 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
marc
Supporter
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13th, 2006 05:14 pm |
|
This is bull shit.....Talk about assholes.....
Judge Unexpectedly Halts Moussaoui Trial
AP - 59 minutes ago
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - An angry federal judge unexpectedly recessed the sentencing trial of confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui on Monday to consider whether government violations of her rules against coaching witnesses should remove the death penalty as an option. The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial after the government informed the judge and the defense over the weekend that a lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration had coached four government FAA witnesses in violation of the rule set by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema.
|
marc
Supporter
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13th, 2006 04:43 pm |
|
| Good for them....
|
zippo
Supporter
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13th, 2006 04:39 pm |
|
Hell's Angels rumble with Disney
Motorcycle club sues film studio for infringing on its trademark in 'Wild Hogs' movie.
March 10, 2006: 2:21 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The Hell's Angels Motorcycle Corp. is suing a division of Walt Disney, Buena Vista Motion Pictures and a film production company for infringing on its trademark in the development and production of "Wild Hogs," a comedy about middle-aged bikers.
The motorcycle club says in the suit that it never approved Walt Disney Motion Picture Group's use of its trademark, and that the film studio has repeatedly exploited the Hell's Angels name as well as its trademark design featuring a helmeted, horned and feathered skull while publicizing the "Wild Hogs" movie.
[size= ]
[size=]
Disney (Research) and Tollin/Robbins Productions have repeatedly referred to "Wild Hogs" as a movie about a "group of middle-aged wannabe bikers look(ing) for adventure out on the open road, where they soon encounter a chapter of the Hell's Angels," according to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
"We believe the suit is without merit," Disney spokesman David Caouette said.
Tim Allen, John Travolta and Martin Lawrence are slated to star in the film, which is expected to start production in late spring.
|
zippo
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 04:13 pm |
|
Dave wrote: zippo wrote:
Zippo, I'm guessing that you missed this part of the story. She claimed that she "Couldn't get pregnant". Now, he's got to pay child support?
You're absoultely right, I did not see that, I really didn't read the entire post, because I read an atricle in our local rag that morning, and evidently that fact was omitted.
Oh I agree, men have been getting the dirty end of the astick for years. I was a victim of spousal abuse (drunk ex) but couldn't convince the authorities. I even went to the local cop shop and had pictures taken.
|
Mikey
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 01:55 pm |
|
| All I will say about that is watch out..when they start to label "Clubs" as gangs..it opens a can of worms...pretty soon they are gonna be raiding your local HOG chapter...and WTF..it took 700 of em to arrest 25 people??..LMAO Last edited on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 01:57 pm by Mikey |
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 01:48 pm |
|
25 arrested in crackdown on Vagos Outlaw biker group
3:28 p.m. March 9, 2006
RIVERSIDE – Nearly two dozen arrest warrants were served Thursday in Riverside and San Bernardino counties as part of a crackdown on the Vagos Outlaw Motorcycle Organization, federal officials said.
Six arrest warrants were issued for individuals in Riverside County while 16 were executed in San Bernardino County, said Cecelia Leon with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. She said the Inland Empire is the Vagos' home base.
As part of Thursday's sweep, federal and local authorities also executed 63 search warrants across five counties. Twenty of those warrants were in Riverside County and 21 were in San Bernardino, Leon said. In Los Angeles County, 19 warrants were executed, along with two in Orange County and one in Ventura County.
Authorities arrested 25 Vagos members or associates across the five-county area in early morning raids launched by more than 700 federal and local law enforcement officers, according to the ATF's Los Angeles Field Division.
The suspects were booked on suspicion of various state charges and federal firearms and narcotics violations, the ATF reported.
Authorities seized 95 illegal firearms, an undisclosed amount of illegal drugs, $6,000 in U.S. currency, two stolen motorcycles and Vagos “colors,” or riding vests, “indicating gang affiliation,” the ATF said.
Members of the group have claimed they did not belong to a gang, just a motorcycle club, according to television reports.
“Today marks the day when a sophisticated, organized criminal enterprise has been successfully dismantled, and where this group, who operates in a very vicious and brutal way, felt that they could hide within the fog of jurisdictional boundaries,” Los Angeles County Sheriff's Capt. Stephen Johnson said at a news conference in Rancho Cucamonga.
Johnson said Thursday's operation “successfully reached out and prevented them from continuing this type of brutality and victimization that they have done throughout the jurisdictions” involved in the investigation.
The three-year investigation was centered in Los Angeles and stemmed from such crimes as murder, attempted murder, assaults, and firearms and narcotics violations, according to the ATF.
“We took down some leaders, some chapter presidents, sergeants of arms,” San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos said. “I mean, that's what you need to do when you go after these gangs. You go after those people on the top.
“So we're going to continue to fight this war on our local terrorists,” he said. “This gang is one of those terrorist organizations locally.”
Johnson said the gang was well-organized, and “not simply a group of opportunists, but is very strategic in their planning.”
“They have a code of conduct. They have bylaws. They have officers. They have a hierarchy. They have a chain of command, and they reach beyond the boundaries that any one agency can successfully prosecute.”
|
Babe
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 01:18 pm |
|
Zippo is right with the you play...you pay! But...Dave is correct in the fact, up until a few years ago....most courts would look at the men....and kinda hear "blah blah blah" and nail 'em!!
I can tell you lots of stories of guys I know who have been taken by the court system, and many times simply because they are men. Its getting better... but there is still alot ot be done.
|
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 11:21 am |
|
Can I keep nude photos of my wife’s friend?
A husband wonders if the woman is just flirting with him or enticing him into a sexual affair. Dr. Gail Saltz says it doesn’t matter — it’s still betrayal
Updated: 10:11 a.m. ET March 9, 2006
Q. My wife had some nude pictures of me in our computer. Her best friend Natalie saw them while she was over here working at our desk. One day, I answered the phone and it was Natalie. She said she knew exactly what I “looked” like, as she had e-mailed the nude pictures to herself. Then, she sent me some nude pictures of her.
Now, Natalie goes out of her way to wear something I will get a show from, like a skirt with no underwear. What should I do? Is this just mind games or does she want to have sex with me? I don’t know how to tell my wife. Although I would never cheat on my wife, I still have the pictures of Natalie in my computer. Is that wrong?
A. If you are wondering whether it’s wrong to keep nude pictures of your wife’s friend on your computer, you already know the answer — it is. It doesn’t matter whether Natalie is playing mind games or wants to have sex with you. What matters is that you are participating in this secret with her. She has clearly crossed a line — her behavior is wildly inappropriate for someone who is a friend of your wife’s.
She swiped these pictures, with no invitation to see them. She went ahead and sent you nude pictures of herself. Now she is inappropriately flashing you. What kind of friend shows her crotch to her best friend’s husband? This is not the way a good friend acts. She is lusting after you and willing to betray her friendship with your wife.
By letting her behavior continue, you are colluding with her. And by keeping a secret from your wife, you already are on a slippery slope of betrayal.
When Natalie first called, you should have immediately told her that you were not comfortable with the fact she had those pictures. Now, the situation has escalated. You are even having show-and-tell! Though you didn’t go looking for this or ask for it to happen, it now falls to you to take action to stop it.
Tell your wife immediately. Say “I feel bad about this because it involves your best friend, but she swiped nude pictures of me from our computer, and then sent nude pictures of herself to me. I am not interested, and I want this behavior to stop.” Then tell Natalie you have informed your wife about the situation and that she must stop coming on to you.
Your wife will no doubt be angry at her friend. If you don’t tell her, however, she will eventually find out and feel betrayed and angry at you.
As far as the nude pictures of Natalie are concerned, don’t fool yourself that keeping them doesn’t reflect your own temptation. Delete them. Put yourself in your wife’s shoes. If you had a male friend who was secretly sending her nude pictures of himself and flashing her, how would you feel?
Dr. Gail’s Bottom Line: If a spouse’s friend is coming on to you, it is up to you to stop this behavior immediately.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726974/
|
empty
Supporter
| Joined: | Tue Jun 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Plano, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1298 |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 03:46 am |
|
Dave wrote: Let me tell ya a little story...
Me and my Ex-OL split up in 1989, she comes up pregnant in 1991. (Our divorce wasn't final) Courts came after me for child support. I hadn't lived or slept with her in over a year. Courts didn't care. She was still legally married to me. I was obligated to pay.
Holy Crap!! Boy do I see some parallels in this. I have also been happily single since 1989. Lucky for me Texas laws are nothing similar to California laws. My Ex was pregnant by the man she had been seeing when we split up. The Tarrant county judge looked at my claim and immediately started questioning the ex. I really liked that judge, she had a butt like an upside down valentine too.
Long story later ......I let the ex pick how much she wanted to pay me for child support. See, I am the cool headed Gool Ole Boy ....even though the wench went and sold everything in the garage a week after the split up. ...that's a different story.
|
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10th, 2006 12:24 am |
|
zippo wrote:
Sorry Dave, I can't go along with it UNLESS the woman claimed to be on birth control or otherwise conned the guy. You play, you pay. Too many unwed mothers down here on welfare because the fathers are irresponsible little pricks. I believe they should use the IRS and Social Security to track them down and make them pay.
I am not particularly anti abortion, but I think it should be a last resort, behind adoption and only in the first trimester. Of course somehow the adoption process would have to be made easier than it is now. I know several people who have gone overseas to adopt because there are no babies available here. I am against late term abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. The thought of partially birthing the baby (a viabale baby) and then sucking its brain out is indefensible to me.
Just my $0.02
Zippo, I'm guessing that you missed this part of the story. She claimed that she "Couldn't get pregnant". Now, he's got to pay child support?
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
Let me tell ya a little story...
Me and my Ex-OL split up in 1989, she comes up pregnant in 1991. (Our divorce wasn't final) Courts came after me for child support. I hadn't lived or slept with her in over a year. Courts didn't care. She was still legally married to me. I was obligated to pay.
"Obligated"? Fuck that! I ain't "obligated" to do anything in that situation. I was already paying $1000.00 a month for the two kids that were mine. I damned sure wasn't gonna spend a dime on a kid that wasn't. It was bad enough that she was still using my medical insurance through the pregancy...
Oh, did I mention that I had a successful vasectomy in 1979? 10 years before the split? Even told that to the courts. Had to go so far as to demand a DNA test (on their dime) to finally get them to listen. (DNA testing was pretty expensive back in the early 1990s)
The point is, until recently men have very few rights in situations were there are kids involved, it's about damn time that someone started looking out for the men in these situations. It ain't fair to the kid, and it sure ain't fair to the man. Women have all the power in these situations, with the full backing of the courts.
|
weasle
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 10:14 pm |
|
Mikey wrote: Better watch out weasle...if ya catch it..ya might start crapping on windshields..LOL ya aint gotta worry about your windshield , but ya better take a look at the seat of yer scoter. LMAO
|
zippo
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 05:48 pm |
|
Sorry Dave, I can't go along with it UNLESS the woman claimed to be on birth control or otherwise conned the guy. You play, you pay. Too many unwed mothers down here on welfare because the fathers are irresponsible little pricks. I believe they should use the IRS and Social Security to track them down and make them pay.
I am not particularly anti abortion, but I think it should be a last resort, behind adoption and only in the first trimester. Of course somehow the adoption process would have to be made easier than it is now. I know several people who have gone overseas to adopt because there are no babies available here. I am against late term abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. The thought of partially birthing the baby (a viabale baby) and then sucking its brain out is indefensible to me.
Just my $0.02
|
Babe
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 05:36 pm |
|
Dave wrote:
It's about damn time someone brought this in to the picture. Men have been getting it in the shorts for a long, long time. Whether they want the kid or not, they don't get a vote. It's all about what the woman wants...
Men's activists launch 'Roe v. Wade for Men'
Group says men shouldn't have to pay support for unwanted children
Boy is this a touchy one. I think if any 2 ppl decide to have unprotected sex....its both of their faults!! Both should be responsible for caring for the child.
Secondly here....I think the phrase "unwanted children" is awful! If they didnt want children.....then they shouldnt go around having unsafe sex!!!
Thirdly.....I do have to give a bravo to the Men's activists! As much as I think women should be treated equal and all......I do think when it comes to parenting, custody, child support......there are quite a few good Fathers that get screwed over, simply because they are male!
I just truly hope they dont think THEY can burn bras!!!! 
|
zippo
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 04:14 pm |
|
Everybody wants something for nothing. just SUE, SUE, SUE
Parents sue Cypress Gardens after roller coaster accident
Associated Press
BARTOW -- The parents of a 13-year-old boy who was seriously injured when he fell from a roller coaster at Cypress Gardens last month sued the theme park for negligence.
Martin Llamas of Orlando fell 10 to 12 feet onto the grass from the Triple Hurricane roller coaster on Feb. 25. The Polk County Sheriff's Office said he had maneuvered out of the lap bar and was facing the cars behind him when he was thrown out of the coaster on a sharp turn.
But his parents, Publio Junco and Maria Cota, dispute witness accounts that their son was standing up in the car. They filed suit Friday, claiming Cypress Gardens failed to ensure the ride was safe, and failed to maintain and inspect it to prevent injury.
Cypress Gardens spokeswoman Lynn Wright said the park didn't do anything wrong.
"We stand by the results of the completed investigations of state and local officials, which cleared the park of any negligence or error in this unfortunate accident," Wright said.
An inspector with the Florida State Bureau of Fair Ride Inspection concluded there was no malfunction with the ride and the boy was properly restrained by the coaster's lap restraint. The ride was reopened the day after the accident.
Llamas remains hospitalized in Tampa.
|
Mikey
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 03:58 pm |
|
Bikers plan ride to help group that assists injured Marines
MORRIS COUNTY
Bikers plan ride to help group that assists injured Marines
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
By MAYA KREMEN
STAFF WRITER
PEQUANNOCK -- A motorcycle club has pledged to help a Pompton Plains group that aids injured Marines.
California-based Rebels With a Cause has pledged half its proceeds from an upcoming cross-country trip to the Family & Friends for Freedom Fund, which helps families of Marines hurt in action with unexpected expenses.
The Sturla family started the fund in January 2005, after a grenade severely injured Staff Sgt James Sturla's arm and hand in Iraq. He is on the mend after a series of surgeries.
To date, the family's efforts have raised $70,000 for 15 Marines and their families, said Paula Sturla, James Sturla's sister-in-law. They've helped families purchase plane tickets and gas money and donated money to make a house wheelchair accessible.
Rebels With a Cause pledged its support after a Sacramento-based biker and former Marine nicknamed "Viper" found out about the Sturlas' work.
"We really feel that the approach they [the Sturlas] take -- providing direct resources -- was as strong a gift as you could give," said Kathleen Moore, a founder of Rebels With a Cause. The group hopes to donate $10,000 to the Pompton Plains group.
Sturla also is arranging a bikers' ride on May 27. The group will set out from Kinnelon and travel to Maryland, where they will meet the California bikers. The two groups will then travel to Washington, D.C., to attend Rolling Thunder, an annual bikers' gathering that honors prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action. Proceeds from the trip also will benefit the Family & Friends for Freedom Fund.
Bikers who want join the Kinnelon group can call Paula Sturla at (973) 831-9899. The cost is $300 per person, and includes two nights of accommodation, breakfasts and a T-shirt.
|
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 02:05 pm |
|
Mikey wrote:
Better watch out weasle...if ya catch it..ya might start crapping on windshields..LOL
Start? What? I didn't know he stopped? LOL...
|
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 02:04 pm |
|
It's about damn time someone brought this in to the picture. Men have been getting it in the shorts for a long, long time. Whether they want the kid or not, they don't get a vote. It's all about what the woman wants...
Men's activists launch 'Roe v. Wade for Men'
Group says men shouldn't have to pay support for unwanted children
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET March 8, 2006
NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
“There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have — it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.”
Feit’s organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.
Not expecting to win case
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
“What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is,” he said in a telephone interview. “Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.”
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay’s case.
“The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn’t want, but it’s less fair to say society has to pay the support,” she said.
Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn’t necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn’t afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
Anger over Roe comparison
Jennifer Brown of the women’s rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men’s center comparing Dubay’s lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman’s right to have an abortion.
“Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want,” Brown said. “There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”
Feit counters that the suit’s reference to abortion rights is apt.
“Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences,” he said. “No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.”
“The problem is this is so politically incorrect,” Feit added. “The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”
Feit doesn’t advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit said. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”
The president of the National Organization for Witches, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
“None of these are easy questions,” said Gandy, a former prosecutor. “But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.”
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580/page/2/
|
Mikey
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 02:03 pm |
|
| Better watch out weasle...if ya catch it..ya might start crapping on windshields..LOL
|
Dave
Supporter
|
Posted: Thu Mar 9th, 2006 01:54 pm |
|
Bird flu hits Weasel-like animal
BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- The H5N1 bird flu virus has been found in a stone marten, a German laboratory said Thursday, indicating the disease has spread to another species of mammal.
The Friedrich-Loeffler Institute confirmed the presence of the virus in the marten, a weasel-like animal, found on the island of Ruegen in north Germany on March 2.
The animal, sick and apparently dying, was found near the Wittow Ferry area of the island, where cats and birds have been found with the disease.
It was then killed by a government veterinarian, the institute said in a statement.
The discovery last month that the virus had passed from wild birds to cats on Ruegen raised concerns about the disease's ability to spread. Infected cats have also been found in Austria.
"The presence of an H5N1 infection in a second mammalian species is not surprising," Till Backhaus, the regional minister for agriculture, said in a statement.
"Cats and martens have a comparable prey spectrum."
Cats are believed to have caught the virus by eating infected birds.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/03/09/birdflu.germany.ap/index.html
|
zippo
Supporter
|
Posted: Wed Mar 8th, 2006 09:49 pm |
|
Mikey
That happens out here a half a dozen time a year at least. One Christmas eve a drunk indian wiped out a mother and 3 little girls going west on east bound I-40. He claimed he had a migrane and the dozen beers had nothing to do with it (he had prior DUI's). Took 3 trials to convict him. Another drunk indian driving a BLM pickup was going the wrong way on I-40 and wiped out 4 elderly people from Nebraska. He had like 3 prior DUI's and was driving a government truck for God's sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
