It's a different thingymajigger.
One of the orgs that does TLS infrastructure was found to have used 4, a number from Sesame Street, as a private key on a TLS cert that was used to sign other certs.
mkwt
joined 3 years ago
I agree. But at this stage they're not trying to get the exhibit admitted into evidence. They really just need to match it against one of the categories of items listed in the search warrant.
(Warrants shall describe the "place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
She has also challenged the warrant, trying to get her stuff back. I haven't looked into the details on that.
I'm thinking a book might have a publication date or a printing date on it somewhere. There's a remote chance that would provide some loose circumstantial evidence as to ages.
From what I have read it’s not even a problem if it was filed while she was 18 provided she had no knowledge of her late father’s actions.
Lack of knowledge might insulate Ilhan from criminal charges. But because she has derived citizenship, she can lose the derivation in a civil process if it is proven that she was really 18. In that case she reverts to her previous status of lawful permanent resident. There's no statute of limitations on the civil side.
If she is found to have never received citizenship, she will probably not be eligible serve as a representative.
(Yes. The immigration laws of this country are fucked up.)
This trick does not work, folks.
Oh no, I thought this was a Lemmy fad like beans.
Justice Department charges more than 2 dozen in California sweep targeting alleged noncitizen voters
18 USC sec. 611 is a federal law that makes it a crime for a non-citizen to vote. But a federal judge in another district ruled that 611 is unconstitutional, because the constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote, subject to constraints (age 18, women, poll taxes, etc.)
Nothing in the constitution says you have to be a US citizen to vote in a federal election. That's just a rule that every state has adopted.
So I'm interested in whether they have actually charged 611 here or not.
In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.
I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don't really get what they're contributing to the legal validity of the case.
The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.
To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.
Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.
Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.
In US machine shops if they're getting down to that level of measurement, they'll switch over to milli-inches.
Yes, milli-inches are an actual unit in use.
And it's been this way since 1893. The US customary system has been sneaky metric that whole time.
It's about 350 millimooches.
28
U.S. Taxpayers Have Paid At Least $1.1 Million in Attorneys' Fees to Unlawfully Detained Immigrants
(www.courthousenews.com)
While sitting for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that she filed, Laura Loomer was asked to explain under oath what she meant by the phrase "Arby's in her pants" (which she earlier penned in a tweet).
Transcript:
Q Can you explain to me what it means to say to her that "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, Arby's --
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q Answer the question.
A Arby's sells roast beef.
Q Right. Can you tell me what -- why you were talking about "the Arby's in her pants"?
A Well, it's just a -- an expression.
Q What is the expression trying to convey?
A It conveys the reason why she got a divorce by her own admission.
Q Because she had roast beef in her pants?
A Yeah.
Q She'd put roast beef in her pants; that's what you're trying to say there? You're literally saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I'm saying she literally -- it's so ridiculous. I'm saying she literally put Arby's in her pants. Yes.
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.
BY MS. BOLGER:
Q You're not making a slur about her?
A No.
Q You're literally saying she put an Arby's sandwich in her pants; is that right?
A Yes. That's correct. That's correct.
Q Why are you laughing?
A Because I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A I just think it's so funny. I just think it's so funny.
Q What is your basis for saying she put Arby's in her pants?
A She carries roast beef in her pockets.
Q What is your basis for saying she puts roast beef in her pockets and in her pants?
MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy. Harassment.
view more: next ›
You probably already know this, but at the time when FDR ran for and won 4 terms, the two term rule was just a customary practice. It wasn't written into the constitution.
After FDR died, Americans wrote up the two term rule as the 22nd amendment, and adopted it into the constitution.