1. Well, according to google, the court case Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al only exists to support "Fact" #1 on the list.
It's not been cited as a precedent in any case since whenever it was ajudicated.
Interestingly, the IMF was created in 1944, beginning operations in 1947. The IRS was created, sort of, in 1862.
Oh, and Public Law 94-564? It's about Mexican debt.
you could have saved alot of googling but just knowing the IMF is american just by the pure fact that the reserve currency is US dollar. why do you think trump is so easily able to hand out sanctions to other countries but other countries cant easily sanction the us Actually just copy n pasted that comment from a snopes forum where this same list was posted |
|
|
|
|
1. Well, according to google, the court case Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al only exists to support "Fact" #1 on the list.
It's not been cited as a precedent in any case since whenever it was ajudicated.
Interestingly, the IMF was created in 1944, beginning operations in 1947. The IRS was created, sort of, in 1862.
Oh, and Public Law 94-564? It's about Mexican debt.
|
|
|
|
Browsed a few of these nonsensical items. 22. I read the IRS Publication 6209.... no reference of Britain in there at all https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/document-6209-adp-and-idrs-information29. Incorrect. I see that mentioned all the time, and always out of context. The cases cited all involve people that tried to BLAME THE COPS and sue for something they didnt like... (example: an 8 minute response time instead of 4 minutes, believing the cops should be their personal security guards, I told you my husband would beat me when you left, etc..) Thanks, PopoJeff. I looked for Britain in 6209, as well. I couldn't find it, but I didn't look through the whole document. My only thought about this is that it might be in there through some kind of indirect reference. But I'm not going to take the time to try to find it out. The whole doc is reasonably large. As for "29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you," I have read this in several places, but right at the moment I would have to dig to find where... where it directly said that police are not required to protect people. I agree that it might have said this from the standpoint that police can't be held responsible for delivering a specific outcome. Anyway, thanks, again.  29. The "police dont legally have a duty to protect you" crap all started with a Sec 1983 lawsuit out of Chicago years ago. In short, someone called 911 from an apartment building. No apartment was given. Police responded and couldn't find anything wrong anywhere. They left. A second call came in, same thing. Cops responded again, and again, no problem was found. Cops left again. Later on, woman was found stabbed or injured or something, in the rear alley. Lawsuit was filed, claiming the cops violated her civil rights by not protecting her when two prior 911 calls were made. Claiming if the cops did their jobs right the first time, she wouldn't have suffered the injury she did. Judge ruled no, you dont win the ghetto lottery. And thats what birthed the phrase "cops dont have to protect you"..... always taken out of context. If it were true, how were they able to charge that p.o.s. Sheriff in Florida for not reacting to the school shooting? |
|
|
|
Browsed a few of these nonsensical items. 22. I read the IRS Publication 6209.... no reference of Britain in there at all https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/document-6209-adp-and-idrs-information29. Incorrect. I see that mentioned all the time, and always out of context. The cases cited all involve people that tried to BLAME THE COPS and sue for something they didnt like... (example: an 8 minute response time instead of 4 minutes, believing the cops should be their personal security guards, I told you my husband would beat me when you left, etc..) |
|
|
|
|
I think it will be an easy win for Trump.
There's been so much drama and bs going on since his election, I can only summarize the entirety of his term in one quote I recently saw.
" .... The only thing that has gotten worse since Trump was elected.... is the behavior of the Democrats. Everything else has gotten better..... "
|
|
|
|
|
Pure speculation here, but.... I would imagine the exact amount of refund or credit will not be calculated until your order actually ships. In the event of price fluctuation between now and ship date, I think they'd use the ship date as the cutoff point and determine actual sales price on that date.
So, I'm not expecting to do any hard set calculations until I see the item ship.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. I agree. Running a month here, and month there will be difficult to calculate after all the diff changes. I'll leave well enough alone for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Ceiling insulation there is paper backed fiberglass roll. It's stapled along the sides. Two car garage that's about 6' wider and 8' deeper than typical two car garages. So it would be a task to remove/replace insulation. Because I would want it back in place for the summer months.
Putting a miner in the back patio wouldn't be a feasible plan for me. I'd need it completely silent, as that space has become the primary activity area 24/7. That's were my 65" and Xbox are. And my chair. You know us old guys have our chair.
The miners in the garage is the perfect spot for their noise. Can barely hear them in the room above, right next to elec service panel, and the garage is rarely used other than the wife parking her Benz in there. And the easiest place to duct exhaust heat out.
Slight slope to the property, so garage entrance is street level, back wall of garage ends up about 6-7' below grade. But the second story, at grade in the rear of the property, cantilevers out past the first floor/basement foundation wall about 2'. On the left back corner of the garage, that cantilever soffit sits about 12" above grade. So, with the miners on a shelf at the back left corner of the garage at the back wall, ducts only have to run about 2' to go over the top of the block foundation wall, and dump outside thru that soffit
|
|
|
|
|
I've never had a passport. The military handled my foreign visits.
But I did upload a pic of my PA drivers license which was accepted as ID.
|
|
|
|
Over 35 million hits in Google on "police brutality" search. And you're certain none of those hits are duplicates, factual, debunked, or false claims? If, in 1976, you "googled" police brutality, and received no hits because the internet didn't exist, does that mean there was no police brutality back then? Probably the number of hits to the same site depends on several things. One of them might be the number of times the search phrase is used in a particular website. Police brutality has always existed. Look at what they did to Bonnie and Clyde! Cops were probably somewhat more honorable in the past, but considering what Eliot Ness and the Untouchables were up against, nobody can be sure. Lately a lot of honor has gone away from everybody. Cops, who are out in the forefront, will probably express their lack of honor more readily than other people, simply because they carry guns, and are extremely bold anyway. Yes, and that's why you can't cite google hits as any reliable measurement for this issue. What would be more accurate would be actual statistical data, such as that tracked by the FBI. The recent rise in the awareness of police misconduct is actually the internet. Although statistics will show you unequivocally that police misconduct has greatly reduced over time and is consistently lowering every decade, the public perception is that its running amok and unchecked. The reason for the incorrect perception is due to every single bad incident going "viral" in minutes. Prior to the internet, the abuses may have been 10x more prevalent, but the exposure to the public was nowhere near what it is today. An incident in CA might make the local paper, but no one in NY would ever know about it. I will not defend a bad cop making a bad decision. There's plenty of idiots working in this field just like any other. The idiot female cop in TX that shot her neighbor, she's an idiot. But it actually wasn't police related. She was off duty, and thought her home was being burglarized. Still an idiot. But I will defend the false accusations and outright lies of abuse. Who was that dumbass they tried to martyrize? Robbed a store, fought with cop, and got shot. You start fighting a cop, you'll get shot. If you resist arrest and escalate the situation yourself, use of force rules allow the cops to escalate as well. 99.9% of our interactions with the public can be handled with words alone. If you listen, and act like a human, we can all get thru this without getting hurt. If you fight, run, act a fool, then you changed the entire encounter. |
|
|
|
Over 35 million hits in Google on "police brutality" search. And you're certain none of those hits are duplicates, factual, debunked, or false claims? If, in 1976, you "googled" police brutality, and received no hits because the internet didn't exist, does that mean there was no police brutality back then? |
|
|
|
Nice, never saw this thread. I'm late to the party. This should be fun.
The latest story looks interesting.... woman escalates simple situation, becomes violent, officers have to respond with force in accordance with law. Use of force continuum to be evaluated to determine if appropriate legal force was used or exceeded.
Once every few months, one of the 900,000 officers in the US makes a questionable judgement call, based on reacting to a suspect's actions. Statistically raising huge abuse concerns for this 0.0001% rate of questionable activity.
Well, that's the very reason why cops train with pop up targets, in which some are innocents and some are the bad guys. But not all cops get such training. A lot of police departments only require firearm training to be one box of 50 shells at a range PER YEAR. And upwards of 95% of cops will never fire a shot at a human over their 25yr career. But to go on, most of your information is incorrect. Very few police train with pop-up targets. That's a rarity, and usually only seen in a few federal LE depts, and Special Forces military. The basic requirement is not one box of 50 "shells", it's a two part course consisting of 60 rounds fired under timed exercises between 3-25 yds, which incorporates reload and malfunction drills. And that's just for pistol. Required annually, most departments run it every 6 months. Then add in qualification courses for rifle and shotgun. Patrol Rifle course is 40 rds, prone and kneeling at 75 & 50 yds, standing and kneeling at 50 & 25 yds, then standing 25yds and closer, with sone movement drills. Shotgun is a total of 15 shells, 50yds and in, with 5 slug, 10 buck. Now, the above is just the basic minimum require to certify. Most depts run additional drills as time/budget allow. In our case, we work 10hr shifts, and a range day is usually about 6-8 guys with two instructors. We get thru the basic qualification courses within two hours, and spend the rest of the day running drills. We've done everything from cover to cover leapfrog drills, active school shooter drills, shooting from/at vehicle, moving targets, etc.... And for CV reference... I'm a USN Vet '90-'94, and current police officer in PA since 2002. Current K/D ratio is 0/0 |
|
|
|
|
My garage is partially insulated and partially sealed. In that, the ceiling has older insulation, but heat/cold still move thru it, but at a rate greater than newer homes. There is no wall insulation between the garage and the other part of the downstairs.
As far as sealed, the two garage doors are insulated, but don't seal up tight. The exterior man door is poorly weatherstripped, and the door to the interior is just a basic hollow core door. It's actually just about the perfect amount of "not fully sealed and insulated."
Running three miners ducted outside does not draw negative pressure in the garage like a properly sealed room would.
It's just gonna be a balancing act to warm up the garage and let it bleed thru to the rest of the house, vs making too much heat in the garage where the miners draw their intake air.
In a perfect world, I'd spend a few hundred more bucks and run the exhaust ducts into one collection box. Then duct that another 30' outside along the back of the house to the finished enclosed patio area, with a high cfm inline fan. The enclosed patio is not tied into the house radiator system and uses elec baseboard heat/window ac
|
|
|
|
|
Nice, never saw this thread. I'm late to the party. This should be fun.
The latest story looks interesting.... woman escalates simple situation, becomes violent, officers have to respond with force in accordance with law. Use of force continuum to be evaluated to determine if appropriate legal force was used or exceeded.
Once every few months, one of the 900,000 officers in the US makes a questionable judgement call, based on reacting to a suspect's actions. Statistically raising huge abuse concerns for this 0.0001% rate of questionable activity.
|
|
|
|
I really dont even know what to say anymore. Reading his response gave me a headache. He's talking in circles again, and answering questions that were not asked, and referring to statements that were not made.
About the only successful defense MrDecker will ever present is that of insanity
My explanations show why I say what I do. For example. And forget the precipe meeting for a moment to make things simpler. The accused is in court under a complaint, probably as a defendant. The plaintiff reads the complaint. The judge asks for a plea from the defendant. The defendant requires writing tools (paper and pen), and 10 minutes, to give the court a proper answer. In the answer, he writes out his claim... that no man will come forward and claim he did anything wrong (plus a few other simple things, like stating that he requires a common law court of record). The judge doesn't want to accept this, so he tries to get the accused to plead guilty or not guilty. The accused says that he already gave the judge his answer. If the judge is obstinate, and tries to put in a plea for the accused, it's a good idea that the accused have friends in court, who have power of attorney to place paperwork into the case for the accused. If the judge, and the clerk of the courts are obstinate, and won't even let the accused put paperwork into the court, they start their own case against the judge. And if this goes up to the head magistrate, who often is the governor of the State, or to Federal or U.S. District Court, the judge at the trial is removed from the case and suspended until an investigation takes place. The point is, there is no simple answer. The forum could be filled with pages of possibilities. So, to suggest that BADecker is somewhat insane, is totally incorrect. You know yourself, if you have really been in court, and are really as knowledgeable about court as you have been claiming, that there are loads of court cases that show this... a small percent perhaps... but many. Loads of court cases that show this? Show me one. |
|
|
|
|
I really dont even know what to say anymore. Reading his response gave me a headache. He's talking in circles again, and answering questions that were not asked, and referring to statements that were not made.
About the only successful defense MrDecker will ever present is that of insanity
|
|
|
|
I see you citing US code 241. What are you gonna do with that? - At the moment, I don't have any intent to use that code. I don't know if I ever will in the future. Are you filing a criminal complaint in federal court? - I am currently not filing a criminal complaint. Generally, I would be filling a claim if I were filing something in the way you are speaking. Why are you asking if I am filing a complaint? Such is dis-honorable, sticking your nose into the business of other people. Using the same law book you think you can circumvent? - If I used a code, I would be stating the essence of the part of the code I was referring to, and then CF the code itself. Since I am not a licensed BAR member, using a code directly is something I can't do without the approval of a licensed BAR member. To receive such approval would place me under their jurisdiction, which is something I won't know that I want to do until I have the actual case, and my actual suit, in mind. This is why I only state the essence of the code, and CF the code, itself. Besides, if I open my case in Federal District Court, the magistrate/judge is only a referee. The jury is the real judge. What AUSA is going to approve your complaint ? - I don't off hand know what an AUSA is or what it might be referring to. But it is irrelevant, since I am not doing a complaint, and would most likely do a claim, not a complaint, if I were doing something like this. Furthermore, that' code isn't even being used in the right context. - I didn't use that code. If you are going to suggest that a code isn't being used correctly, you need to show who isn't using it correctly, and how they aren't using it correctly, or what you say is meaningless. Here's its intention and proper place for use https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dljYou can't just pick a code/section that you think applies to a circumstance and say "see, there it is...that's law." - That's common understanding I would think. After all, somebody who doesn't know what he is doing wouldn't be using just any code without counsel. There's so much more to it. Other conflicting sections, criminal definitions, case law, rules of criminal procedure. I can show you a state and federal law making it an offense to burn a flag. But, it cannot be charged or enforced. just because it's printed in black and white in a law book doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play.
Besides, USC 241 in your reference, above, is exactly what I would CF it for.You did nothing but talk yourself in a circle. You referenced a code as your basis for suit/warning ... and dont know wtf to do with it now You admit that you are not a BAR member. You reference a Federal statute, but have no idea what an AUSA is. And you have exactly ZERO courtroom/legal experience. Yeah, everyone should believe you know the legal system.  |
|
|
|
i would love to see BD say
"i am Standing present, unrepresented"
and a judge interupts and says...
so your a christmas gift standing up, that isnt a regift from someone else.. ok sherrif, please take custody of this man, i recommend a 72hour psych evaluation hold
I can tell you exactly what would happen if he says that.... The judge will then ask if he is waiving his right to counsel. If he confirms that he is, he will sign a document stating such. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
