tvc184

  He is a minor.   There are all kinds of definitions of juvenile, child and minor in the laws and they do not always coincide. For age restrictions on alcohol, under 21 is  a minor.   Other examples are that for any criminal act, you are an adult at 17. For injury a "child", the child mean someone less than means a person 14 or under. So in that case (being beaten up), an adult starts at 15. For buying a handgun from a dealer it is 21. For allowing a child to have access to a readily dischargeable weapon, it is 17.    With no more a three year difference of age, you can have sex with consent at 14. 

    I got a phone message a couple of months ago for your reference but when I called her the next day, she said that she had enough information to make a decision. She wasn't volunteering if it was good or bad and I wasn't about to ask.  :D

So the other job came through?

High alcohol concentration would not be a B misdemeanor.

Brain washed? No. Ignorant? Probably not.   Rose colored glasses? You betcha. 

It "could" be the full sentence on the first offense but I have never seen jail accessed on a first timer. And like hippy said, probation is not a free ride (about $3,000 a year in fees in addition to the fine) and you have to attend some schools and comply with quite a few rules.

Do you nean DWI and in TX? If so, a regular DWI is a class B misdemeanor. That penalty range is up to a $2,000 fine and/or up to 180 days in jail with a 3 day minimum sentence. Typically probation is given on the first offense with maybe a $500 fine. Anything specific you need to know?

I am going....... to Kid Fest in Port Arthur. 

By the USA propping up the free market system with social programs. 

    So they were just waiting for the DA to come in and tell them not to have the meeting or go to jail..... but if the DA didn't say anything and give an uncharacteristic warning of arrest.... the board would have done what?    Your supposition that the board had all of this planned as a well thought out scheme seems as likely as me winning the lottery this week. 

  Shocking right? Standing by waiting for a known screw up to happen before it happens. 

Easily explained.   Bush knew that he was going to be elected almost 3 years into the future and compelled a complicit Bill Clinton to falsify his statements so that Bush could justify his actions 4 years later.    I don't know why anyone can't see this as fact. 

  Perhaps you are saying that the FBI and US Attorney falsified evidence in order to get a warrant in order to go on a witch hunt from a local school district? 

  At the wrong location means that they didn't do their homework and recon the correct house. If I go into a house undercover and buy drugs and get a warrant but the SWAT team goes back and hits the next door neighbor's house, that does not mean that my information and the fact that I bought drugs did not exist. It means they didn't read the correct address.    Not finding anything can mean that it never existed (very unlikely but possible) or that it has been moved or used. I have run many warrants on drugs but the thing about drugs is that..... (drum roll).... people use them or sell them and then they are gone. It doesn't mean that they were never there.    And honestly, out of the thousands of warrants served, how many do you actually hear about that went wrong.... and even if they went wrong, it doesn't mean that the information was false.    It is like contacts with the police. Some go badly and on occasion the officer(s) is completely wrong, even up to being a criminal act. What they don't say is that there are probably in the area of half a million public contacts per day. If 99.9% of them end up correctly, that 1/10th of 1% is still 500 bad incidents per day or 15,000 a month. With all the video cameras we have today, I think that if there are 15,000 misconducts per month by the police, many more will be popping up in the media. 

The only warrant that I have been a part of drawing up that involved computers was child pornography. I have no clue what direct evidence (facts) that the FBI or USA came up with for embezzlement but you can bet it is more than hearsay or innuendo. It might be something like an audit showed a large discrepancy (fact) and that opened an investigation. Then a subpoena for banking records showed that she opened a new account that had unexplained cash going into it (fact) considering her salary. I have heard that she had similar issues with the county government and if that is true, it is another fact. A subpoena of records might also show invoices that were tracked to an IP from her home computer (fact), etc. There could be sworn statements taken from coworkers that could implicate her (fact). Direct statements are not hearsay. Hearsay is like when a coworker might say, "Bob told me that he saw someone write a check". In that kind of situation it is the actual person (Bob) that saw the check written that has to give the sworn statement, making him guilty of a crime if it is proven to be a fabrication. All of that is making up a scenario but it is an example of how PC is built on a set of facts that by themselves may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt but certainly reach a level that would make a reasonable person believe that it is more likely than not that evidence will be found (for a search warrant) or a person appears to have committed a crime (for an arrest warrant)..... also known as probable cause. Where you say that a search warrant can be based on hearsay, that is saying that a warrant can be issued on a hunch, intuition or innuendo. That simply is not true. Remember that any warrant can be appealed and if the warrant is insufficient by not having enough evidence or if any evidence is falsified, any evidence discovered will be thrown out of court rendering the entire process a waste of time. I am guessing that the FBI and the USA aren't twiddling their thumbs wasting time because they are bored.

    What you call corroboration are "facts".    Gates was about an anonymous tip. That is not allowed for PC unless backed up by articulable facts or facts that can be explained on paper.    Hearsay is generally, "Someone told me".    Like PNG/Bamakid saying, "I know that hippy is dealing dope because dove told me that he saw it".    Hearsay, like anonymous tips, are not PC for anything. They are hunches based on an unproven accusation. They might give you a clue on where to look but you still have to find what you are looking for..... or facts. 

  This is what the Constitution says about search and seizure. It is called the Fourth Amendment.   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

PC is facts based, not hearsay. It is a set of facts that tends to show that guilt is more likely than not. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it is fact based. If PC only had to be based on hearsay, I could arrest almost anyone that I wanted to at any time by merely saying, "I heard..." .

Their raid was likely justified before they got the warrant. Just one of those little quirks in the law called probable cause affidavits......

Yep. Gives them an easy out for something that should have been done long ago.

I eat at Tony's about once a week on average (convenient at work) and about half the time I get chicken fried steak with baked potato and salad. It is one of the better ones in this area in my opinion. It is kind of a hidden gem as most people might not think of CFS there.

It is smple, we spend way too much.

The last time I ate links there they weren't very good. It was more like a sausage than a link. Edible but that is why I haven't been back. Maybe they have changed and I willl give them another try. The last time I passed that way it looked like they were closed.

  I'll bet the 16 year old boy did not walk out thinking he was raped. 

I saw nothing that he said was wrong.