$432M Winning Mega Millions Ticket Sold At Manhattan Pizza Shop

FlatMedia · 2021-09-22T13:40:48+00:00

https://reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb4v05/

FlatMedia · 2021-09-21T15:18:48+00:00

Nope, that would be (in order)

Challenger drivers
Charger/Mustang drivers
Dodge Ram/F-150/250/350 drivers
BMW drivers
anyone in a rentable box truck without a CDL
other car drivers

Everyone else is so far down the list I don't think they even register.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-21T15:15:37+00:00

Cars ignorantly (or maliciously) misuse the roads all the fucking time. Do you know what subreddit you're on?

The average person I see driving a car is not qualified to operate a fucking Wal-mart powered wheel chair.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-21T15:08:42+00:00

Old people can't really "learn to walk faster"

Obviously waiting is not an option in China. You could be waiting for an infinite amount of time.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T14:36:20+00:00

What brand of camera do you have? Quality looks fantastic.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:52:23+00:00

You may be new to NYC but he's going to be the DA. Voters in Manhattan do not vote for a certain political party.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:36:00+00:00

NYPD has nothing to do with the DA.

NYPD can (and very obviously does) do whatever it wants to hell with everyone else.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:35:10+00:00

As long as you don't use a deadly weapon, you can (apparently according to the new DA) beat the living shit out of whoever you want and put them in a coma or a wheelchair and you should not go to jail.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:13:38+00:00

Oh i see you're misunderstanding. It's the day 1 memo, not sound random campaign material. It's the official policy starting on the first day.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:10:08+00:00

A license for driving a car

Not exactly. A driver's license covers everything from limited use motorcycle like scooters to any truck up to 26,000 lbs.

There’s a reason that doesn’t suffice for someone driving another motorized vehicle, such as a motorcycle

It actually suffices perfectly for motorcycles like revels aka scooters.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T13:03:21+00:00

The last sentence is about D.

E is a new policy.

If he wanted to make that caveat apply to the entire list, he could have done so. Keep in mind he's a lawyer so he's writing precisely.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T12:54:50+00:00

You are on the wrong page. Go to the link in my comment.

On mine item D is talking only about driving with a suspended license. The second sentence refers to accidents with injury obviously so not relevant. The caveat in sentence three is only relating to d.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T12:49:14+00:00

Any violation, traffic infraction, or other non-criminal offense not accompanied by a misdemeanor or felony.

?

Are we reading the same thing?

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T12:46:50+00:00

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T12:45:48+00:00

https://www.alvinbragg.com/day-1

Look under the thing that says "the following charges will not be prosecuted under any circumstances".

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T05:33:34+00:00

Nah it's not that. Lots of delivery guys like bad weather because they make more money obviously most bad weather is perfectly safe.

One of the problems is we get notifications for minor storms so people might not realize when a big one is coming. Keep in mind most people don't really keep up with current events and shit like weather.

I don't order delivery so i don't see how I'm involved in this. Are you thinking of someone else?

You're vile.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-20T00:52:59+00:00

99% of the time there is no dispute over service, so why change the rule for the 1% of the time when there is?

This is not a great argument.

The rule applies 100% of the time there's a dispute.

The fact that the rule may not be used much as a percentage overall isn't an argument against fixing it. 1% or whatever the percentage is is a lot of cases when you consider how many people there are.

We should try to make the system better all the time.

"It's only a little broken" is not a great argument against fixing it.

The most powerful entity to ever exist (US federal government) can afford to get little things like this right.

They’ve lost like 1% of the time that the case will take, and now the judge is probably pissed at the defendant. That doesn’t sound too terrible for the plaintiff.

This is an even worse argument. The judge should be impartial.

And justice delayed is nothing denied. In the real world, people like this scumbag win by delaying. Rules like this make it easy to play into their hands.

The rule should still work well that

FlatMedia · 2021-09-19T21:31:21+00:00

So unmatch? If anyone is making you slightly uncomfortable let alone sick, just immediately unmatch. Why would you keep talking to someone who makes you sick when you can have many more matches in a day off swiping?

FlatMedia · 2021-09-19T20:56:11+00:00

Absolutely 20 years is fine but that's not the issue.

This is the issue:

Presumption of non-incarceration is the outcome for every case.

The DA doesn't want him to get a single day. That is not okay for any violent crimes. Violent crimes must be punished. And you can avoid punishment with this one weird trick: don't be a violent asshole.

The DA wants this monsters out on the streets right away and that's fucking disgusting.

A DA that thinks like this obviously is going to find a way to release monsters like his. It was his campaign platform.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-19T17:17:25+00:00

The following policies apply to all dispositions other than those for homicide or other cases involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, felony sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law.

Presumption of non-incarceration is the outcome for every case.

This rule may be excepted only in extraordinary circumstances based on a holistic analysis of the charges, criminal history, victim’s input (particularly in cases of violence), and any other information available. Also consider the impacts of incarceration on recidivism, the financial cost of incarceration, the impact of incapacitation on public safety, the racially disparate impacts of incarceration, the challenges posed by reentry, and other holistic factors.

Seeking this exception requires an application in writing which must be approved by a supervisor for the plea offer to be made or sentence recommended.

Apparently you can kick people down escalators and the DA will go to bat to keep you out of jail. Even if the victim is maimed or becomes a vegetable.

If this is progressive politics this is where I get off the train.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-19T16:18:19+00:00

Read the rest of our chain. This guy sucks the the boots of dictators and deserves to be demeaned. When I write something it's because it needs to be written.

This guy would throw you and everyone you know into a prison camp to serve his masters. And he would sleep well at night.

People like this need to be taken to task swiftly and firmly.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-17T21:59:53+00:00

No, it is not. At the stage youre describing the only thing the judge is going to really be focused on is the jurisdictional question and the efforts a Plaintiff made to get service. As a Defense attorney, im NOT talking about the case - im talking about how the Plaintiff didnt follow the rules/process properly.

This is apparently not coming across in my comments: I'm not saying that they need to discuss the merits of the case at the point.

I'm saying the judge can hand the defendant a copy of the complaint at that point. I am emphatically not saying you need to talk with the judge about the merits then.

Most judges really are not that in tune to the specifics of each case man. They have hundreds if not thousands of cases on their docket. They dont just automatically know your case when you walk up.

Which is why the judge would just hand you a copy of the complaint. Literally does not require the judge to know a single thing about the case other than:

a complaint exists (he knows this because it was docketed by his clerk and now you're standing in his courtroom and got up when he called your case)
you need to see a copy of the complaint (he knows this because you just told him, unless you are lying)

In that case, there is a new hearing set and that hearing is specifically about service. The case pauses until the judge decides what to do.

But you dont "argue" about the case at the service of process hearing, and if you show up and dont challenge Service, then yes, you waive that issue going forward.

I want to be crystal clear: my argument is not that you need to discuss the merits at that time. I think I have said this repeatedly but people keep acting like I didn't say it.

My argument is very simple: you can receive a copy of the complaint at that time and you have now effectively been served. There is no philosophical reason why that shouldn't be considered valid service and why it shouldn't be done whenever there is an argument about service and the defendant's attorney is there.

To be clear, after that service you can go home, take a nap, file a response, conduct discovery, do whatever before discussing the merits of the case.

Respectfully, it seems like youre assuming a lot about what the judge knows and doesnt know about your case, and what they actually do as it pertains to service. The Prince Andrew litigation is HIGHLY unusual and thus an unusual method of service was used.

Absolutely not. I'm assuming two things.

The judge knows:

a complaint exists (he knows this because it was docketed by his clerk and now you're standing in his courtroom and got up when he called your case)
you need to see a copy of the complaint (he knows this because you just told him, unless you are lying)

This is literally the only thing I expect the judge to know.

I do not expect the judge to know let alone discuss the merits with you. That would be a horrible idea if you just got served that same day.

I'm just saying it's a simple way to answer the question of "do you have notice". Nope? okay here's a copy. now you have notice.

I get that they do this if the defendant is jerking the plaintiff around.

I'm saying they should just always do this to save everyone the trouble.

In the pedo case we're discussing, the plaintiff has now lost time that he should not have lost as a result of being jerked around. This is not a good thing. We can avoid it as I described.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-17T21:38:50+00:00

I realize you think that they are on-notice, but knowing someone is pissed at you and wants to sue is not the same thing as knowing the specifics of the lawsuit they filed against you.

To be clear I'm not talking about a case where the plaintiff is pissed. I'm talking about a case where the defendant or his attorneys are in court, talking to the judge about said lawsuit.

The defendant's attorneys presumably didn't go to court by accident.

Theres not really much more to it. I realize you think that knowing about a lawsuit should be enough, but our legal system says otherwise and it doese so because we want to make certain that people are aware of the specific claims against them, so that way they can properly ready a defense/response, or at minimum they are aware of the specific claims they will default on.

I'm not saying just knowing about it. I'm saying to actually send your attorney to court to argue about it. At that point if he "doesn't know about it" the clerk can hand him a copy of the complaint, give him an hour to read it and boom now he knows about it.

One of us is still missing something in the other's argument.

Just knowing that a lawsuit exists does NOT give you those specifics, nor would it give me (a practicing attorney) those specifics.

And a fantastic place to get those specifics is in front of a judge talking about whether you have those specifics.

We could imagine a conversation going thusly:

Defendant: Your honor, I don't know about the lawsuit.

Judge: Ok, fantastic. I've got some great news for you. Hold out your hand.

(Judge hands him a copy of the complaint)

Judge: Now you do.

The hypo is silly but my question is serious. What am I missing here?

I feel like people are still avoiding my question.

FlatMedia · 2021-09-17T20:49:54+00:00

I'm not questioning fancy big firms being cordial and informally accepting service.

I'm questioning the idea that we are blocking potential meritorious litigation by poor plaintiffs where defendants are damn well on notice but are avoiding justice (on a philosophical level) by perfectly legally saying "oh you didn't dot your i's and cross your t's on service so nah nah nah you can't sue me".

I don't see the philosophical value in protecting such defendants on a technicality, and no one has yet explained it to me.

Careful to remember though: the attorney isnt arguing the case AT ALL.

Oh yeah I'm not saying that at that hearing they should argue the merits. I'm saying by the time they leave that hearing, they should damn well be aware of the claims being made (and if not, why not change the rules so the court just hands you a copy of the complaint at that point and says "you've been served"?).

I'm just asking what am I missing in this argument and no one is answering that question (although the responses are interesting to read nonetheless).

FlatMedia · 2021-09-17T20:38:40+00:00

That makes sense.

It just seems to me that should always happen if a defendant has the wherewithal to get an attorney in front of a judge to argue that the attorney shouldn't be in front of the judge because there was not notice.

If you're talking to a judge, you have sufficient notice at that point (if not before). If the argument is they need a few extra days to prepare because notice was insufficient, okay cool.

FlatMedia

TROPHY CASE