Eh, take race out of it, and it's a simple breach of contract case:
The Atlanta City Council approved an ordinance for “the requested development provided that the developer met the maintenance and access conditions,” the complaint states, arguing the responsibility for maintaining the cemetery lies with the HOA.
If the HOA got zoning permission to develop the adjacent property into townhomes contingent on their maintenance of the cemetery, the city council simply needs threaten to re-zone the area back to what it was. I'm sure they'll find a way to clean it up pretty quick when all those rich homeowners start filing lawsuits against the HOA/developer because they're in danger of losing their houses.
I hear they've been working on the same section of highway near the Tacoma Dome for over 20 years now. I know they were working on it back in the early 2000s, and they were still at it when I visited there a year or two ago.
For perspective, the US spent less than 4 years fighting in World War II. Millions of soldiers trained, tens of thousands of ships, aircraft, and tanks built, and they could have done it all over again fives and still it would be less time than it has taken to rebuild a couple miles of highway in Washington State.
You're spot on that the elites are trying to convert everyone into pay-as-you-go peasants. However, I agree with someone who posted here a week or two ago these people are wicked and Machiavellian while simultaneously being naive and profoundly stupid.
The major reason that the West never had a communist revolution is that people with something to lose aren't inclined to revolt. No matter how bad it gets, almost everyone has a roof over their head and a full belly, plus lots of cheap entertainment as well. You really have to have nothing to lose in order to be willing to risk everything in a revolt.
If they get their way, it won't be "you will own nothing and be happy", it will be "you will own nothing and be miserable". A bunch of poor miserable people is the recipe for a revolution. Perhaps they think their wealth will protect them, but that wasn't the case in 1700's France, tsarist Russia, or any of the other bum fuck places that have had revolutions in the last 200 years.
By the time I left both my job and my husband, I had decided that neither relationship satisfied me. Both, in some ways, limited me, put controls on me and caused me unnecessary anxiety. I wanted agency, and wouldn’t settle for anything less.
Ah, there it is, she got bored of her husband and kicked him to the curb. I'm sure she had the honor to decline taking any of his money because she noped out of the marriage for no particular reason at all and he wasn't at fault, right?
Now, I still live in Harlem, although I upgraded to a nicer apartment,
I guess not.
Even if that were true, there's age appropriate education. They want to be teaching kids about this shit when they still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
"For example, many Canadians under 35 are unlikely ever to be able to buy a place to live," the report continues.
That couldn't be because you've allowed the Chinese to hide their money from their government by buying property in Canada. No, houses aren't for your own citizens to live in, they're better used as investment vehicles for foreign nationals- idiots.
It's so bad there are actually companies that these Chinese people hire to make their house look lived in when people got wise to the fact that there's a bunch of vacant properties sitting around owned by foreigners when they can't even afford a place to live.
Their skin tone coordinates with the wooden wall behind them.
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.
And there's the intellectual problem I can't reconcile.
Me: "Fuck off nanny state, you don't have a right to tell me what kind of gun I can own or what I can buy. I'm a fucking adult."
Also me: "Holy shit, that guy is fucking stupid. He shouldn't be allowed to own that item or do that thing because he's a danger to himself and others"
The Jeffersonian ideal of the noble yeoman farmer: a competent freethinking, self-sufficient citizen, has always been a fantasy.
Most people are nothing more than cattle with the gift of speech. They have little to no capacity for independent thought and are easily swayed by anyone with the rudimentary skills to manipulate them. Their ambitions and their abilities both confine them to toiling away it meaningless low skill jobs to acquire equally meaningless material goods.
The trick is devising the system that correctly categorizes people, where the stupid have the rights of a child their whole life because they basically are children and those with competence are unshackled from government controls that should never have applied to them in the first place.