ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23d ago
Les Trois Mousquetaires
Don't forget to check out the sequels as well. Twenty Years After is reasonably fun, but Ten Years Later may put you to sleep.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
24d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
25d ago
Some would say that comparing people of different races in terms of attractiveness is like comparing apples and oranges in terms of taste.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
25d ago
Quote from the opinion:
Cannabis, like alcohol, prescription medications, and certain over-the-counter drugs, can affect a lawyer’s ability to provide competent representation of clients. Lawyers may not use regulated cannabis in a manner that would impair the lawyer in the provision of legal services. It is also possible, depending on the specific nature of the representation, that personal cannabis use might create a personal interest that materially limits the lawyer’s representation of a client under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2), or the ability to provide independent professional judgment and render candid advice under Rule of Professional Conduct 2.1, but these would be fact-specific determinations and not per se ethical proscriptions.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
26d ago
Somewhat esoteric court opinion:
-
In conducting Internet searches, you probably have encountered a situation where (for example) you search for "Amazon", but Ebay appears at the top of the results page (prominently marked as "sponsored"), above Amazon itself. This technique is known as "competitive keyword advertising".
-
If lawyer John Doe sets up competitive keyword advertising against fellow lawyer Jane Smith—so that, when someone searches for "jane smith lawyer", John Doe's website appears at the top of the results page (prominently marked as "sponsored"), above the website of Jane Smith herself—has John Doe violated the lawyers' code of ethics by "making false or misleading communications" or "engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation"? In June 2019, the state ethics committee (not the state disciplinary board, but a committee set up by the state supreme court) says the answer is "no".
-
In May 2020, the state supreme court agrees to consider the state bar association's appeal of the ethics committee's determination. In November 2020, the state supreme court remands the matter for thorough investigation under a special
<del>master</del><ins>adjudicator</ins>. In June 2024, the special master finally submits a report agreeing with the ethics board that competitive keyword advertising is not a violation of the lawyers' code of ethics. -
In May 2025, the state supreme court issues an opinion mostly agreeing with the special master's conclusion (by a vote of four to one), but adding one extra requirement: in order to prevent confusion, whenever a user clicks on an ad that uses competitive keyword advertising, the ad's landing page must explicitly state that the user has entered the website of John Doe.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the dissent's reasoning would bar commonplace advertising practices. For example, under its view, an attorney who purchases a keyword like "Newark divorce lawyer" despite maintaining an office in a nearby suburb would be engaging in deception simply because the ad appears in response to a search regarding Newark. That approach would improperly conflate strategic visibility with dishonesty, effectively discouraging attorneys from using lawful digital tools to expand access to their consumers. This form of advertising is not misleading. It is standard competitive marketing aimed at reaching a broader audience. We therefore do not reach the dissent's First Amendment analysis.
(Bonus: Using marijuana is legal under state law but illegal under federal law. The lawyers' code of ethics forbids lawyers from "criminal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects". Is using marijuana a violation of the code of ethics? The state ethics committee's answer is "no".)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
27d ago
Is there an ongoing genocide against white South Africans? Reuters says there isn't.
Among the claims contradicted by the evidence:
(1) There is a genocide of white farmers in South Africa.
Supporters of the theory point to murders of white farmers in remote rural parts of the country as proof of a politically orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing, rather than ordinary violent crime.
They accuse the Black-majority led government of being complicit in the farm murders, either by encouraging them or at least turning a blind eye. The government strongly denies this.
South Africa has one of the world's highest murder rates, with an average of 72 a day, in a country of 60 million people. Most victims are Black.
The high court in Western Cape province ruled that claims of white genocide were "clearly imagined and not real" in a case earlier this year, forbidding a donation to a white supremacist group on those grounds.
(2) The government is expropriating land from white farmers without compensation, including through violent land seizures, in order to distribute it to Black South Africans.
The government has a policy of attempting to redress inequalities in land ownership that are a legacy of apartheid and colonialism. But no land has been expropriated, and the government has instead tried to encourage white farmers to sell their land willingly.
(3) The "Kill the Boer (farmer)" song sung by some Black South Africans is an explicit call to murder Afrikaners, the ethnic group of European descent who make up the majority of whites and who own most of the farmland.
Three South African courts have ruled against attempts to have it designated as hate speech, on the basis that it is a historical liberation chant, not a literal incitement to violence.
In a statement following the meeting between Trump and Ramaphosa, the EFF said it was "a song that expresses the desire to destroy the system of white minority control over the resources of South Africa" and that it is "a part of African Heritage".
(4) Trump played a video clip that showed a long line of white crosses on the side of a highway, which Trump said were "burial sites" for white farmers.
The video was made in September 2020 during a protest against farm murders after two people were killed on their farm a week earlier. The crosses did not mark actual graves. An organizer told South Africa's public broadcaster, SABC, at the time that the wooden crosses represented farmers who had been killed over the years.
(5) The opening scene of the White House video shows Malema in South Africa's parliament announcing: "People are going to occupy land. We require no permission from ... the president." It also shows another clip of him pledging to expropriate land.
Some land has been illegally occupied over the years, mostly by millions of desperate squatters with nowhere else to go, although some land seizures are politically motivated. The land is usually unused and there is no evidence the EFF orchestrated any land invasions.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
27d ago
The actual fix for US 130 was the construction of I-295. What remains is only residual problems.
By no means has US 130 been fixed. The buildings are so close to the traveled way, and the lanes are so narrow (because, many decades ago, it was converted from two lanes with a shoulder in each direction to three lanes with no shoulder in each direction), that those buildings regularly get hit by errant cars. And there are so many driveways, and the state govt.'s right of way is so narrow (especially after space has been reserved for sidewalk), that even putting up guide rail to prevent these crashes is impossible.
To be fair, IMO it isn't a totally useless word. There is value in differentiating between a generic "urban arterial" road and an "urban arterial" that specifically favors long-distance travel while giving nothing but lip service to local access and pedestrians, where a limited-access road that doesn't even try to accommodate local access and pedestrians would be safer. Compare US 130 in Pennsauken, NJ (awful unfixable grandfathered design), with NJ 70 in Cherry Hill, NJ (much better).
t. civil engineer (roadway, not traffic, so not really an expert on this topic)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
28d ago
roads that have more than one lane
in each direction (two in total)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
28d ago
It's a term recently coined by people who want to eliminate cars.
Court opinion:
In year 2012, Michael dies. His two sons, Dennis and Roman, don't bother to probate his will, so Michael's house remains titled in Michael's name. Dennis is left in charge of maintaining the house.
In year 2017, the property taxes on the house are not paid. In year 2018, a company spends 7 k$ to buy from the municipal government the right to foreclose on the house.
In year 2021, the company starts a foreclosure proceeding against Michael, and serves Dennis with the complaint. Nobody responds to the complaint in court, so in year 2022 the judge declares Michael to have defaulted, and the company successfully forecloses on the house by paying off the delinquent taxes of 55 k$. In year 2023, the company sells the house to a third party for 325 k$, yielding profit of 270 k$.
Just a few days before the sale, Roman learns that the house has been foreclosed on. Months after the sale, a year after the foreclosure, and 11 years after Michael's death, Roman finally probates Michael's will, is appointed the administrator of Michael's estate, and in that capacity moves to (1) vacate the foreclosure because he had no notice of it and (2) recoup the 270 k$ of profit under the recent federal Supreme Court decision forbidding the "theft" through foreclosure of home equity in excess of the delinquent taxes.
The trial judge denies the motion, and in year 2025 the appeals panel affirms. Service of the complaint on Dennis, who resided at the house, was proper. And the Supreme Court decision prohibiting "home-equity theft" is not retroactive.
More options
Context Copy link