Making the husband pay for opposing counsel is one of the worst things about a divorce and should be flat out illegal. In any other type of trial if attorney's fees are awarded it's after the fact, so all of your decisions were based on the possibility that you would have to pay.
The problem with assigning attorneys fees up front is that normally, part of an attorney's duty to their client is to explain the financial cost of what they're doing and allow the client to weigh that against the benefit. For example, if your case is going to cost $10,000 in fees, and can only possibly recover $5,000 in a judgment, the attorney should advise you of this and dissuade you from moving forward.
But if the other side is paying for everything, there is absolutely no incentive to not file frivolous motions or take other actions that rack up billable hours with little chance of success. The client isn't going to pay either way, so they're free to be as wasteful as they want.
The worst part is that it's so routine that when a co-worker of mine got divorced it was unusual that the judge granted his motion to not pay his spouse's fees. She skipped out on the bill, and her attorney forgot that she was on the hook and tried to collect from my buddy. He enjoyed telling that attorney to fuck off and that his client was probably never going to pay him.
I have no idea who this person is, but in the screen capture he looks like the guy begging at a local intersection. I'm certainly not going to click on his video and give him ad revenue.
You keyed it on your way in, right?
Isn't there an orchard full of apples somewhere that this bimbo should be picking?
I was reading about this case in another forum. Apparently they had plenty of evidence that he had sold guns without a license, but that crime only carries a maximum 5-year prison sentence no matter how many guns you sold.
So instead of getting an arrest warrant for the crime they could probably prove he did, they got a search warrant for all his electronics in the hope that they could find evidence he was making straw purchases- i.e, he knew the eventual recipient of the gun was not legally able to purchase it themselves when he acquired it. Each of those would be a separate count and has a heavier prison sentence, so they were really fishing for evidence so they could threaten him with decades in prison instead of just 5 years.
They did the right thing for the wrong reasons. The idea of professional licensure makes sense, if you assume the state sets the right standards and enforces them correctly, but it totally falls apart when they delegate their authority to private trade organizations. That's really nothing more than the medieval guild system in modern times.
In Griffin’s case, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected his appeal because he missed filing deadlines after the district court judge ruled against him.
Griffin’s challengers said that made him ineligible to seek review from the nation’s high court.
So, they rejected certiorari on a case that was already closed due to a procedural error on the part of the appellant? It doesn't really make the same statement the article leads you to believe.
Nonetheless, restricting the ruling on Trump to candidates for federal office was incredibly short-sighted and stupid. They basically opened the door for states and counties to outlaw candidates based on party affiliation.
If you don't think within a couple years we will see a case of a Democrat-control political subdivision declaring the Republican party at large to be a terrorist organization or some other nonsense and remove all of their candidates off the ballot you haven't been paying attention to how the left operates.
he's also "too retarded" to know how to use the heater and ignores it
I came here to say this. The instructions are mostly in pictures so illiterate fools can understand them, and it still proved to daunting for him.
In warfare, there's a term "co-belligerent", which is distinct from "ally". Two people can fight the same enemy at the same time for completely different reasons. That doesn't make them friends or allies.
On the bright side, within 10 years we will probably advance the point where AI can just generate a movie by pointing it to the text of the books and telling it the length you want the movie to be.
Why would anyone put the Willow series on their resume? The show was so bad that Disney removed it from the service.
Them: "we don't want your money, asshole. Go spend it somewhere else"
So you do.
Also them: "our video game flopped because of all the evil racists and bigots who refused to buy it."
You know, I just scanned the first three episodes again looking for it and couldn't find it. I was driving myself crazy trying to figure out where I got this, because I distinctly remember rolling my eyes at it.
Turns out it was not a lecture from Mariko in the show, but from a marketing campaign post I saw around the time the first episode aired: https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/fx-networks/5-stories-of-the-samurai-class.html?smid=url-share#/daughters-of-samurai
One girl power scene, where the main actress starts fighting with a naginata (spear) which isn't necessarily unrealistic but they portrayed it a bit too girlpowerly to be entirely believable.
This is my only real beef so far as well. I think Mariko did take up a weapon at some point in the book in an act of desperation, but they portrayed her as a skilled fighter in the show and I believe she actually killed one or two people in the scene you're talking about.
They also had her lecture Blackthorne on how women were samurai too. This concept is present in the book, but in the sense of samurai being the noble class versus women being warriors. I felt they were twisting the concept to fit modern ideals about "equality".
Other than that, I think it's pretty good. I also enjoyed the original despite its limitations of being an early 1980s made for TV mini-series.
Only the government could pass a law granting a subsidy that nobody wants because it costs too much to jump through the hoops to get it.
in order to cover any disputes or unforseen refunds on your account, we will also hold 100% of your account balance and future transactions in reserve for 90 days.
The fuck you will. There is nothing in Stripe's United States Services Agreement that authorizes them to hold funds past the termination of an account.
I can guarantee the same thing is going to happen to them that happened to GoFundMe when they tried to take donations to the Canadian truckers and give them to other charities. A bunch of people are going to start talking lawsuits, and right leaning states will talk about criminal investigations. Stripe will then talk to their own attorneys who will tell them they are fucking idiots and to knock it off or they're going to get ass raped in court.
Wow, tell me you live alone with an army of cats and drink a lot of wine without directly saying it.
Yes. You watch those old movies and the men would slap women when they became hysterical. They were onto something.
soul-crushing levels of harassment that were perfectly legal.
Wasn't filing false liens on houses a militia thing back in the 1990's? What happened?
Vexatious litigation, especially for things said/done not "in the line of duty" to sidestep immunity laws, is one of the worst things you can do to someone.
I think when (not if) the country comes apart it won't be a 21st century replay of the Civil War. More likely, it will be the withdrawal by right leaning states from polite discourse with the federal government.
We've already seen this on both sides of the political spectrum with the left refusing to enforce immigration law and the right beginning to refuse to enforce federal gun laws. People don't realize that everything from the momentous to the mundane relies on the willing cooperation of the states with the federal government.
Did you know that the states actually have a formal agreement with the federal government to tell them when people are born and die? There is no federal database of this information, so they have no idea to turn off the Social Security benefits of a dead person unless the state they die in shares that information.
This is already been litigated many times in the Supreme court. There is no federal authority to compel states to enforce federal law. Simply refusing to play along will cripple the federal government and leave them with little recourse. They can cut off the flow of federal dollars, but hopefully the states have established a degree of financial Independence before opting out of playing with the feds.
The only other choice would be an armed intervention, which violates the constitution, and provides the casus belli for the states to actually fight back. Forcing the feds to fire first strips them of their moral superiority and brings more people over to the cause.
"But bro, Strange New Worlds is better. It's got Spock and Capt Pike."
And it's got a bull dike steering the ship. I didn't make it through the first episode.
stronk black wahmen
Named Michael no less. I really think they had some old script where originally the main character was supposed to be a male and they just dusted it off, shrugged their shoulders and recast the part as a female.
I stuck with Discovery until Captain Lorca was revealed to be some evil duplicate from the mirror universe, and then I noped out. It was painful lasting as long as I did.
Holy fuck, the chick that plays Tilly completely let herself go.
Isn't killing people inconsistent with pretty much all value systems? They should probably take down any military pictures, since we wouldn't want to glorify violence.
You know, come to think of it, they should probably just disband themselves, since giving medical care to disabled soldiers just encourages the cycle of violence.
Fucking retards.
Their skin tone coordinates with the wooden wall behind them.