders and mind-boggling decisions.
Basically I was accepted for a job in Prague, and the employer is asking for a document from my GP with my medical history, addressed to the employer's health care office. I had several jobs in Czech Republic never was I asked for this. For reference the job is an engineering office job.
Pinconning Paralyzer podcast looks at the history, busts and possible reemergence of Michigan's most well-known marijuana strain.
Apple podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/.../michigan.../id1364023787
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/68ualygkEw72H8ikvbSz7d
Google: https://podcasts.google.com/.../aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRid...
