It's not a video, but happy first father's day, facetaco! so great!
http://i49.tinypic.com/2q2fxtt.jpg
(facetaco video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtHPhZbWqo)
Ah, yes. The great Wally Backman.
From Sports Illustrated 4/11/05: "Oct. 7, 2001. On that night, according to the Prineville police incident report, Backman threatened to kill his wife, broke down the door to his house and then used a baseball bat to assault one of the other terrified women inside."
Clear eyes, 80's moustache, can't catch a f*cking break. F*cking pipsqueaks.
With all due respect to Mans and Mother Jones Magazine, the last part of Mans' comment does not accurately reflect the state of the law in Arizona.
Regarding the thing about no English teachers with accents. First, there was no such law passed; the state department of education initiated a program requiring that teachers be comprehendible by their students. It is my understanding that, out of several hundred teachers screened, 20 were pulled from classes and sent to "professional development" courses to improve their language skills and none were fired.
Also, teachers are not forced to report students that they think might be illegal. A law was passed that prohibits certain public officials from providing certain public benefits to illegal immigrants and to report immigration violations discovered in connection with such benefits. Primary and high school education are not included among those benefits and primary and high school teachers have no such reporting requirement.
Finally, the recently-enacted law regarding ethnic studies programs does not "ban" such programs. It does, however, require that primary or high school programs may not: "(1) promote the overthrow of the United States government; (2) promote resentment toward a race or class of people; (3) [be] designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; (4) advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." The law was passed to address a program in the Tucson school district that, according to its critics (including at least one hispanic gentleman who was formerly a teacher in such program), did all of the above.
I support and will defend the right of all persons to object to these laws (and Arizona's other laws) on human rights, civil rights or other policy grounds. I ask only that such objections be based on accurate representations of the content or application of such laws.
Just a quick note of clarification--the new AZ law: (i) does not allow the police to racially profile anyone and, in fact, expressly prohibits the use of race in a determination of "reasonal belief" that someone is in the country illegally (although this is probably unnecessary as racial profiling is barred by the US Constitution); and (ii) contrary to many of the news reports I have read, does not allow the police to stop people on the street to check their ID--the law only applies in the context of a legal stop, arrest or detention for other reasons (i.e., the police can only investigate citizenship after having stopped or arrested somebody for another reason). I hope that helps answer some of the questions here.
I am an attorney in Arizona. I am not an expert in the new law or in immigration law generally. However, I believe I have a handle on the basic problems, criticisms, widely-circulated misinformation and other issues with the new law. I will try to get on vg chat later today (probably pretty late for some of you--about 5PM PDT) to discuss if that is something anybody would be interested in.
Otherwise, yes, the new NBC lineup looks like a real sh*tburger.
Since you asked, the statements in a motion to dismiss (like that filed by e-trade) are not subject to the rules of evidence that are applied at trial. I don't practice in NY (where this waste of time was filed) but, where I practice, statements in such a pleading are subject only to good faith and reasonable inquiry standards. Even with the lower standards, however, I would not be comfortable putting an internet comment into a pleading except maybe where the comment was posted by one of the parties.
I haven't read e-trade's pleading, but if you're seriously curious about what they're trying to accomplish by showing that Lindsay doesn't live in Long Island, read the wikipedia entry for "forum non conveniens". The more you know.
Yes, I'll be marking this down as time spent on pro bono work.
For the record, it's a quote from Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. So, Beboop is criticizing (?) Gabe's (?) failure to have his own ideas (?) by cutting and pasting a paragraph from a century-old novel. You knocked this one out of the park, Beboop.
Take a time out, open up ya mind and then peep the tiny horse. Try to appreciate some of these miracles, bitch. If you don’t like that, have a dick for dinner.
Regarding the sworn statements, in a civil, as opposed to criminal, matter, that is how it works. In the unlikely event this thing reaches trial, presuming the plaintiff can overcome the admissibility issues concerning the "prior bad acts" evidence in the statements, the women making the statements would be subject to cross examination under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Let's call that a half hour. I'll send you a bill.
This CoachWally BackmanThis CoachWally BackmanFAILFall LineupFAILFall LineupFAILFall Lineup