US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1800

On April 03 2015 01:33 Jormundr wrote:

You said that the court didn't have "all the facts" which obfuscates the fact that they had the identities of both people and the age of the child, which is all you need for a clear cut case of statutory rape in arizona. And in spite of being a rapist she still got the money. How fucked does a system have to be before you want to fix it? Guilty until proven innocent is not a valid basis for law.

On April 03 2015 01:39 Plansix wrote:

Until the mother flat out told the court that father was 14 at the time the child was conceived, I am doubtful the court would be ever find out. They likely only had his name and the address he was served at, both which would be provided by the mother and she could withheld that information. I don't know how you think court works, but they don't spend a lot of time digging into stuff or investigating.

On April 03 2015 01:41 Millitron wrote:

How does the court not find out? There's basically 0 investigation to check his age. From there its simple math.

Not to mention that incompetence is no excuse.

On April 03 2015 01:38 Millitron wrote:

So you're saying men are inherently more likely to be criminals? That's pretty sexist.

On April 03 2015 01:49 Acrofales wrote:

It's also quite probably the truth. Men are simply more likely to do dumb shit. Men get into more fights, are a significantly larger percentage of drug abusers (including alcohol), gambling addicts, and other "bad habits". While women are more likely to be prostitutes, men are more likely to be managing them (I mean, of course, pimping).

If we now have to tip toe around the truth for fear of being politically incorrect (sexist), then fuck that. If it's sexist to say that more men are criminals than women, then I am a filthy raging sexist.

I am also a filthy raging racist for saying that more blacks and latinos are criminals than white boys.

On April 03 2015 01:46 Plansix wrote:

I would need to look at the case specifically, but I doubt the mother provided the court with his date of birth or social security number. Without one of those, they would have no way of telling his age. I don't know the age of many defendants in our cases.

On April 03 2015 01:50 Plansix wrote:

As long as you admit that gender and race are likely not the direct causes of the higher crime rates in those groups, you should be ok.

On April 03 2015 01:51 Millitron wrote:

Surely when they did the research to figure out how much he owed in child support, they'd need to dig deeper into his history, i.e. his employment info. Surely his age is in there somewhere.

As for not knowing the ages of your defendants, how many cases do you see where age is relevant?

On April 03 2015 01:58 dAPhREAk wrote:

family law courts dont investigate such things. its up to the defendant to bring it up.

On April 03 2015 02:08 Millitron wrote:

They don't look up his employment info? Then how do they figure out how much he owes?

WASHINGTON -- A new report from the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council has analyzed the data on spills and other violations at oil and gas wells across the country. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the report is how little data the group was able to turn up.

Based on NRDC's evaluation of dozens of state databases, only three states -- West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Colorado -- have easily accessible, publicly available data on spills and other violations. That's three states out of 36 that have active oil and gas development.

"We looked at 36 states, and there are only three states where it would be easy for a member of the public to sit down at their computer and get some information about a company's compliance record," said report co-author Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at NRDC.

There are other states where citizens can file requests for data, but these three are the only ones where the information proved relatively easy to access, the group said.

Even among these three states, it turned out there was some inconsistency in the types of data available. Colorado's database isn't searchable, nor does it include descriptions of any violations. Pennsylvania and West Virginia both organized their violation data in ways that NRDC called "overly vague." West Virginia's database for spills, for example, lists the names of affected streams, but doesn't describe the extent of any potential damage. Colorado, meanwhile, lists how far each incident occurred from drinking-water sources and notes whether groundwater or surface water was affected, but it doesn't name any of the bodies of water in question. The laws about what constitutes a violation also differ for each state.

"Because these companies operate right in people's backyards -- and sometimes they operate in peoples' backyards that don’t want them there, and they won't benefit -- people should know who these companies are and whether they're good actors," said Mall.

Despite the varied data, the group tried to come up with an assessment of violations across the states. In Colorado, the data showed 235 violations and 1,933 spills between 2009 and 2013. In Pennsylvania, there were 3,978 violations, but the number of spills was not available. In West Virginia, there were 364 violations listed and four spills.

The group looked at the number of violations in those three states from the 68 largest oil and gas companies operating in the U.S. The report lists the top three companies in terms of total violations: Chesapeake Energy, Cabot Oil and Gas, and Talisman Energy.

They also break out the top number of violations by state. In Colorado, Chevron's 1,426 wells racked up the most violations, with 53. In Pennsylvania, Chesapeake Energy had 589 violations at 2,618 wells. And in Ohio, EQT Corporation had the most violations, with 92 incidents at 502 wells.

The Huffington Post reached out to the companies listed above for comment, but only received responses from Chesapeake, Talisman and EQT. Chesapeake declined to comment for this article, while Talisman and EQT offered statements.

On April 03 2015 02:12 dAPhREAk wrote:

why does it matter if they look up his info or not? even if the birth certificate was submitted with the papers, the family court is likely not going to do anything because thats not the family court's job. if the defendant wants to claim a defense based on sexual assault then the defendant bears the burden. family courts are not party-advocates.

On April 03 2015 02:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:

1) There is no defendant in family court.

2) Family court's still supposed to evaluate the circumstances of the people in the court. Things like divorce proceedings and child support are based on the financial status of both parties and other factors...and if it's literally written in the law that child support payments don't apply to victims of rape, then that's also part of the court's evaluation.

3) I thought one of the issues of that case was that the male wasn't even informed of it until after the decision?

On April 03 2015 02:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:

1) There is no defendant in family court.

2) Family court's still supposed to evaluate the circumstances of the people in the court. Things like divorce proceedings and child support are based on the financial status of both parties and other factors...and if it's literally written in the law that child support payments don't apply to victims of rape, then that's also part of the court's evaluation.

3) I thought one of the issues of that case was that the male wasn't even informed of it until after the decision?

On April 03 2015 02:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama to speak on Iran deal in 15 minutes.

All Western Sanctions on Iran to be lifted. Financial, Banking. are to be lifted immediately.

On April 03 2015 03:10 Plansix wrote:

It is a child support case, so one party is bringing a case against another. Those are plaintiff and defendant.

If you don't appear in court, you get defaulted. If you didn't receive notice and the default judgment is against you, the burden is on you to prove you didn't receive notice and remove it. Not appearing in court shouldn't prohibit the other party from obtaining judgment. If it did, no one would never respond to a summons. In the case in question he found out after the fact and we don't know what happened after he found out.