Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/18/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points

    Diving Accident

    Sure it would have, but the question will be whether it was a reasonable option. I think pretty much anyone would agree that making an indoor pond at a bar 8-feet deep would be an extreme and unexpected thing to do. And, as I commented earlier in this thread, no reasonable person would behave so carelessly as to dive head-first into a two foot body of water. Moreover, and possibly most importantly, what if a person who didn't know how to swim accidentally was pushed into the 8-foot deep indoor pool and drowned? Making the darn thing 8-feet deep would be far more likely to result in injury or death. I'll bottom line it: if you get any recovery beyond the no-fault medical payment coverage that the bar owner's liability policy presumably had, it will be a stark illustration of everything that is wrong with the tort system in the U.S.
  2. 3 points
    Who did you call at your insurance company? I'll bet it was your agent (clueless). Any insurance person with half a brain should know that your deductible applies to damage to your property under Section I of your policy and does not apply to defending you against a lawsuit under your Section II Liability Coverage. Take out your policy papers and look for a toll free number for reporting claims. Call up and say "I am being sued. Please open a claim under my liability insurance." Then you'll be assigned a claim rep to whom you can forward the summons and complaint by fax or email. Once you get the claim rep's name and phone number, don't wait until he/she calls you. You call and keep following up. Claim reps handle hundreds of files and get 5 - 10 new ones every day. A lawsuit gets priority but he has to know about it to do something about it. Do this quickly as you typically don't have much time to file an answer.
  3. 2 points

    401K Loan Dispute

    Under the federal tax law, the employer may require in the plan documents that outstanding loans be repaid when the employee leaves the company or the plan is terminated. So whether you must repay the loan now depends on what the plan documents and your loan documents say. The plan trustee must follow the rules provided for in the plan. So read the plan and see what it says. If it does require that you repay it when you leave then the trustee must apply that rule and you are stuck with that. However, in the event that you cannot repay it, you can avoid the immediate tax consequences by rolling over the outstanding balance into an IRA or other eligible plan by the due date to file your return for the year, including extensions. So if you get an extension until October 2020 you would have that long to roll it over and avoid the income inclusion and early withdrawal tax. See the IRS page on Retirement Loan Topics. If you need to get some other loan to cover the roll over that might still be a better outcome for you than the tax hit. You could see a local attorney to find out if under your state's tort law you might have a claim here for negligence against Prudential. The problem that I see, though, is that if the answer is clearly in the plan documents it is likely that you would be expected to have looked at those and you'd have had the right answer. Since the plan documents should have been readily available to you, relying on the customer service people may not have been reasonable in the sense meant by the law. But you can discuss that with the attorney to see how that might impact things. Many civil litigation attorneys give free initial consultations, so you'd only lose a little time. In the end, though, if you can do the rollover, that's probably your best solution to this.
  4. 2 points

    Treasurer time up

    If the Board of Directors were to pass a resolution firing the treasurer and appointing a new treasurer, and the president were to provide a certified true copy of the resolution to the bank, I think it would be highly likely the bank would shut down access to the account by the old treasurer immediately.
  5. 2 points

    Death With Dignity Law

    When I first got my hearing aids I was amazed at the sound of my feet on gravel, the sound of the wind, and peeing sounded like Niagara Falls.
  6. 2 points

    Death With Dignity Law

    Buy her a book: Stephen Hawking: A Biography https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Hawking-Biography-Kristine-Larsen/dp/1591025745 Might inspire her.
  7. 2 points
    That surprised me since civil forfeiture has been in existence in GA with regard to drugs for years. The legislature amended the code effective in 2015 to add a statute under the civil code (Title 9, Chapter 16). It got a lot of online coverage at the time. It may be in civil code but the forfeiture is tied directly to your criminal case....
  8. 2 points
    I read it that the landlord served the eviction summons 1 day after serving the non-pay termination notice, not 15 days after serving the non-pay termination notice. Eric, am I right about that? If so, you'll need to file an answer to the eviction complaint, moving for its dismissal as being premature. If you can't afford a lawyer I suggest you look for a local legal aid office or tenants' rights organization for help. Another way of getting the eviction dismissed is to pay the rent within the 14 days and bring proof of payment to the court if the LL doesn't voluntary dismiss the eviction.
  9. 2 points
    What does "automatically called" mean? Are you asking if there's some sort of nationwide surveillance system that "automatically" summons the police anytime someone "nearly drowns"? Whether a "near drowning" will result in anyone being called obviously depends on the facts and circumstances of the incident and whether anyone involved is inclined to call someone (police or otherwise).
  10. 2 points
    What he is booked for doesn't mean anything. It's the DA's office that files charges, not the cops.
  11. 2 points

    Same name usage in logo

    Those two entities have been at each other since 1984 according to the case decision that summarizes the history: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2013cv07147/418541/44/ There are several other cases that involve the Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=806&q=polo+ralph+lauren+corp&oq=polo You don't put your foot in a bear trap to see if the bear trap works. You already know that the use of "polo" in a clothing brand generates lawsuits. Do you think that PRL Corp won't hesitate to flatten you the minute your product hits the market? Figure out another way of naming your brand rather than a risky infringement.
  12. 2 points

    "applicable laws"

    Just for giggles I took out the phrase about easements and other interests and what is left does suggest that a lot may be subdivided if that subdivision complies with whatever county or city laws apply to subdividing lots. Next question: Is there anything anywhere in the CC&Rs requiring HOA approval for any modifications of a property?
  13. 2 points
    I want to thank you again for convincing me to call our insurance company again. They are handling the issue and so far we are extremely pleased! One of the attorneys came out to the house to take tons of photos and discuss the case. They filed a spectacular answer with a dozen defenses and requested a jury trial if the judge won't dismiss.
  14. 2 points


    Depends upon what the CC&Rs say, and we haven't read them.
  15. 2 points
    No. The judgment you would get would mean the defendant owes you some money. Since the lamdlord would not be a party to the suit, the court could not rule on the obligation between you and the landlord. Also, since you are thhe tenant, you are the responsible party regardless of any agreement between you and a third party.
  16. 2 points

    Rumors About My Health

    Presumably there have been other instances at work as one situation a few months ago would be long forgotten if that were it. Asking everyone to overlook and ignore your symptoms is unreasonable. Better to have some sort of polite but brief script when something happens. Most will understand if you explain you are under the care of a doctor but are still fully capable of working and would appreciate it if they would respect your privacy as you work toward a diagnosis and treatment.
  17. 2 points
    Have you already filed bankruptcy? If not (and even if you have) you should consult an attorney who can review the complete situation. Bankruptcy exemptions are (for the most part) matters of state law. Only a Wisconsin attorney who is familiar with Wisconsin law and the practices and procedures in your local bankruptcy court should be relied upon for advice.
  18. 2 points

    motion to suspend visitation

    pg1067... why are you so mean when you respond to people’s questions?
  19. 2 points

    motion to suspend visitation

    pg1067...Obviously, you are not an attorney, nor are you here to help. Please leave the forum. You are only instigating the situation. sandals4us...Tennessee law states that this is neglect and you can speak with your attorney to file a motion to suspend his visitation. However, each county handles custody differently. For instance, Greene county cares very little about domestic violence and supports the abuser rather than the obvious victims. I have learned the hard way that if you want to protect your children, you are going to have to fight hard for it. So, it is okay to be upset about this injustice and the terrible things that have happened to your son. In coparenting, it is obvious that the information should have been revealed to you. As a matter of fact, the boy's father should have been notified by his attorney to do so in such situations. Let your attorney know what you wish to do and stay on him until it gets done. Be reasonable and be willing to work with your ex whenever possible, but put your foot down and fight when necessary. Make them do the right thing. In the end, they may show themselves to be heartless and wrong, but your son will see you for who you are and love you for trying. You are in my prayers.
  20. 1 point

    Employment Question

    I don't know whether there is such a law. I do know that no matter what excuse they give you, no school board is obligated to hire you.
  21. 1 point
    Nothing about those cases is right. This is not something I get any joy in sharing on public forum, but it probably helps drive the point home. I used to believe exactly what those cases appear to prove. That there is some distinction in the law that exempts people requirements of using public roads if I am traveling, not engaging in Commerce. As a matter of fact I am philosophically in favor of lifting government impediments to freedom of movement, including driving a car. But what I want is not what is. I strongly encourage you to do what I only thought to do what I did not until I was in Pre-Law & studying for LSAT... That is to go look the cases up yourself. Just go down the list and read the full legal brief for each case. Without exception, you will find at least one of the following things is true: -The Quote they use is from the dissenting opinion and not the majority opinion -The quote comes from piecing together parts of sentences taken from completely different parts of the brief - The quote is technically correct, but comes from a case that has nothing to do with a right to travel - The quote is technically correct but it has been taken from a sentence affirming in the negative (By which i mean a quote like "a right to travel freely and unencumbered..." comes from a statement that says "a right to travel freely and unencumbered is not overly-burdened by requiring a driver to demonstrate a level of safety and proficiency before using public roads") -The quote they use comes from a real case, but the quote they cite is completely fabricated and nothing even remotely similar to the quote they give appears anywhere in the brief -The Case they cite itself doesn't exist -The case cited is a municipal violation heard in a district court which means even if the quote was both accurate and in proper context (it never is. but even if it was) the scope of that court's jurisdiction is limited in rem and in personam (to the area within that court's district and to the individual named in the lawsuit.) Also, as far as definitions go, you need to see if a given term in specifically defined in the applicable statute. Only if it is not would you generally want to use a legal dictionary definition. In cases where a legal dictionary is proper to use, ask yourself why they choose editions that predate the existence of mass produced, commercially available automobiles. Legal dictionaries don't put out new editions so you can keep on using obsolete editions. They put out new editions so the definition they provide matches the definition you are most likely going to be using in a court of law. You quoted a 1914 edition of Bouviers. Ford had only started producing the Model T a couple years before that.... And as a matter of fact even John Bouvier says the point of new editions of legal dictionaries is to keep up with changes in law and precedent. This comes from the Preface of the first edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, publiched in 1839: "…most of the matter in the English law dictionaries will be found to have been written while the feudal law was in its full vigor, and not fitted to the present times, nor calculated for present use." that preface continues to be included in every new edition of Bouvier's.... The most recent edition having been published in 2018... So the only reason someone would give you a 1914 edition definition, I would have to believe, was chosen because it hit the sweet spot only a couple years after the first internal combustion engine powered motor vehicle was created, but before the government would have had time to establish the kinds of regulations that the person who chose it wanted to pretend don't actually exist
  22. 1 point

    Relationship Status Discrimination

    Of course not. You're both getting $X in benefits. The difference is that, because they don't need your employer to provide health coverage, all of their benefits are coming in the form of wages, which your benefits are divided between wages and health coverage. It has nothing to do with marital status. Rather, it has to do with them having other health coverage. They could just as easily be single and still covered on a parent's health insurance.
  23. 1 point
    On the flip side of that issue the judge may ask why you didn't take action when it was obvious that homeschooling wasn't working.
  24. 1 point

    Death With Dignity Law

    It's as good a place as any and, as you know, we all read all the forums anyway. You should thoroughly and carefully read the statute. The provisions may allay your concerns. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=1.&title=&part=1.85.&chapter=&article= There are some serious checks and balances in the statute, not the least of which is the definition of "terminal disease." There is also some serious (even draconian) paperwork involved for both patient and doctor. Given those requirements I don't see your mother succeeding in charming any doctor into going through that process to the point of actually providing the drug. On to your questions. This answers both. If she becomes mentally incompetent (dementia, alzheimer's, etc) that's a whole nother issue. But if she actually does some day become terminally ill and is still mentally competent, you won't be able to prevent it. Nor will you be able to sue any doctor that properly provides the drug. Unfortunately, even without being able to get the drug if she is seriously determined to commit suicide, there are a lot of ways she can do it. However, I tend to treat The same way I would treat "I have made a decision to quit smoking on my own terms within the next few months." With a considerable amount of skepticism.
  25. 1 point

    Traffic stop

    Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence." This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure. No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter. No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.
  26. 1 point
    Get a report from whom? A written report? Verbal report? I'm certain that you do lots of things. Filed a report with whom? Based on what you wrote, it's possible that you'll be arrested and charged with one or more crimes and sued. It's equally possible that nothing at all will happen. Obviously, if you're arrested and/or sued, you should retain an attorney. It might also be a good idea to contact your auto liability insurance carrier and report what happened and what is happening.
  27. 1 point
    The bomb always gets defused with one second left on the timer when the star of the show defuses it.
  28. 1 point
    Religious practice trumps a statute (whether criminal or civil) when that practice is protected by the Constitution and the government lacks the compelling state interest needed to overcome that protection. For example, the Amish have a well established belief that goes against participation in Social Security programs. That belief is protected by the First Amendment and as a result the Amish legally do not have to pay FICA taxes nor do they claim Social Security or Medicare benefits. They are completely outside that system due to their religious beliefs. As to use of illegal drugs, religious belief and practice can overcome criminal drug laws. Some Native American tribes have the right to use peyote, which otherwise would be illegal, for their religious practice. Of course, the tribes had been using peyote in a religious context well before it was banned, making the case it was truly a religious matter easier to prove. It becomes harder when a new religion pops up that no one ever heard of before and that religion has as a major part of it the use of illegal drugs. The suspicion will be that the claimed religion is merely a sham designed primarily to get around the prohibition of the drug. That makes it more of a challenge to the persons claiming it is truly for religion to establish that to the courts.
  29. 1 point

    How do I adopt?

    Did you really resurrect a year and a half old thread for the sole purpose of posting a bunch of grammatically incoherent blather?
  30. 1 point


    Under what circumstances would a court disregard precedent?
  31. 1 point

    6500 motions

    Figuring an hour each, comes to about 271 days.
  32. 1 point

    Lease Takeover but No Unit

    What does affiliated mean? Not the meaning of the word, but the relationship between the apartments and the school. Would there be any detriment to you by the school if you just walked away from the apartment deal? Are you financially capable of living on your own, in your own small apartment, like a studio or efficiency?
  33. 1 point

    Diving Accident

    Then I believe you are done with any chance for a lawsuit. Title VIII LIMITATIONS Chapter 95 LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION View Entire Chapter 95.11 Limitations other than for the recovery of real property.—Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows: (1) WITHIN TWENTY YEARS.—An action on a judgment or decree of a court of record in this state. (2) WITHIN FIVE YEARS.— (a) An action on a judgment or decree of any court, not of record, of this state or any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country. (b) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument, except for an action to enforce a claim against a payment bond, which shall be governed by the applicable provisions of paragraph (5)(e), s. 255.05(10), s. 337.18(1), or s.713.23(1)(e), and except for an action for a deficiency judgment governed by paragraph (5)(h). (c) An action to foreclose a mortgage. (d) An action alleging a willful violation of s. 448.110. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), an action for breach of a property insurance contract, with the period running from the date of loss. (3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS.— (a) An action founded on negligence.
  34. 1 point
    Just submit the claim to your insurer, either through UM (ghost vehicles are always considered uninsured) or collision, whichever is less expensive. There is no hope of solving the crime with a private investigator.
  35. 1 point
    It's Section 1950.5 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1950.5
  36. 1 point
    Let me see if I can clear this up for you. 1 - You got fired. 2 - Your employer has an appeal process. 3 - You appealed by explaining why you shouldn't have been fired. 4 - Your employer denied your appeal saying that you didn't convince them to rehire you. Guess what, bub. You got your "due process." You got whatever the "due process" the employer said it was. That you didn't like the process or the results is unfortunate for you but it's a decision that you are stuck with and need to move on. No, I'm not an attorney. But I have been an employee of someone or other for 40 years and I've been fired a few times myself. With that experience I can tell you to come down off your high dudgeon and go find another job. Nothing unconstitutional or illegal happened to you and fair is where you go on rides and eat cotton candy. You've got nowhere to go with this. Understand now?
  37. 1 point

    Eating in Grocery Stores

    You guessed correctly.
  38. 1 point

    Accident with company truck

    I would suggest your husband check with his employer to see if his company has uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. I had a case where the original attorney declined the case without checking because the other driver had minimal coverage. I discovered the employee's company had extensive underinsured coverage which compensated the client (and me) adequately. Your husband's own insurance policy may also come into play depending on his policy limits. Don't give up too easily.
  39. 1 point

    Primary parent died

    The father's girlfriend really has no good basis for claiming custody of the children. In the U.S. it is the parents of the children that have the right of custody of their children unless the state has terminated their parental rights due to being unfit. Not having lots of money does not make a parent unfit. If you are served with a court petition/complaint by the girlfriend seeking custody/visitation then you will need to respond to that and it would be a good idea to have an attorney for that. Your kids might benefit from counseling to help deal with the grief of losing their father and for help in making the transition to new the living arrangements. You might be able to find free or low cost legal help or counseling should you need either of those things but find you cant afford them. Doesn't matter that the boys had lived with her. She is not their parent. The fact that she lived with the father and kids doesn't legally give her any more claim to custody than a stranger. She might have claim to some visitation, but that varies by state and not many states grant that. Be careful about how much visitation you decide to give as you may not want to set expectations too high at the outset. The kids get to decide where they live when they turn 18.
  40. 1 point

    Rumors About My Health

    HIPAA protects health information obtained in the administration of a health care plan, so if self insured, HR *may* have HIPAA protected information. ADA also has a privacy provision but it is not as broad as you are describing and it doesn't appear to apply here as no accommodation or disability information has been sought or shared.
  41. 1 point


    Not a criminal issue. Might be a contractual issue. Trouble is, you signed the first contract willingly and you signed the second contract willingly. Nobody put a gun to your head. You had a choice. Then you made payments to the dealer when you were obligated by your loan contract to make payments to the finance company. I don't know what that's all about. The car should have been sold to pay off the debt (or a good part of it). You might still have owed something but not the whole thing. You might want to have a lawyer look over all your documents. Shouldn't cost you much for some advice.
  42. 1 point

    Undisclosed Short-term employment

    Government contracts are public record. You could just as easily looked up for yourself when the contract was set to expire and made your decision. The employer didn't have to tell you information which was readily available to the public. They just as easily could have won the bid. Its a gamble you take anytime you work on grant or contract funded projects.
  43. 1 point
    No, they are not. The statute is one designed to ensure no one interferes with the delivery of mail to its stated address. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is the federal appeals court covering Colorado, stated in a case involving prosecution under this statute: United States v. Fleming, 479 F.2d 56, 57 (10th Cir. 1973). (Bolding added). So once the package was delivered to the addressee the passage of mail was done and anything further done with the package was not retarding or obstructing its passage. Here the package was delivered as addressed; no one interfered with the "passage" of that package. So there is no offense under the section you cited. Moreover, the statute only applies to U.S. mail. Delivery of packages or letters by private delivery firms is not covered by that statute, and while the OP does use the word "mail" in the post, it is far from clear that it was actually delivered by the USPS and not a private delivery firm like UPS or FedEx.
  44. 1 point
    Well, your husband can't just dig in his heels and pay nothing, when it's obvious that he owes something. Paying nothing might get him sent to collections. I suggest he send a check for $350 with a letter explaining he is paying for the hour he spent with the attorney. Then leave it at that and see what happens.
  45. 1 point

    Physician Assisted Suicide

    Well, your mother is free to commit suicide if she wants and is capable of doing it on her own (assuming she doesn't get committed for psychiatric help before she succeeds) but she won't get a doctor to assist her in it over a complaint that she just doesn't want to live life having to use a walker or cane. Seven states and DC allow for physician assisted suicide, and all of them place significant limitations on it. For one thing, all of those jurisdictions (last I checked anyway) required that at least one physician attest that the patient has 6 months or less left to live. So these are very much laws about ending suffering for a patient who is about to die soon anyway. These are not laws that allow reasonably healthy people a way to get help to commit suicide. No doctor is going to assist a woman who is not terminally ill in ending her life, especially for minor complaints like not wanting to use a walker or cane. Rather, they would be inclined to refer her for mental health treatment since a desire to die in that circumstance likely indicates a mental issue of some kind, perhaps severe depression. Assuming though that your mother is mentally competent, her health decisions are hers to make. You cannot take some legal action to override her decisions regarding her own care while she is competent. So if the law did allow her to get assisted suicide in this circumstance, that would be up to her. As hard as it can be to see close family or friends make decisions about their care that you think are terrible choices, they have the right to make those choices themselves. Just as you have the right to make the decisions for your care without others intruding and imposing their values and choices on you.
  46. 1 point

    911 please help

  47. 1 point
    While I agree completely with everything "RetiredinVA" wrote, are you really inclined to act on the opinions of anonymous strangers (who may or may not be attorneys and who may or may not be in your state**) over the opinion of an attorney in your state with better knowledge of the facts than we have? ** Based on his/her posting history, I have every reason to believe "RetiredinVA" is an attorney (as am I). However, to the best of my knowledge, no one who posts here regularly is from Wisconsin.
  48. 1 point
    Suspected crimes are reported to the police. Did you really need someone to tell you that? You can also report it to whatever agency in NY licenses notaries. Consult with a local attorney about filing a civil lawsuit against this individual.
  49. 1 point

    parking and using my RV on my property

    We have the same problem. We use our trailer for summer camping. We would go home for 2-3 days where it was unattended. We keep the property neat, grass cut, not junk or garbage. Someone also turned us in. I checked with some of the surrounding counties and found that Winnegago county lets you leave them for 72 hours, Portage county for 6 months, and Marquette county no limit between April 16 to November 30. We tried the seasonal residence also with the board and they said no. I really believe they need to revisit their statutes regarding this. When we are up there we buy all our groceries, liquor, supplies, etc locally. We go the Hancock every year for the labor day celebration and enjoy donating to their firefighters funds. I understand they don't want run down trailers being left all around the county, but think a modified regulation that eases how long you can leave it up especially during the summer months could be helpful to all. If you already have a resolution I would love to know how it turned out. Thanks
  50. 1 point
    Proof of what? This is perhaps one of the dumbest conclusions that you've made thus far. ...and your point is what? By the way, in case you missed it, the law of every state requires that the operator of a motor vehicle who drives on public roads must be appropriately licensed in order to do so legally. No matter what garbled, unreliable, out-of-context statement that you have posted or continue to post, you always fall short of providing any logical arguments to the contrary. Anyone can find the s**t that you spew by conducting half-assed web searches. Your problem is that you are ignorant to the notion of finding objectively reliable resources that support your position and are actually on-point. Otherwise, you'd have proven all of us wrong by now.
  • Create New...