tvc184

After return kickoff to 38, WOS runs 6 plays for touchdown

Speaking of trespassing, typically trespassing carries up to six months in a county jail or as previously mentioned, up to a year if carrying a deadly weapon. Any person in Lumberton or anywhere else whether an individual or a business, can have the police warning a person not to come back and if they do, file charges. The law does not require the police to witness such a warning but it gives a little more credibility if the police were there when the warning was given. A City ordinance is a fine only.

Trespassing requires that a person has been given “notice “ not to trespass. But… Texas law defines what qualifies as a notice. Obviously if someone tells you to leave, that is notice. It is also notice if someone putd up a sign that says, get off my lawn!! However, so is purple paint on trees marking a property line, fencing that is obviously intended to exclude intruders, fencing that obviously is intended to hold cattle or merely crops ready for harvest with no fencing or sign, etc. Just as an example, lets say you are carrying a rifle which is legal but you cut across a watermelon patch with some melons ready to be picked. That is up to a year in jail for trespassing with a deadly weapon because you were given notice But, just being on someone’s property without permission is not trespassing unless the person has been given a warning like the ones listed.

Are you talking about when Trump suspended loan payments temporarily due to covid? I don’t recall where Trump just did away with money owed.

It seems like I remember when Dick DeGuerin took one of Walker’s cases (maybe the state case for which he was convicted), DeGuerin claimed that Walker was out of money and DeGuerin was taking the case pro bono or for free.

True. It is a conflict of rational policy and buying votes. I saw a comment on Facebook noting that Biden had promised to end student debt when he entered office. The comment queried if he was concerned about student debt, why did he wait for more than a year and a half? It is obviously because in January 2020, he had no need to buy votes. I can understand the conflict in his timing, he was busy the first week ending 93 million acres of offshore oil exploration by executive order.

In the article it says, “save democracy”. No, the Black vote didn’t save democracy, it saved Democrats. There is a huge difference.

The crash from a couple of months ago that wrecked several vehicles and sent several people to the hospital, finally got to the grand jury and an indictment was returned. I guess money couldn’t buy his was out of this step as so many people claimed would happen. I am sure that he will be offered a plea deal and will likely accept something but that is just a guess [Hidden Content]

That isn’t only with punishment or school but with any endeavor. Incentives, whether positive or negative, is almost always the determining factor in behavior. Therein lies the reason that social programs generally don’t work. Obviously some programs are life savers for some motivated people (going back to incentivizes) but for a substantial percentage of people, it is a justification to fail or never strive to improve. in my opinion……

I believe that he has exhausted all of his appeals in Texas. He can appeal to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans, one step below the Supreme Court. To do so I think he has to raise a federal law or US Constitution issue. [Hidden Content]

Wait…. he’s a scam?? 😂

Is there anything there other than slot machines? I think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas law which bans poker, roulette, blackjack, etc.

Yes, that is absolutely what I am saying. Time will tell but looking at prior SCOTUS cases, I don’t see that the federal government has a dog in the hunt. They certainly can’t claim Indian is offensive unless they change many of their own laws. The feds will have a tough sell when their main US Government advocate/organization for Indians is the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I think you were making kind of an apples versus oranges argument. SCOTUS decisions aren’t that simple…. as I noted in the previous comment.

I believe you will find that the reasoning is flawed by SCOTUS rulings. In the case you mentioned, it was SD which brought suit that went to SCOTUS (South Dakota v. Dole 1987) In that case that led to the withholding of highway funds, SCOTUS listed five requirements to make it lawful. 1. The spending must promote the “general” welfare” (highway deaths). 2. It must not be ambiguous. 3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." 4. The condition imposed on thec state (citizens) must not be in itself unconstitutional (1st Amendment). 5. The condition must not be “coercive” (gee, no coercion there). I think a school name is clearly coercive, it clearly violates the First Amendment, it’s ambiguous and if you’re certainly not in the furtherance of a specific federal program. Drinking was. Then in 1992 in NY v. US, SCOTUS in a 6-3 decision ruled that the federal government again used the Commerce Clause and it to away states’ rights under the 10th Amendment. Looking at those Supreme Court rulings, there is a huge difference between drinking age and highway fatalities under the authority of the commerce clause and a national highway safety program and a school name and the First Amendment.

Buildings don’t have rights. The people working and going to class inside of them certainly do.

Not arguing but a serious question. Under what constitutional authority could the US government be involved? Will the 1st, 10th and 14th Amendments come into play, especially the 10th and 14th?

In what time frame?

Oh!!! Another Indian tribe jumps on the bandwagon. Same song, different verse….

This is what happened… [Hidden Content]

Apparently a guy is messing with his pistol while shopping when it “accidentally” went off. Those pesky guns keep pulling their own trigger!! One article I read said that it wasn’t in a holster. I am betting that he had it stuffed in his pants and it started falling out and he grabbed it. The Plaxico Burris move….. It says 3 others shot by the ricochet. The thing must have been like a pool ball hitting bumpers!! Actually the round probably struck the floor and pieces of tile scattered and hit a couple of people in the ankle. People like this give other gun owners a bad name. That is why it should always be in a holster. Even if the holster falls out for some strange reason, the gun still will not discharge. [Hidden Content]

This seems like PNG having a nothing to lose and everything to win kind of game. PAM on the other hand has the pressure of being embarrassed. They bring in a team expected to win and having a good season against a smaller team with a new head coach. If PNG loses, especially if keeping it close, they have nothing to be ashamed about. If PAM loses……..

Maybe 20 years ago, Beaumont PD was looking to hire minorities and the union agreed to an offer. I don’t know what incentive the city offered by the union accepted it. The hiring (if I remember correctly) was a 3 tier system and it was divided something like, Blacks/Hispanics, women, White males. In some respects it is similar to Minneapolis with race based layoffs. By Texas civil service law, a department has to hire by test score. The only incentive allowed is that 5 extra points for military service. The problem was (and still seems to be) that W/Ms were consistently scoring in the top percentages. Under Texas collective bargaining laws, only the police and firefighters in the public sector are allowed to bargain. If a city is civil service (such as Port Arthur and Beaumont), there are laws in place on promotions, discipline, etc. An example is that on promotions, the testing materials must be announced at least 90 days in advance of a test (such as certain laws and books on management, police supervision, etc.) and the test must be announced at least 30 days in advance. All announcements must be in writing and posted publicly at city hall. Everyone must take the promotional test at the same time and location. Anyone is allowed to appeal questions on the test. It is a timed test and the police department does not choose the testing materials, see or choose the test beforehand and does not give the test. That is all done by civilian civil service commission. An officer by state law gets 1 point per year seniority, up to 10 years. The only point of that is there are state laws in place the regulate police operations to the extent of promotions and discipline. BUT…. by contract a union and the city can agree to disregard laws of civil service but both sides must agree. An example is that state law requires two years of experience to test for sergeant but a city (like mine) can change the state law and require 4 years of experience. Another example is a city giving additional points on the test for candidates that live in the city in addition to military service. What has all of that got to do with teachers in Minneapolis having a contract that lays off people by race? Beaumont PD as mentioned had the tier hiring system by race and sex. It was agreed to by the union. One W/M from another area department made very near the top of the test and maybe even #1 overall. The problem for him was, to be hired by the contract, a person in each other tier has to be hired first. So there had to be a Black or Hispanic and then a female. But….. the city could not fill those slots first so the W/M was rejected only because they couldn’t find a qualified female (I think). It was not even a matter of giving preference to a minority, in this case the guy was completely rejected because they could not find a qualified minority in one of the tiers. Civil service law says that the test is good for a year so a city can’t keep giving tests if they don’t like the outcome. In this case the city ended the test scores since they are not getting enough minority participation. So he sued. I believe the city’s argument was, we have a contract that the union agreed to so we aren’t bound by the law. True however…. a contract can’t overcome my rights that I did not agree to give up. From my memory, the officer won an EEOC lawsuit, got a 6 figure settlement based on race discrimination and BPD had to change their hiring practices/contract. I am fairly certain I remember that officer staying with his old department after the settlement. So a union cannot take away certain individual rights by contract. Imagine this, a police union votes for a contract to ban women from police service and the city agrees under the belief that woman should not be police officers. Would that be allowed to stand? Would such a contract overcome individual rights? I think not!! Does that apply to the Minneapolis teacher’s union? I don’t know since they are under a different federal circuit court. Unless the Supreme Court issues a different ruling, their circuit court would stand as precedent. I think a federal lawsuit “might” knock that race based part of the contract out. In my opinion….

My first car was a 1966 Ford Galaxie 509 with a 352 with a four barrel. I paid $500 for it in 1973.

The CBS News, Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Post, Daily Mail, MSN….. Have all fallen for the lie then.