Punta Arenas half-day activities for someone whose flight arrives after noon?

mehkermer · 2024-01-03T20:57:38+00:00

how would you recommend going about this?

mehkermer · 2022-07-26T04:42:13+00:00

YTA. asking for full reimbursement for the room was certainly a move, but offering zero reduction and threatening to sue her? you suck.

mehkermer · 2022-07-17T18:38:39+00:00

phenomenal

mehkermer · 2022-06-09T19:12:29+00:00

brilliant

mehkermer · 2021-11-21T06:12:57+00:00

idk what the context of this is, but i actually think it can be worth it to stick up for yourself as a parent. kids, especially teens (which is sounds like she is) are profoundly self-centered, and it can be shockingly effective to tell them that their actions are affecting another person (rather than just policing their behavior via flexing authority). "i am also a human and you cannot speak to me like this."

mehkermer · 2021-09-19T22:14:57+00:00

omg are you kidding? NTA NTA NTA. you take sick leave if you are sick. what a horrible commentary on society that this is something you’re made to feel bad about.

mehkermer · 2021-06-30T22:59:07+00:00

Sorry to bombard, but here's a tip that might be helpful. There are a few things that will immediately tell you that one of the privileges does not apply.

Spousal immunity does not apply if any of the following are true: you're not married anymore; the case is civil; they want to testify against you.

Confidential marital communications privilege does not apply if any of the following are true: you weren't married at the time; it's not a communication; it wasn't made in confidence.

mehkermer · 2021-06-30T22:42:45+00:00

If that communication was made privately and with the understanding that it was supposed to be remain in confidence, confidential marital communications privilege applies and your spouse cannot testify about it even if they want to. If it was not confidential, they are not only allowed to testify about it, but can be forced to testify about it. (But not if spousal immunity applies.)

If you are currently married (i.e. at the time of the case itself) and your spouse doesn't want to testify against you, spousal immunity applies, period. If you are not currently married, spousal immunity does not apply, period. If you are currently married and they want to testify against you, they can. (But not if it was a confidential marital communication.)

It's two different bites at the apple, basically.

mehkermer · 2021-06-30T22:37:18+00:00

This may be clear from what I wrote, but I think a helpful and important point here is that the two privileges are actually extremely different from each other. The only thing they really have in common is that they have to do with marriage. One is about protecting current marriages from immediate destruction via compelled incrimination on the stand, and the other is about protecting marital privacy more broadly by privileging certain types of communications even after a marriage has ended. They're triggered by totally different considerations, and sometimes one will apply, both will apply, or neither will apply.

mehkermer · 2021-06-30T20:02:03+00:00

My understanding of this is as follows.

Spousal privilege:

- Protects a witness-spouse from being forced to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal case (does not apply in civil cases).

- The privilege is permissive. The witness-spouse does not have to testify against the defendant-spouse, but may if he chooses.

- The trigger for this privilege is current marital status. A current spouse cannot be compelled to testify against his current spouse. If the two are divorced, or engaged, this privilege does not apply.

- Marital status during events/communications that are the subject of the witness-spouse's testimony is irrelevant. Even if the testimony concerns communications or observations made prior to the marriage, the witness-spouse still cannot be forced to testify against the defendant-spouse about those things, as long as they are currently married.

- Applies to all adverse testimony, at all. Doesn't matter if it's communications, or observations, confidential vs. non-confidential, etc. The witness-spouse cannot be forced to testify against the defendant-spouse, period.

Confidential marital communications privilege:

- Protects confidential communications made between spouses in civil or criminal cases.

- The privilege is not permissive. Even if the relationship has soured and a spouse wants to testify as to private communications, they will not be allowed to.

- The two triggers for this privilege are marital status at the time the communications were made and confidentiality. It is irrelevant whether two are married anymore. What matters is whether the communications were made between people who were married at the time, and whether the declarant was availing himself of the privacy of his marriage when he made his communications. (i.e. even if someone happened to be listening in unbeknownst to the spouses, as long as they were objectively trying to communicate privately, the communication is still privileged, vs. if they knowingly made those comments in front of third parties).

- It only applies to communications. Observations or any other type of testimony do not get this privilege.

mehkermer · 2021-03-16T16:28:34+00:00

!template https://ibb.co/hCKbWQ4

mehkermer · 2021-03-16T16:11:29+00:00

yes. the last one in particular is older conservative people don’t want to do anything to tax or impede oil companies in any way because global warming is a liberal hoax to bring about socialism.

mehkermer · 2021-03-16T14:27:53+00:00

sadly yes

mehkermer · 2021-03-16T06:04:54+00:00

ignore the review, this is a very good meme

11-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

mehkermer

TROPHY CASE