I swear by my Judge’s / Lawyer’s Oath, that I mean and say … that I will do post here, but yeah have to fill in the blanks, which newspaper will I …
Here is for your entertainment: Pains and sufferings of a little girl …
Man ‘mistakes’ girl for frog, takes out eye
By Thea Alberto INQUIRER.net
First Posted 14:08:00 06/03/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- An apparently deranged man mistook a 3-year-old girl for a frog and took out her left eye in Taguig, police said Tuesday.
The victim had gone out of their house in Signal village, Taguig to buy refreshments Monday afternoon when the suspect, Rolly Semira, suddenly held her and gouged out her left eye, said Chief Inspector Tito Oraya, chief of the Taguig police investigation section.
Before Semira could take out the girl’s other eye, bystanders mobbed him, Oraya added. …
I pick SunStar. Show up with a picture showing a copy of you with that in your hands from Thursday’s date and I’ll totally believe you. Heck, I might even build you a nice little shrine or something.
The Supreme Court of the United States on June 2, 2008, rendered 2 judgments in favor of defendants, narrowing the application of the federal money-laundering statute.
First, in a 9-0 decision, ponente Justice Clarence Thomas reversed Acuna, Mexico’s Humberto Cuellar’s conviction and ruled that “hiding $81,000 in cash under the floorboard of a car and driving toward Mexico is not enough to prove the driver was guilty of money laundering; instead, prosecutors must also prove the driver was traveling to Mexico for the purpose of hiding the true source of the funds.” The Court further ruled “that federal prosecutors have gone too far in their use of money laundering charges to combat drug traffickers and organized crime; that money laundering charges under the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, Sec. 18 U. S. C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) apply only to profits of an illegal gambling ring and cannot be used when the only evidence of a possible crime is when a courier headed to Texas-Mexico border with $ 81,000 in cash (proceeds of a marijuana transaction); it cannot be proven merely by showing that the funds were concealed in a secret compartment of a Volkswagen Beetlecar; instead, prosecutors must show that the purpose of transporting funds in a money laundering case was to conceal their ownership, source or control; the secrecy must be part of a larger “design” to disguise the source or nature of the money.”
Second, in a 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia reversed Efrain Santos of Indiana and Benedicto Diaz’s convictions for money laundering based on cash from an illegal lottery. Scalia ruled that the law referred to the “proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don’t qualify as money laundering; the word “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956,and §1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and§1956(h), applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not criminal receipts; those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity.” Congress enacted the 1986 statute after the President’s Commission on Organized Crime stressed the problem of “washing” criminal proceeds through overseas bank accounts and legitimate businesses. It imposes a 20-year maximum prison terms and heavy fines.[6][7][8][9][10]
you can read the entire decisions here
read the syllabus if you are lazy or retard like King Retard
Second, in a 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia reversed Efrain Santos of Indiana and Benedicto Diaz’s convictions for money laundering based on cash from an illegal lottery. Scalia ruled that the law referred to the “proceeds of some form of unlawful activity; paying off gambling winners and compensating employees who collect the bets don’t qualify as money laundering; the word “proceeds” in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956,and §1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and§1956(h), applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not criminal receipts; those are expenses, and prosecutors must show that profits were used to promote the illegal activity.”
Cool, I am going to start a non-profit money laundry and laugh at the feds. Thanks, Antonin!!!
I’m filing away the phrase “read the [something] if you are lazy or retard like King Retard” for future use. Assuming judgefloro doesn’t object, of course.
First, as Wikipedia editor, I edited or contributed the jurisprudence section (the twin cases are landmark suits in USA money laundering case law history since 1970 and 1986 enactment of the statute; for sure, CJS and AmJur would copy paste these Scalia and Thomas babies in their SPAM volumes)
Second, since this is the first USA S.C. case (if I am not mistaken) on the statute since 1986, then, it is usual for magistrates to be split or highly divided in their rulings / votes; split decisions are common in many countries;
Here in the Philippines, we have had, since 1901, several split judgments (Justice Black said that hard cases like long cases, make bad law);
In a 9-6 closely decided ZTE case, our Supreme Court shocked the Filipino nation, by making mockery of justice for the sake of our fake President (who appointed, since 2001, almost all of our incumbent Justices who voted)
Since 2001, when the Anti-Money Laundering Act was first enacted, the country has registered significant gains in the campaign against money laundering and terrorist financing. In 2003, the law was amended to comply with international standards. A report by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, which is implementing the AMLA, showed that total amounts frozen since the campaign began has reached P1.371 billion, based on 12,038 suspicious transaction reports (STRs) received from 2001 to present.
Fourth, even in CA, the gay marriage ruling was split 4-3 homo-lesbian ponencia
[B]Ruling is not yet final until 30 days - The dwaves ruled -
[/B]Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California’s 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California’s top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A final note. As a lawyer / dwarf judge, let me caution yeah, that, in many civilized courts, more often than not, dissenting opinions, would, IN TIME, be the majority. In layman’s term - the Scalia - Thomas (9-0; 5-4) June 2, 2008 judgments for defendants, which narrowed the application of the 1986 statute against the whims and caprices of department of justice prosecutors, may, in the future, be abandoned in favor of the prosecutors’ argument / dissenting opinions, and would be the new case law.
At any rate, instead of reading the forum and silly rants / ramblings of non-magical legal luminaries in spam blogs, please read the mentally sane dissents of the other lucid Justices, the full opinions, if you have TIME, and let your laundries be taken cared of by …
Be careful, I am not telling yeah, that, like here in the Philippines -
(we have 15 S.C. Justices, and most of them got 76% - 81% Bar Exams Rating, except Justices Velasco, 87.+%, Carpio, 87.55% - TIE with myself, since I got also 87.55%, Quisumbing, 85%)
Supreme Court Decisions (USA, UK, etc.) are written really by alters, or top University / Honor grads, hired by them as attorneys/ staff,
remember the mental sanity cases of Justices Black, Douglas, etc. (who were dying, with history of lingering illnesses and suicides) and it was only decades after their deaths, that journalists, and retards, discovered that -
USA decisions are written by staff. PERIOD.
I am looking for the Manila Times and good photographer for yeah.
Neva neva and never will I object, since you have to get the copyright permission of King Retard and Sean, plus the atheists there, since they compiled lots or tons and volumes of articles in their rants:
King Retard is up for canonization by Benedict XVI, since, there is no patron saint yet for atheists:
The Fortune-Telling Judge and the Three Dwarfs, and 3 more articles
By King Retard / By Sean
These Suckers love dwarfs, they only pretend not to believe in these unseen, but they giggle … someday these Gods will be converted to USA Christianity, baptized by Pedo priests from LA and San Diego
Many cardinals in these twin dioceses paid $ 2 billion for foreskins, since 1953, in huge settlement to cover-up these skins,
which skins as I suggested could feed millions of Filipinos who are hungry,
UNCUT Burgers …
Here is the picture of the immortal instrument of the 3 living dwarves, beside a June 4, 2008, physical Manila Times newspaper, at Malolos City, Bulacan, Philippines, as mandated by your Honors in QTTF.
Metadata
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.
Camera manufacturer [NIKON CORPORATION](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIKON_CORPORATION) Camera model [NIKON D70](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIKON_D70) Exposure time 1/50 sec (0.02) F Number f/18 Date and time of data generation 15:08, 4 June 2008 Lens focal length 40 mm Software used [Adobe Photoshop CS Windows](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_CS_Windows) File change date and time 02:55, 4 June 2008 Y and C positioning 2 Exposure Program Manual Exif version 2.21 Date and time of digitizing 15:08, 4 June 2008 Image compression mode 4 Exposure bias 0.666666666667 Maximum land aperture 4.2 Metering mode Pattern Light source Unknown Flash 0 DateTime subseconds 00 DateTimeOriginal subseconds 00 DateTimeDigitized subseconds 00 Color space sRGB Sensing method One-chip color area sensor Custom image processing Normal process Exposure mode Manual exposure White Balance Auto white balance Digital zoom ratio 1 Focal length in 35 mm film 60 Scene capture type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard
Proffer of Evidence: Since I am a dwarf judge and at the same time a Filipino trial lawyer, I deem it proper to submit to your QTTF Court evidence that the newspaper I held this 3 pm, is the real and also ONLINE / current newspaper of Manila Times: I offer Exhibit A this pics and the URL today, to prove that I am the only and existing immortal dwarf Judge, whose story is and will never be duplicated in human chronicles.
