Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42813
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. He said "interdicted off the coast of Venezuela," which reduces the sample size to 14, three of which had no contraband, so presumably the other 11 did. One of the three violated other criminal law. Filipowski flipped the three and 11.
  2. You sound elite. Are you an elitist? Did you go to college?
  3. Demonstrating that lawyers are bad at math. 3/14 had no illicit contraband, 11/14 did. Don't need my HP to tell me 11/14 >>21% Notoriously unreliable bluesky twatter. Dammit, Ron.
  4. I believe they are real. And spectacular.
  5. The origin of all this is that she apparently went on a rant about the commercialization of Nashville and said she hated country music. Don't believe she said anything about Christians. ETA "I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville apparently an ‘it’ city to the rest of the country.”
  6. tl;dr AI haemophilia
  7. Doesn't mention it being patented. That would probably be a difficult thing to patent, being basically an elastic cord, but would be fun to try.
  8. A real piece of work. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/family-and-relationships/parenting/who-is-kristi-fulnecky-more-details-on-ou-zero-grade-student-s-mum-s-alleged-controversies-and-political-drama/ar-AA1RyeXW Fuck you hands were tied. Sidebar: A lot of these MAGAts put "public figure" in their social media profiles. I'm not sure what they think that's accomplishing with that. It makes them easier to defame.
  9. How do you win an ALR? Curiosity. Fun fact. I had an argument at the Texas Supreme Court some years back. The case in front of me raised the issue whether the ALR/whole revocation scheme violated due process. Sub issues were whether a DL was a sufficient right to merit due process protection and whether the appeal provided for in the statute properly led to the Supreme Court. The guy arguing it was a super-laid-back criminal defense lawyer that was pretty casual about the whole thing, but also pretty effective.
  10. I'm sure it did, but they're going to try to claim he acted unilaterally, without specific orders. Either way, it would seem he's on the hook, with or without Whisky Pete.
  11. Strange that they could find someone that could be as big a hack as Ronny Jackson.
  12. Also recall that in the first or second strike, there were survivors and no evidence of criminality. They were released "into the wild" never to be seen again. Can't have them giving evidence that they were fishermen or whatever.
  13. Note that it omits cranial imaging. The results there would be "his head is full of fuck."
  14. They were legal because he said they were, duh.
  15. Well, frankly, if he is a flag officer of the United States Navy that didn't at the least question these orders in the first place, he may deserve what he gets. ADM Holsey foreshadowed this shit. Maybe using SOC was an end-around Southcom.
  16. Ok, so these boats are targeted with some kind of missile, which would seem to be drone-launched, aircraft-launched, or surface-launched. Given current "proclivities, I'd assume an AGM-114 Hellfire launched from a Predator or Reaper drone. What on earth does any SEAL team have to do with this? Or JSOC? The drones could be launched from dang near anywhere, maybe likely a surface vessel in this instance, and controlled from really anywhere?
  17. Yeah, my Dad couldn't hear shit past his 50s or so thanks to thousands of rounds of 5 inch guns, but he could hear rattles in the car and a fan bearing on the AC outside from in the house.
  18. Use of any SEAL team to drone strike rafts seems very unlikely, except maybe using a laser designator for targets, but I don't think that's necessary. I tend to think it's actually CIA paramilitaries doing these. Keeps things out of the military chain of command, and I think the CIA can be easily manipulated into doing unlawful shit, if they're not flat inclined to do it.
  19. Good points. I was thinking about a "raiding" cause of action, ie raiding employees. I suppose those causes of action are circumscribed for the reasons you cite. I do know that "anti raiding" contractual provisions are thought to be unenforceable as restraints of trade. And yeah, I don't know if Texas is an outlier on employee/fiduciary duty or more getting in line with everyone else. In any event, in Texas, you have a duty not to undermine your employer for your own purposes, even if that's not a "fiduciary duty." In the pure business context, most of this shit devolves into trade secrets, ie the departing employees are taking trade secrets/confidential information. You could probably devise such a cause of action (playbook, play scripts and so on), but it is certainly uncommon.
  20. I wouldn't call last year's OL great except by comparison to this years. Especially in run blocking. If the greatest/best coaches are constantly tinkering to make the good great, OL was one of those things that deserved tinkering after last year. Instead we got what we got. And it nearly undid the entire offense.
  21. Regarding tortious interference, it would be a spite suit, depending on assistant contracts. If they're like most schools, they're on one-year contracts, so they probably couldn't prove much in the way of damages because there's little expectation of entitlement to their services beyond the existing contract. Also, without their hiring coach at the top, their services aren't terribly valuable. But they could fuzz up an argument maybe that a new coach would have wanted the choice to renew their contracts. Then again, every time a new coach is hired away, their contract is "interfered with" by the hiring school and same with any assistants he brings with him. The breach of fiduciary/employee duty would probably just generate cause for firing. But that would require him to be fired before he resigns, most likely. Probably all this would do is make a mess and make UM a less attractive employer. And what they can't ultimately do is force him to stay at Ole Miss to complete his contract. This kind of thing could come up in every hiring scenario, although it is somewhat unusual for the coach to "announce" or "threaten" like Kiffin and I suppose some damages could result from that, taking it out of the usual scenario where no one uses.
  22. Well, let's see, making plans to hire/negotiating with those still under contract might be considered a breach of fiduciary duty, or the duty owed an employee to employer. And potentially also tortious interference with contract, once no longer employed.
  23. He's gonna blow the Jesus nut right off that Huey.
  24. Damn, hate to see the Plimsoll line on that one.
×
×
  • Create New...