None, and nobody.
You can sue a justice for the same things you would sue anyone else for - e.g. if their dog runs wild and bites you - but you cannot sue them for actions related to their performance of their duties as justices. Search for "judicial immunity" for more info.
This is a Nebraska state bill, not federal.
This is the quickest way
No. "Is" implies it's actually doable. "Would be" is the correct verb form.
"his only daughter" - would it somehow be less horrible if he had another daughter? Weird thing to emphasize.
¿Que?
"On cue" means "at the correct time" or "exactly when prompted."
"In queue" means "in line".
"Que" is a Spanish interrogative.
1 in 310 per 7 weeks does seem high at first glance, but human brains aren't intuitively good with statistics so let's figure out what that number actually means..
Check my math: for this to be a normal/random result, that would mean that one person out of a random group of 310 would be expected to die about every 48 days. In this scenario the whole population would be dead in about 40 years, which means the average time to live of that group is 20 years from t=0.
Since the average life expectancy in the UK is about 80, that would mean that the average age of a vaccine recipient would have to be about 60 for this mortality statistic to be normal- which is to say, about as many 50 year olds as 70 year olds got vaccinated, about as many 40 year olds as 80 year olds, about as many 30 year olds as 90 year olds, and about as many 20 year olds as 100 year olds.
That doesn't seem at all likely to me.
Petition was filed, reviewed, and denied; petition for rehearing was filed, reviewed, and denied. There is no process and no obligation for dealing with appeals to a denied petition for rehearing. This case is completely dead (to be fair, it was never alive; the actual legal theory this case attempted to propose is ridiculous) and y'all need to just pour one out and let it go.
Yes, the underlying issues Brunson wanted to complain about are real and important but THIS case was NOT a well crafted vehicle for addressing them. Find a better case to care about.
That is exactly the way that language is different from math.
#believeallwomenexceptthoseinconvenienttothenarrative
Law is practical language in the same way that engineering is practical math. If you're bad at language you cannot be good at law.
Definitely not taking legal advice from anyone who uses apostrophe's to form plural's.
Huey Long was a threat to Roosevelt from the left - he was advocating for even more communism than FDR was, and a lot of FDR's programs were taken directly from Long's "Share Our Wealth" plan. His death was no loss.
BAC-PD is not the primary stock. You should be looking at plain old BAC, which is at 48% chance of bankruptcy - still horrible and terrifying for any of their customers, but a lot better than 99.
There have been exceptions - journalists who take their job of serving the people rather than the institutions seriously. If you haven't read any Mencken, you should.
Also relevant:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton
No fractional reserve bank is safe from collapse.
And a big chunk of that 30% are in Africa and India. The percentage of resistant population in actual civilization is much lower.
If you have an account with any major bank move to a credit union anyway.
Yeah, that horse has left the barn.
Remember, you don't need to change the world to "win". Raise a family, be part of a community, share your values with those around you. That's all it takes to win. And that's all it takes to change the world.
You sound like a classic joke about the guy looking for his car keys. Bumble is convenient, but the woman you're looking for isn't there.
OK, so there are three possibilities here. 1) you're a bad person, 2) you're a flawed person, 3) you're a good person.
Scenario 1: You knowingly did something unforgivable and you got caught. You're not guilty about what you did, you're just unhappy with the consequences. You don't deserve her and she doesn't deserve your crap. Let her go and move on.
Scenario 2: A moment of weakness or shortsightedness led to you doing something you regret in hindsight. This is part of being human; pobody's nerfect. It sounds like you're sincerely acknowledging that error and you'll probably end up a better person as a result of this experience. You need a partner who will accept your imperfections and support you as you grow, and if this girl is too selfish to be that partner then you deserve better than her.
Scenario 3: You actually didn't do anything wrong and your fiancee's reaction is irrational and/or manipulative. Take a moment to think carefully about whether anything you did actually violates your personal code, or if the reason you think you messed up is because you're being told you messed up. Don't immediately dismiss this option; people who are being emotionally abused are the last people to see it.
Yep. The Brunsons need a competent lawyer to help explain how the law actually works, because none of these cases have an actually plausible legal theory as their basis.