Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

I'm not sure that's unconstitutional. Obscenity isn't covered under the First Amendment.

At least the Supreme Court decided it wasn't covered. The problem with that is it's impossible to define objectively.

they always make you pay for the damn newspapers

Our local paper is free. Of course, it's only about 30 half-pages compared to a 'normal' paper and it only comes out once a week. ;)

I'm sure any jobs freed up will be open for filling by US unemployed or legal migrants.

Here on the West Coast the ag industries depend on work visa permitted migrant workers. That could be affected. Good luck convincing US residents that they attempt to make a living at migrant worker, piece-work wages, with no benefits. And those who live here know how 'easy' it is to resume unemployment insurance benefits after a temporary job ends.

It's a foolish administration that messes with agricultural food production. For instance, try buying a Washington apple if the flow of migrant workers stops. These are SEASONAL workers who come to work during the growing and harvest season, seek to live as cheaply as possible, and take their savings home to support their families for the remainder of the year.

The jobs don't pay enough to support college tuition, so forget about student workers; the jobs are not year-round, so forget about people on public assistance. Any brilliant suggestions to address those issues? Other than having America's underclass move to Mexico?

GB, if they rely on legal migrants, as you say they have work visas, then kicking out illegals without work visas shouldn't affect them, unless they're not checking if the workers have valid visas -then kicking out the illegals should open up the jobs to those who have valid visas.

Heavy handed enforcement could make the legal migrants less willing to come. They are very poor, they don't have money to spend on lawyers if they get caught up by CBP or INS by mistake.

However, every law enforcement officer of every level in the US has a responsibility to enforce all the laws applicable to the people in their areas jurisdiction.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't work that way here. State and local LEOs only have jurisdiction to enforce state and local laws. Local police can not arrest people for things that are crimes only under federal law.

Because in the late 1800s a raft of laws were passed to give the states prime authority in regards to most crimes. Thus, for some crimes the state laws override.

If you are talking about the US, The Constitution (ratified in the 1790s) gives states primacy in most criminal matters. With a few exceptions, federal criminal law only applies if the crime is committed on federal land or if the commission of the crime crosses state lines.

The major exception is bank robbery (the feds always have jurisdiction in bank robbery cases).

The last decade or so, the feds have been pushing the envelope of what constitutes an interstate crime.

The DOJ/FBIs current position is that if any tool used in the commission of the crime ever traveled in interstate commerce (almost nothing you can buy in a store hasn't) then they have jurisdiction.

This theory has not really been tested by the courts yet, so it's hard to say how it will play out if someone with money to pay for a decent lawyer ever tries to fight it.

From what I learned while talking with US law enforcement people as part of story research the local are obliged to enforce the federal crimes.

Someone handed you a line of shit. The US constitution actually prohibits the federal government from conscripting local officials to enforce federal law.

I suspect you're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act which is actually the reverse of that.

No, that is not what I am thinking of.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.

Unless the US has a very different set or rules on what the difference is, a regulatory program is not a crime.

Anything that can result in jail time is considered criminal.

However, some of the federal stuff is a crime and the locals can arrest you for that, but the list of those crimes is small. Not every breach of the law is a crime.

Again, no they can't. You are confused, because there is a lot of overlap in state and federal criminal law.

The majority of federal criminal law was passed to mirror state criminal law, but cover crimes on federal land where state and local law enforcement has no jurisdiction and cases where crimes occur across state lines.

99% of what is criminal under federal law is also criminal under state law in the majority of states.

Just stop. You don't know more about US law, particularly the junctions and interplay between state and federal law than the US citizens on this site.

So you see non-payment of a debt or the non-payment of child support as a criminal act? There are many things you can be put in prison for that aren't crimes.

No, actually in the US you generally can not be jailed for the failure to pay debts. We outlawed debtors prisons a long time ago.

In the US, if you can be jailed for a violation, you are entitled to trial by jury under criminal law procedures, no exceptions.

ETA: Even with contempt of court, they can't hold you for more that a few weeks on civil contempt. Beyond that they have to bind you over for trial on charges of criminal contempt, for which you are entitled to a trial by jury.

@Ernest Bywater

So you see non-payment of a debt or the non-payment of child support as a criminal act? There are many things you can be put in prison for that aren't crimes.

No, actually in the US you generally can not be jailed for the failure to pay debts. We outlawed debtors prisons a long time ago.

In the US, if you can be jailed for a violation, you are entitled to trial by jury under criminal law procedures, no exceptions.

ETA: Even with contempt of court, they can't hold you for more that a few weeks on civil contempt. Beyond that they have to bind you over for trial on charges of criminal contempt, for which you are entitled to a trial by jury.

The crime is failure to follow a court order not the non payment of the child support or parking fines. Disobeying a court order is considered to be a crime. In fact failure to obey an order from a police officer (regardless of local or federal) is considered a criminal act. Its funny how its legal for them to make an illegal U-turn when they are not under an emergency situation, yet the same turn for the average citizen is a crime and can be ticketed for a court ordered fine. The cop can not be ticketed however even by an average citizen.

The crime is failure to follow a court order not the non payment of the child support or parking fines. Disobeying a court order is considered to be a crime.

It's called contempt of court (which I mentioned in the comment you are replying to) and it can be civil or criminal. You can't be held in custody for civil contempt for more than a few weeks.

If the judge wants to charge you with criminal contempt, then he has to turn it over to a prosecutor and you get a full criminal trial.

Criminal contempt of court charges are very rare.

yet the same turn for the average citizen is a crime and can be ticketed for a court ordered fine.

A ticket is civil not criminal. If it were criminal you would be entitled to a trial by jury before the fine could be levied.

A ticket is civil not criminal. If it were criminal you would be entitled to a trial by jury before the fine could be levied.

The point of that portion was the cop could not be ticketed so s/he does not have to obey the same laws as the average citizen. This puts them above Law since the citizen has no legal way to ticket that cop for the same violation which they would be ticketed for.

The point of that portion was the cop could not be ticketed

As a legal matter, technically, they could be ticketed by another cop. However, other cops will generally look the other way for a fellow cop. This is corruption, not legality.

A citizen can not legally ticket a cop for any action. That places the cop above the law as far as the citizen is concerned. The same way that Atlanta Police Detective "I. A. Thompson" was not charged with child rape and abuse even after being caught in the F**king act. He was only forced to retire early and all of his records were sealed. Meaning his victims could not even file civil charges against the asshole. Definitely placed him above the damned law. I wonder why I have zero respect for the police.

edited to add: He was allowed to draw his pension for being such a great cop. His name, address and phone was hidden from any inquiry by the public however.

True, but it's the result of corruption not any sort of legal immunity.

Three guesses as to why I always cheer whenever I hear of a cop being killed. I don't feel any pity for the cop.

A citizen can not legally ticket a cop for any action. That places the cop above the law as far as the citizen is concerned.

No, but you COULD place the police officer under citizen's arrest IF you are completely and 100% in the right. The problem is that police officers driving fast or seeming to disobey the speed / traffic laws could be that they are responding to a call and IN THEIR JUDGEMENT do not need flashers or lights. Perhaps they've even been told on the radio, no flashers. YOU don't know that.

And yeah, I lost all respect for you completely with your other comment.

I always cheer whenever I hear of a cop being killed

Are there bad cops? Sure. I'm not saying there aren't. I'm just saying that anarchy, or cheering for like what happened in Dallas recently, is the way to go.

And yeah, I lost all respect for you completely with your other comment.

When did they earn my respect. All I have ever experienced from them is the so-called bad ones. Hell even the one time they were called in when a man pulled a large knife on me. I was the one about to go to jail even while I was both unarmed and untrained in any form of physical defense. The so-called good cops even sent the man home to put the knife away. Told me if anything happened to him. I would be going to jail. Where and when was any respect earned. I am not going to respect any one just because of a job title. So of course since all my personal experience has been negative with them, I cheer when they lose. I always said I hold grudges forever. I never claimed to forgive anyone. I would be dishonest if I claimed otherwise.

As a legal matter, technically, they could be ticketed by another cop. However, other cops will generally look the other way for a fellow cop. This is corruption, not legality.

Although it has been known to happen across agency lines, albeit rarely. I remember one a few years back that made national news out of Florida because of the stink the other agency(the one the ticketed cop belonged to) raised over the whole thing.

I forget if it was a city cop ticketing a county or state trooper for a traffic violation--in a marked cruiser no less, or if it was a county cop ticketing a state trooper. But yeah, "Local Cop tickets police officer driving cruiser belonging to law enforcement agency with wider jurisdiction" and the "higher agency" not being pleased about it.

They had some rather poor cooperation with each other for a while because of that, and I think they ticketed each other a few more times before all was said and done.

I forget if it was a city cop ticketing a county or state trooper for a traffic violation--in a marked cruiser no less, or if it was a county cop ticketing a state trooper. But yeah, "Local Cop tickets police officer driving cruiser belonging to law enforcement agency with wider jurisdiction" .

We have had some almost similar cases in the UK involving "parking offences". One was ticketing a police car when the two officers were helping an injured person yards from their car. The other was a string of ambulances at a collision or similar.
Parking tickets are issued by employees of the local council who are not police officers or equivalent, but the tickets are themselves effectively fines. Upon appeal the local council can decide to rebate the tickets, repaying the fines paid

Although it has been known to happen across agency lines, albeit rarely.

Usually in cases where there is some animosity between two agencies with overlapping jurisdictions.

Although it has been known to happen across agency lines, albeit rarely. I remember one a few years back that made national news out of Florida because of the stink the other agency(the one the ticketed cop belonged to) raised over the whole thing.

We had an incident like that last year. One of the local town cops pulled over an out-of-state cop that was driving IN EXCESS OF 25 MPH over the posted limit. The offender's department raised a big stink about 'police brotherhood' or some such crap as to why he should not have been ticketed. Most of the community had nothing but praise for the local officer.

If that were so every civil court case is about a crime. Slander would be a crime, so would breach of contract. Both of those break laws.

It's complicated in the US. Some things can be both civil and criminal.

There is statutory laws and common law. Common law is created by the courts where there are not statutes.

There is no common law at the federal level. However most of the US states adopted British common law when they first became states, the one exception is Louisiana which stuck with Napoleonic law.

Common law is strictly civil. The US does not allow common law crimes. Most tort actions, such as slander are common law.

A few states have tried to create criminal slander laws, however, they have generally been shot down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds.

Only the government can prosecute a criminal case.

There are however, statutory laws that carry both civil and criminal penalties.

If the law caries only financial penalties, it can be civil or criminal depending on how the law is written. However, if jail/prison time is involved it is always criminal. Some laws allow the government the choice of bringing a civil action limiting the penalties to fines or bringing a criminal action with potential for imprisonment.

Some laws allow a private right of action on the civil penalties.

As an example that doesn't allow a private right of action but can be either civil or criminal take tax evasion. The government can bring a civil action to size assets and recover the taxes owed, or they can bring a criminal action and put you in prison.

Criminal actions on tax evasion are rare and generally only brought when the amount of back taxes owed is very large.

I'm well aware of the legal differences between the various laws etc. and some are crimes and some aren't.

You need to re-read my post. Some laws civil and some are criminal, but some are both.

The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines crime as:

Neither of those definitions are used by courts of law.

Criminal and civil cases use different procedures and different standards of proof.

"Civil courts are government institutions that punish people for violating laws."

No, mostly that's not what they do. While punitive damages are available in some cases, the primary purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff (usually not the government) whole, to compensate the plaintiff for some injury caused by the defendant.

Most civil cases (there are exceptions) do not involve laws passed by a legislative body, but causes of action recognized by the courts at common law.

Common law is a term for laws that were passed (or made) by a legislative body (or person) in the past, and are recognized by the courts as being currently valid laws.

No, it it not. Common law is a term for laws that were made by the courts themselves.

1.
the system of law originating in England, as distinct from the civil or Roman law and the canon or ecclesiastical law.
2.
the unwritten law, especially of England, based on custom or court decision, as distinct from statute law.
3.
the law administered through the system of courts established for the purpose, as distinct from equity or admiralty.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/common-law

Laws made by legislative bodies are statutory law, no matter how far in the past.

You made a good start on it DS. I agree that common law was codified by the early English court system.

You don't get it.

1. The common law isn't fixed. US state courts continue to develop their common law today. There are common law causes of action available in US state courts that were never recognized by by the early English courts.

2. No, courts don', in fact they can't, codify common law. To codify common law means that a legislative body transforms common law into statutory law.

As far as the courts creating new common laws, you will have to provide a few specific examples.

Wrongful life, first recognized by the California state courts in 1982

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1962&context=nlr

Specific examples are difficult to find, because there are no legal sources that list causes of action by the dates they were first recognized by the courts.

You don't get it.

1. The common law isn't fixed. US state courts continue to develop their common law today. There are common law causes of action available in US state courts that were never recognized by by the early English courts.

2. No, courts don', in fact they can't, codify common law. To codify common law means that a legislative body transforms common law into statutory law.

You are mixing the definitions in two countries.

R E P's definition is pretty close to what I learned when I was studying UK law. I do agree with your 2nd statement.
It can be argued in a UK court that "it has always been understood that ........ and this understanding has been accepted by the courts in the cases X v Y, Y v Z etc.
Yes, this is coming very close to jurisprudence but the difference is that in jurisprudence the court has very specifically and without reference to any thought of common law (if it so referred) itself decided on what is right in the particular circumstances (call it common sense). What we call jurisprudence seems close to your statement 1. It is relevant that the word "jurisprudencia" is applied to this same concept in at least Latin American country
It is MY view that UK common law can extend to what we call "practice of the trade" where certain rules are imposed by a trade or profession on those involved in it (an idea originally imposed by the Guilds in London)

You are mixing the definitions in two countries.

No, but REP might be. I was speaking strictly to the concept of Common Law as it is used in US courts.

What I actually was responding to was your reference to early English law in item #1 where you stated

No, that was not me stating anything. That was a direct quote of the definition of "common law" from dictionary.com.

My only statement in regards to English common law is that most US state adopted it directly or indirectly by adopting common law from an older state in order to jump start their state courts.

However, that body of US common law has not since remained some static reflection of ancient English common law.

As to the issue of the courts making laws, I have still seen no proof of that contention.

Perhaps you will accept these:

The principles and rules of action, embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments, applicable to the government and protection of persons and property that derive their authority from the community customs and traditions that evolved over the centuries as interpreted by judicial tribunals.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+law

Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury's verdict.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

Do note that the second quote is from the web site of the University of California at Berkeley Law School.

The bold is mine in both quotes.

The rulings define whether the decision made by a judge in applying Legislative Laws to a set of circumstances were appropriate in terms of the specific statutes and codes cited in the case being appealed.

Not always. There isn't any statutory law underlying the majority of tort actions such as slander and personal injury cases.

No it isn't, First I don't have access to a law library.

Second there is a big difference between an individual case having no relation to statutory law and whether or not the underlying cause of action is defined by statutory law.

The reason for this is that there is statutory law defining court procedure, rules of evidence, statutes of limitations, and in some states limits on damages without regard to the cause of action.

ETA: I mentioned slander in my previous comment. There is no statutory law defining slander, libel or defamation as causes of action in US law. They are based entirely on common law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

Again the majority of tort actions are like this. There is statutory law that controls peripheral issues in the case, but the cause of action itself is not defined by statute.

That and other remarks in your citation mean slander and libel cases are related to statutory law in at least some states.

True, but even in those cases the statues didn't create slander as a cause of action, but rather codified existing common law.

I also did not state that tort causes of action are never based in statutory law, just that most of them aren't.

Unless you have a specific instance of a judge making a new law that has no link to an existing law,

How would that be possible?
Autonomous cars, fully autonomous robots and the like have no prior precedent, however any legal judgments would be based on existing laws as they relate to people & property & responsibility for cars and in the case of robots, industrial robots and those responsible for their control & those that own them..
So far I've been unable to think of anything that has or could come along that has no links to something that existed previously, and for all new developments the laws that affect them are based on the existing laws for the devices/situations that preceded them.

My contention is that judges cannot make laws, they can only interpret existing laws.

Here in Australia they can, it's called precedent.
Of course, like any other new law (even those created by an act of parliament) it will be based on that which has gone before.
Precedents can be overturned, and they can be used in legislation to make a parliamentary legislated law. Of course if the precedent stands up to scrutiny, then passing legislation that says the same thing really is redundant.
I guess the advantage of legislation is that it's easier for the average person to find out about it, than to have to go through case law to find out about precedent laws.

Just like in Shakespeare's day and the Merchant of Venice, it's a juggling act between the letter of the law and the intent (or spirit) of the law. Ideally, it's the spirit of the law that is followed.

EDIT- in a case where a Precedent law and a Legislative law exists and both are equally relevant to the facts of the case, the legislative law takes precedence over the Judge made (precedent) law.

In the US, a precedent is a ruling by a higher judicial court in which the higher court judge is ruling on how a lower court's judge applied the existing law to a specific set of circumstances.

Mention has already been made about the differences between laws in different states of the USA.
I was involved in a New York State court case when our counsel pointed out that a precedent had just been set in Indiana State law which he considered would be accepted in our New York law case.

In the end we won when the defendants gave up so the argument wasn't actually tested.

It is up to the judge to decide if he will accept the precedent and how much weight he will give it in making a ruling.

My understanding is that here in Australia Judges must take in to account all relevant legislation and precedents. Where things get murky is how they determine what is and isn't relevant, and the weighting they give to what they do consider to be relevant, especially when it is contradictory.
Hence in some cases it can be months before a decision is passed down.

Precedents can be overturned, and they can be used in legislation to make a parliamentary legislated law. Of course if the precedent stands up to scrutiny, then passing legislation that says the same thing really is redundant.

Surely you are arguing against yourself. A precedent CAN be overturned by an equal or higher court.
A law cannot be overturned except by the legislative body which makes the overturning massively more difficult.

However senior judges CAN make an apparent mockery of legislative law. I have forgotten the detail of it but the case had gone through all the appeals processes until the top appeals court heard for the Plaintiff. Lord Justice Scrutton gave his comments effectively saying the case should never have gone to court, he fined the defendant one penny (the minimum allowed amount) which the Lord Justice paid from his own pocket and condemned the Plaintiff to pay its own and all the defendant's costs! (interesting dinner table talk when you are just a kid!)

Surely you are arguing against yourself. A precedent CAN be overturned by an equal or higher court.
A law cannot be overturned except by the legislative body which makes the overturning massively more difficult.

Yes, so what?
A precedent is where a decision is made that differs from previous precedents or interpretations of existing laws.
If it isn't overturned, then it stands as a Judge made law.

BTW- Legislative laws can be overturned (ruled illegal, unconstitutional, invalid etc) by the High Court.
Usually the challenge and judgment will be made before the legislation is passed, but that's not always what happens.

I am curious. Is the precedent "overturned" as in no longer valid, or does a different ruling just create a new precedent?

I don't know.

I would say that a decision that is overturned (for whatever reason) and no longer stands, it would therefore not be a precedent.
A decision that differs from previous decisions that is upheld (if challenged) and stands would then be a precedent.
But I don't actually know for sure.

I would say that a decision that is overturned (for whatever reason) and no longer stands, it would therefore not be a precedent.

A decision that differs from previous decisions that is upheld (if challenged) and stands would then be a precedent.

In respect of the UK a judge would normally look at all the precedent decisions (as well as statutory law etc) and make a judgement.
In the case of IATA v British Eagle overturned in BCCI6 (see above) the IATA judge had to consider the definition of certain words in statutory law and make their decisions. The judge in BCCI6 actually said that they considered the previous judgement not in accordance with the intentions of the statutory law and therefore illogical. Lawyers I discussed the case with considered that in future no judge would follow the earlier precedent.

Grant; BTW- Legislative laws can be overturned (ruled illegal, unconstitutional, invalid etc) by the High Court

.

Correct; mea culpa

In respect of Australia there have been some very strange cases condemned by the press there for the sentences being too light. I don't know all the details of the cases (the press often gives only one side) but I do know the judge involved; he does care for people so I won't comment

I am curious. Is the precedent "overturned" as in no longer valid, or does a different ruling just create a new precedent?

That's very dependent on what the court said in the opinion for the new case.

It can for example say that this new rule should apply in some specific condition, but the old rule still applies in other cases.

This is what the US Supreme Court did in New York v Sullivan, where they decided that to win on a claim of defamation, a public figure must prove these additional elements.

In this case, both precedents exist in parallel.

On the other hand the court can say that the old precedent was wrong and going forward here is the new rule for all of these kinds of cases. For example, Brown v Board of Education. Here the old cases are no longer valid precedent and are supplanted by the new case.

Generally speaking, at least in the US, Appellate court judges, both circuit judges and Supreme Court justices are reluctant to completely overturn existing precedent and will do so only in extraordinary circumstances.

So far I've been unable to think of anything that has or could come along that has no links to something that existed previously, and for all new developments the laws that affect them are based on the existing laws for the devices/situations that preceded them.

Aircraft were new and unique, maybe airplanes were preceded by balloons or maybe artillery (ballista?) that flew through the air, but saying there is nothing new under sun is a considerable assumption.

Grant

So far I've been unable to think of anything that has or could come along that has no links to something that existed previously, and for all new developments the laws that affect them are based on the existing laws for the devices/situations that preceded them.

Aircraft were new and unique, maybe airplanes were preceded by balloons or maybe artillery (ballista?) that flew through the air, but saying there is nothing new under sun is a considerable assumption.

Montgolfier balloons, the first aeroplanes, subsequent developments, ocean liners, 3M tape (I think you call it 500mph tape?) ...... There were already laws intended to try to ensure the safety of the populace. Hackney cabs (pulled by horses) were subject to laws. The first train actually killed an MP or equivalent so more detailed laws were passed even if Stevenson was not liable under existing laws. In the UK we had the Red Flag Act to warn passers by of the horseless carriage about to arrive. and so forth.

There is a whle raft of laws and regulations to cover future developments - copyright, trademarks etc., objects which move must not have corners with a radius less than a specified amount, workers must be protected with dayglo clothing, a pocket knife cannot have a blade longer than 4 inches (OK, AJ, it might be a centimetre longer and there are exceptions) it goes on and on and covers future developments and inventions. Way back in the 1950s or so it was made illegal to attempt to go into space unless you got a licence from a magistrate - that is still valid!

British and Australian laws actually do create the problem under consideration; you can do anything which is not specifically controlled or prohibited. Imagine living (as I had to) under a legal system where it is illegal to do anything which is not specifically permitted! AFAIR it is clause 3 of the old Codigo Civil which allowed humans to live, to breathe, to eat .... otherwise that would have been illegal.

edited to correct a name

3M tape

3M is a company/brand, not a type of tape. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing.

3M is a company/brand, not a type of tape. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing.

And there are quite a few products that are known by the name of the company that developed them (or imported them), not the product's actual name.
Not so long ago mention plaster board here in Australia and a lot of people would have looked at you blankly. Say Gyprock and they will know what you're talking about. Many years ago if you asked for sticky tape most people wouldn't have known what you were after, or you'd end up with a particularly crappy product. If you asked for Durex, they'd have known.

And there are quite a few products that are known by the name of the company that developed them (or imported them), not the product's actual name.

True, but unlikely with 3M. 3M manufactures thousands of products across dozens of categories.

Abrasives

Aerospace & Aircraft Maintenance

Animal & Pet Care

Architecture & Construction

Automotive

Casting & Splinting

Chemicals & Advanced Materials

Dental

Electronics Materials

Facility Cleaning & Maintenance

Films

Filtration

Food Safety & Microbiology

Food Service & Hospitality

Hand Hygiene

Health Information Systems

Marine Maintenance and Repair

Medical Device & Optical Components

Orthodontic

Painting Equipment & Supplies

Patient Monitoring

Personal Protective Equipment

Power Storage and Conversion

Securement & Immobilization-Dressing Securement

Security Hardware & Software

Signs & Displays

Skin & Wound Care

Sterilization Monitoring

Surgical Solutions

Tapes & Adhesives

Traffic & Vehicle Safety

Vascular Access

Wire & Cable

http://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/All-3M-Products/?N=5002385+8711017+3294857497&rt=r3

And there are quite a few products that are known by the name of the company that developed them (or imported them), not the product's actual name.

True, but unlikely with 3M. 3M manufactures thousands of products across dozens of categories.

Very likely; 3M tape is also known here as Sellotape and in Brasil and Australia as Durex (see below). We also have 3M Notes, again named after the inventor's employer (and yes, I do know the official story about those).

However, Durex, a brand name, is a protective, condom or rubber here and preservatif elsewhere. I wouldn't like to risk using 3M tape for that!

Ah, but a rubber is what you use to remove pencil marks, usually on paper.

Hoover, a manufacturer's name, is also a name given to any brand of vacuum cleaner and the verb is to hoover.

Coke is also applied to the Pepsi version in common parlance. Cola (more correctly Kola) is a Russian peninsula

At work we had a list of English words which were not allowed because our New York office either didn't understand or, in at least one very expensive case, they had a different definition.

Confused? There's a whole world out there.

True, but unlikely with 3M. 3M manufactures thousands of products across dozens of categories.

Abrasives
Aerospace & Aircraft Maintenance
Animal & Pet Care
Architecture & Construction

List edited but you forgot football pitches in Russia!

Every time a court at any level makes a decision on a case before it that decision becomes part of the body of law and establishes what they call a precedence which is looked at and often used as the direction the next time that law is used in a case before the court.

When someone takes a person to court, at any level, and the court makes a decision on something that is not covered by a statute law that decision becomes part of the common law for that court and those at the same level in the same jurisdiction.

Again, things are not that simple in the US, trial court decisions are only binding as to the case and parties before them when the decision was made.

Only an appellate court decision can create precedent that is binding on other cases or other courts, and even then it's not binding on other appellate courts at the same level.

For example, at the federal level the trial courts are called District courts.

The Federal appellate courts are the Circuit courts. There are 13 circuit courts. Circuits 1 through 11 have geographically defined jurisdiction (each circuit covers a set of states), the DC circuit which has geographic jurisdiction limited to the District of Columbia, and the Federal Circuit which has sole appellate jurisdiction nationally over specific areas of law, the primary area being patent law.

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf

The 7th circuit covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. A decision by the 7th circuit court is binding only on Federal district courts and state courts located in the three states listed above.

The 11th circuit covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida. A decision by the 7th circuit is not binding on the 11 Circuit court nor on any lower courts in it's jurisdiction.

As to the issue of the courts making laws, I have still seen no proof of that contention. What I suspect is that people have written articles about the courts making laws and based their assertions on a misunderstanding of the courts' application of existing laws to circumstances that had not been previously raised in a court (e.g., Wrongful Life suits).

It seems that there may be some misunderstanding over the extent of the word "Law"

Over here it is split:
Legislative law: that passed by Parliament together with orders, directives etc issued by appointed ministers in accordance with clauses in the legislative laws
Jurisprudence or case law: decisions made by courts but not passed into legislative law
Common Law as discussed
"Practice of the Trade" which I have mentioned before.

Local councils can pass regulations as allowed in the relative legislative law

No body other than Parliament can pass full legislative laws. As an example in the case of IATA v British Eagle the courts decided that a company is not allowed to charge or pledge its bank credit balances. This was based on a highly technical interpretation of the relative Acts of Parliament. For a decade or more courts followed this ruling (which caused me headaches!!!) Come the problem of BCCI (Bank of Crooks and Conmen International) the courts decided that the IATA ruling was technically correct but practically illogical and turned the decision around in "re: BCCI N°6". That was an application of case law

Bullshit EB. Violation of a law is a crime. There are Big crimes and Little crimes. The bottom line is they are all crimes.

Violation of criminal law is a crime. Violations of civil law are torts.

No, that is not what I am thinking of.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503

That would only prevent "the Feds" from forcing local LEO's to enforce federal laws. That says nothing about local law enforcement voluntarily enforcing Federal Laws.

For that you have the Arizona case, in which case, it appears that the State does have to right to enforce federal law.... So long as the Federal Government doesn't say otherwise(because oh hey, supremacy clause). Which in that specific case, it did as the Obama Admin objected.

The Arizona ruling is really weird in many ways.

For that you have the Arizona case, in which case, it appears that the State does have to right to enforce federal law.... So long as the Federal Government doesn't say otherwise(because oh hey, supremacy clause).

The Arizona ruling is really weird in many ways.

You think it's weird because clearly you don't understand what the case was about.

It was never about Arizona official enforcing federal law.

Arizona created a state law that said it was a state crime for people who entered the US in violation of federal law to be in Arizona.

Arizona's police only acted pursuant to that state law, at no time were they enforcing or even claiming to enforce federal law.

Oh the 9th Circus.... the worst joke on Liberty and the Constitution

Posse Comitatus Act

Who are you calling a pussy communist?

If what you said was true a cop couldn't arrest a person once they crossed a state border to be outside the state they committed the crime in.

They can't, not directly. The way it works is that the state the crime was committed in would have to make a formal request for extradition.

A judge in the state that the suspect is in would then issue an arrest warrant based on the request for extradition. The suspect has the opportunity to contest extradition. A hearing would then be held in the state where the arrest was made.

Thus, according to you, the locals can't arrest a person in Kentucky for kidnapping a person in Georgia and taking them to South Carolina.

Okay, this is quite a bit more complicated.

Kidnapping is considered an ongoing crime. The kidnapping isn't over until the victim is either released or killed.

In this case, the kidnapper would actually be guilty of kidnapping in both Kentucky and South Carolina as well as either Tennessee or North Caroline (he would have to travel through one of those states with the victim to get to either.

Additionally, by crossing state lines with the victim, the kidnapper is subject to direct federal jurisdiction and is guilty of kidnapping under federal law.

In this case, he could be arrested by South Carolina police without a request for extradition, or the FBI could arrest him.

Now if the kidnapper releases the victim in South Carolina then flees to Florida, then either the feds have to arrest him, or any one of three states would have to request extradition from Florida.

Generally speaking in these cases, it would be left to the FBI.

If the people and the state authorities work with the federal authorities to identify and remove the illegals, there's no reason for the immigration people to be heavy handed.

Trump wants them to be heavy handed. And for that matter, the field agents want to be heavy handed, that's how they get their shits and giggles.

Reason and need have nothing to do with it.

Why is the Australian PM angry? If he believes they are refuges and should have a place to live, why not simply let them into Australia? And if he doesn't want to, why is Trump the bad guy for doing the same?

I'm truly baffled over this.

America is supposed to be an ally. They agreed to help us out with a particular issue. Now they are reneging on that agreement.
Basically it boils down to this- What good is an ally if you can't rely on them to do as they agreed?

With allies like that, who needs enemies? That's the way many people are looking at it, even those that didn't agree with it in the first place. You make an agreement, you stick by that. If you won't do it for an ally, then how can anyone else believe you will honour any other agreements you have made or will make in the future?

Heavy handed enforcement could make the legal migrants less willing to come.

If the people and the state authorities work with the federal authorities to identify and remove the illegals, there's no reason for the immigration people to be heavy handed.

Just like them getting heavy with Mohammed Ali's son who tried to return to the USA!!! It looks as if they singled him out because he doesn't have a Caucasian name.

That's making a basic assumption that this administration will not restrict the work visa program; after all, every Mexican who comes north is a drug pusher, a gang member, or a criminal. Work visa applicants will likely be subject to EXTREME vetting.

The best way to deal with the illegals already in the country is to secure them while you do the proper checks, and if they check out OK, then you process them like a normal migrant application. If they are identified as having a violent criminal record you ship them out.

"Trust us, we're the government and we're here to help you. Let us lock you up for a while, just while we check things out & if you're OK you're free to go".
Yeah, that'll work well.

It's worked well for decades here in Australia

Please.

If you're going to compare things they need to be comparable.
Detention before arrival, and rounding up those that have already arrived are not comparable.

And as for working, I guess all the legal payouts for wrong full detention & wrong full return don't count?
Like the war on drugs, the cost of detention has far exceeded by many orders of magnitude the costs of dealing with removing those that should be removed.

In one case in the 1990s a fellow claimed to be three different people from three different areas while in detention. When he was finally properly identified after a year in detention he was shipped back to where he came from due to his record for violence and murder. At another time the government wasn't detaining people and one fellow who was let loose to roam the street was able to commit a number of robberies and kill two people before he was caught after he was properly identified and as being wanted for murder in his home country.

One case amongst 100,000s. Not a particularly strong argument.

The government needs to deal with the wholesalers not the consumers.

No demand, no need to supply.

Illegal immigration is dealing with the criminals direct.

Interesting.
You consider drug dealers criminals, but not the users (even though they are).

You consider illegal immigrants criminals, but not the people smugglers (even though they are).

To stop the illegal sale of drugs you either make it legal, or you need to deal with both the supplier and the user- not just one or the other.

The same with illegal immigration- you either make what is now illegal, legal, or you deal with both the smugglers & the illegal immigrants.

Scarier than Obama being a Jihadist??
Wow...He did everything in his power to trash the Constitution and destroy America...

Scarier than Obama being a Jihadist??

Wow...He did everything in his power to trash the Constitution and destroy America...

If you keep saying it, people will believe it, but it still doesn't make it true.

If you keep saying it, people will believe it, but it still doesn't make it true.

Likewise, if you keep denying it, it doesn't make it any less true.

the jobs are not year-round, so forget about people on public assistance.

Why? Just because it isn't year round doesn't mean they can't do it. More likely they get more for sitting around on their rearends collecting assistance than they would by working. Why work for something they will give you more of for not working?

In this context? No, it does not change the meaning.
Trump considers all media that reports on things that are negative for him as fake news/media.

Probably scared of being misquoted again

I would question the word "again". I don't know of any misquotes, but I'm sure it's happened. Dictatorships know that they have to control the media before they can control public opinion. A free press allows people to form their own opinions. That's the basis of a democratic society.

I don't know of any misquotes

Then you don't pay much attention. Every politician at every level gets misquoted by the media. It's actually unusual for them to get quotes right.

Could you point us to the scientific study that shows "it's actually unusual for them to get the quotes right"? Or is that your personal conclusion after having read all the media and determined for yourself which ones were accurate and which ones were inaccurate?

Almost every case where I have personal knowledge either from being present or watching video of the original speech, print quotes in the media are off, sometimes the error is significant, sometimes not, but there is almost always some level of error.

I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt in cases where I don't have knowledge.

I have no problem if It's the Truth, but Dan Rather and Brian Williams reporting is way more common than Rare .. CNN and MSNBC are notorious for inventing and misleading news than telling the Truth.. The National Enquirer is a Better NEWS source and more Reliable than either one of those two..
I quit watching or believing any story they report A Decade is so ago....they have ZERO Integrity as Media

The show said it all started with the media — Fox News to be exact. Fox was biased towards the Right. And a second Conservative one followed (don't remember which). To counter that, MSNBC and another one did the same towards the Left. So the news that was reported was biased which led people who watch the news to become polarized which made their elected officials polarized.

I don't know if it's true, but it makes sense.

It's a convenient scapegoat. The media was already slanted strongly to the left by the 1990's, and getting progressively more so as the pre-babyboomers started to retire. Fox News was a response to that.

So if you want to blame anything, blame LBJ, the Vietnam War, and the subsequent generations of left-wing activists that it helped create within the borders of the U.S.

Ones that were more about the emotional aspect rather than the rational ones, and never looked back.

I saw the beginning of a CNN news show on why the U.S. is so polarized. They showed how the Congress voted on issues back in the past. It was not the Party vote you see today.

Ont thing I forgot about, and this probably more accurately reflects the Modern Reality in the United States. This was a change pioneered by Newt Gingrich in 1994. The RNC, as well as the assorted House/Senate "Campaign Committees" played a much more central and controlling role in the distribution of funding in that election cycle for the Republicans.

Which created a rather fundamental shift in how the financial side of the politics worked. The Congressional delegates used to go back to their home state to get financial backing from their district(plus whatever "outside interests" were inclined to kick money their way). As such, the people in Congress were more attentive to their districts, as that's where their campaign funds came from.

After 1994, their primary source of funding often filters through Washington DC. Want that money? Better toe the party line, or else.

On the other hand, there have been numerous instances of the media quoting Trump accurately

I doubt it. They rarely get quotes right.

and him denying the quote as accurate.

On the other hand, his post hock denials / claims about what he said are probably even further from the truth than the original media misquotes.

ETA: A video clip of Trump saying something isn't really a quote.

there is no doubt the locals can arrest illegals for committing crimes under local and state laws then check their immigration status and then hold them for the crime they were arrested for until the immigration authorities arrive to take them into custody for being illegal migrants.

They can, but the feds can not compel them to do so.

Even when they do check immigration status and notify the feds that they've detained an illegal immigrant, they can't hold them indefinitely just so the feds can come get them, they can only hold them as long as they would be able to hold anyone else on what ever state/local charges the person was arrested on.

This is why certain states tried to pass their own immigration crimes which were voided by the US Supreme Court. They were picking up illegals and notifying INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services), but INS under the Obama administration was refusing to come pick them up or just being slow about it, so the locals were forced to release them.

1 BBC and CNN refused admittance to Trump press conference, apparently because he doesn't approve of their broadcasts.

If by conference you mean briefing, and by "refused admittance" you mean they invited three additional networks to attend a briefing that is traditionally only attended by one (broadcast TV) network at a time.

It's no different with the current media. Even Ted Turner said CNN is entertainment now, not the news.

And that is the problem.

People say they want the truth, but then when they receive it, they choose to ignore it if it doesn't fit their perceptions of the World.
So the media has changed to meet the demands of the consumer- no longer do many of them provide factual news, they provide what their reader/viewer expects to read/see as if they don't, they lose their income.

Profits are more important than the facts or truth.

In the US, there is nothing to prevent such travesties

That's why there are higher courts, and the highest courts have more than one Judge on the bench.

In the US, there is nothing to prevent such travesties. Nothing short on impeachment/removal.

Not true. That's in part what the appellate courts are for and why appeals are never heard by just one judge. Appeals are heard at the circuit level by a three judge panel and the loser can either appeal to the Supreme Court or request an en-banc rehearing by (except for the 9th circuit) all of the circuit's judges. And of course appeals to the Supreme Court are always heard by the full court.

So, no matter what their mood or ideology, no one judge can set or change precedent.