I know the two replies are jokes so far, but this is really important news for people who live in this area, such as myself. This is the second bear attack this season in the general area that I’m aware of, though I can’t remember if the first one was a black or grizzly. Hopefully the circumstances of the attack are known; and hopefully it’s explainable. Otherwise it’s unlikely they can capture the bear and remove it, and we’ll have another dangerous bear in the area, which poses a major risk for outdoor enthusiasts.
This is simply Congress’ solution to a truck driver shortage … allow longer, heavier trailers that will create more toxic CO2 levels and disaster-level gridlocks in major cities.
Congress really aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.
I say we go all the way and use even smaller numbers of extremely large trucks, and put them on specialized roads made out of two metal rails. I bet the efficiency of these “rail roads” would be far far superior!
Yeah, they are pretty heavily used for anything that needs to go hub to hub on a ‘when it gets there’ schedule. However, I find it ironic that the majority of pro-train individuals complain heavily about cargo trains making the train system worse.
It’s not the cargo trains that make the system worse, it’s the prioritization of cargo over passenger rail along with lack of investment. If they spent even half the money on rail that they do on automobile roads we’d have one hell of a good rail system.
The highway system costs 200-400 billion dollars a year split between state and federal government.
Meanwhile Amtrak gets about 1.5 billion dollars from the federal government.
It’s pretty simple. More investment to build more robust and more connected lines. High traffic lines could be multiple rails wide, so faster passenger trains (which are time sensitive) can pass slower freight trains.
The issue with our rail infrastructure is that lines have been reduced over and over. Also, despite legally amtrak being given priority, they rarely do get it. Freight trains are often too long to be able to let them pass, so they are no longer legally required to get out of the way, because there isn’t an alternative for them.
Freight causes issues with the current system, but it is not required to cause issues. It only causes issues because we have chosen to not invest in improving things.
Road wear scales as a cube of vehicle weight, so unless the heavier trucks are only 4.6% heavier than two trucks they'll cause more damage to the roads while consuming less fuel and therefore producing less fuel tax revenue which is used to repair the roads.
The federal diesel tax rate is 24.4 cents/gallon and hasn’t been changed since 1993 [not indexed to inflation], a time period that’s seen other inflation raise prices by some 65-75%.
It’s tough on the roads, but less trucks (even if each one is producing slightly more CO2 than usual) would be a net decrease in CO2 overall. Drivers better be on point though, the extra momentum is nothing to play around with.
The only thing that helps this headline stand out from so many "uh no, shutdown" headlines of the past is the included impeachment part. The shutdown will be used to its fullest drama potential just like before until the very end with some compromise, and the impeachment as well.
Is this impeachment about Hunter Biden, or have they moved on from that nonsense? Oh, it's about Joe Biden. Well, let's see what evidence you have to work with and...oh, you don't have any yet? That's kind of necessary, guys.
oh, you don’t have any [evidence] yet? That’s kind of necessary, guys.
Conservatives: Is it, though? I don’t need proof to know God exists…
These people live and breathe a false reality of a hierarchy that starts with God, who famously refuses to prove he exists, because otherwise people wouldn’t have “faith” and for some reason God really needs you to trust him without any evidence, and if you don’t… you’re going to Hell to burn for eternity.
Huh, sounds a lot like the abusive demands of the conservatives. I wonder where they learned to be like that.
It was, and always has been, a cult of purposeful ignorance.
You’ll never convince me that they actually believe in God. If they did, they’d have to face the fact that the Bible disagrees with most of what they do. I think they just use their rhetoric about God as a means to an end, to capture the Christian voting bloc.
Logic dictates that it’s impossible for you to know what I have or haven’t read about the case. You stated that I provided you with details about the case that you hadn’t read yet, further disproving your unprovable claim.
You also asked what was a lie, and I provided you with one (of many) examples from the case.
People in the past have stood up to the cops for much less. They would stand up to them evicting people from their houses and all kinds of stuff. Now they literally get away with murder with almost nothing being done to them.
The justice system generally allows everyone a chance to defend themselves. People aren’t removed immediately for the same reason they aren’t executed immediately.
I’m talking about firing. Not imprisonment. And yes, if you fuck up big time, it’s completely fine to be fired on the spot. She issued a search warrant for a journalist, in complete violation of State and Federal law.
At will is simply the default, so it only applies to workers without an employment contract.
She is a government official, and most certainly has a contract that specifies termination procedures.
Keep in mind that at will cuts both ways, it allows workers to quit at any time without notice. The government really, really doesn’t want judges to peace out in the middle of a trial. So the contract provides penalties for both sides if termination procedures aren’t followed.
I'm sorry but this is really funny. Her "contract" is the state constitution.
Other judges shall be subject to retirement for incapacity, and to discipline, suspension and removal for cause by the supreme court after appropriate hearing.
Whatever her contract specifies has to be consistent with the constitution, but her contract covers a lot more than that. It’s not like she can look through the constitution to find her PTO policy.
Elected offical's compensation packages are codified, not contracted. This is a really bizarre rabbit hole you've went down.
§ 13: Compensation of justices and judges; certain limitation. The justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts shall receive for their services such compensation as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by general law applicable to all salaried officers of the state. Such justices or judges shall receive no fees or perquisites nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of the state, or the United States except as may be provided by law, or practice law during their continuance in office.
The constitution and state law must be in keeping with any employment contract. That doesn’t mean there is no employment contract.
Without an employment contract, there is no penalty if an employee suddenly decides to quit. If you are at will (no contract), giving notice to your employer is merely a courtesy.
The government does not want judges to suddenly quit in the middle of a trial, for the same reason that hospitals don’t want doctors to quit in the middle of a patient appointment. Those kinds of employees need contracts.
Among other things, the contract specifies termination procedures. This may include a requirement to give notice and also limit the opportunity for summary firing.
An example of an employment contract for a judge can be found here.
It may not be a contract persay, but it does seem to support the idea that some amount of due process is required. I’d agree that there should be some option to more rapidly suspend a judge, but the constitution you quote says she gets a hearing before dismissal.
I wasn't really arguing that they couldn't dismiss them, just that the dismissal of an elected official being mediated by employment law is... an interesting approach.
What state and federal laws? Not trolling, genuinely have been searching and asking for an explanation. The probable cause seems clear from having read the warrant. I think the paper owner even admitted it’s employee broke the records law.
Sorry friend, but they’re right, you’re wrong and to dismiss them over a spelling error is arrogant and ignorant. The warrant was for someone at the paper allegedly illegally accessing someone’s driving record (1). Kansas has a law that protects driver’s records, but it has a carve out for journalists with a legitimate need to access that info (2). Even if that legitimate need doesn’t exist, this is a civil cause of action and not a criminal proceeding (3), so a subpoena from the aggrieved party would be appropriate and a warrant for the police to raid both the office and a journalist’s home is a massive overstep, obviously intended to punish someone before they’ve even been accused of a crime. The warrant has since been withdrawn by the county attorney, who directed that all seized materials be returned and all copies of seized data be destroyed (4).
It’s a federal law and there is no carve out for journalists. I linked the statute elsewhere.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The warrant was part of a criminal investigation by police, not any civil lawsuit.
And you didn’t even read your own links.
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT Under the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended (DPPA) (18 U.S.C. § 2721), personal information obtained by the Kansas Department of Revenue cannot be released unless the request for information falls within one of the exceptions within the Act. It is unlawful for personal information to be used for any purpose not permitted under the DPPA
In the analogous area of birth and death records, “reporters when investigating stories have a ‘legitimate research purpose’ … and are therefore to be allowed access to the vital records.” Campbell & Assoc. v. Sharma, No. 884-0076, at 22 St. Louis Cir. Ct. (Jan. 25, 1989).
Seems like I’m not the one who doesn’t read my links
Sections (b)(1)-(14) list the only rights of access.
What does a Missouri circuit court holding about vital records in 1989 have to do with anything? The case at issue was in Kansas, doesn’t involve vital records (which are already open under FOIA).
and yet us commoners are frequently arrested and detained without cause. Yes, police can and do fuck up peoples’ lives and make them sit in jail for days just to have charges dropped in many cases. You could whine and say it’s rare, but once is too much vs the rules they’re SUPPOSED to operate under.
The judicial system allows those with wealth to game it so they don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Remember the affluenza kid who killed for people while driving recklessly? What about the other rich white male who literally raped a girl and got off because ‘it could damage his future.’
Meanwhile, poor black folk get executed for no-knock search warrants when the cops go to the wrong place.
Police know to be more lenient with people that have status (wealth.) That’s why we just got a recording with a pig laughing about a cop running over a pedestrian because she ‘was of low value.’
If you don’t notice how the justice system doesn’t serve you, you’re not paying attention.
I’ve been loosely following this story and I read the warrant applications. You seem certain this is outrageous. Could you explain why?
What was wrong with the warrant? The police seem to have had good probable cause. I’m a huge advocate for free press, but I’ve yet to hear a legal argument for what is so objectionable, here.
Sure. The warrant application states that the newspaper employee accessed some private government record via online portal, and then shared that record with police and the public. In order to access the record, the newspaper employee must have either impersonated the person whom the record was about (it think it was about a town counselor if memory serves), or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information. It’s the same certification I have make as a lawyer when doing a private background check, have to choose one of like fourteen legit reasons for requesting the info; comes from a federal privacy statute. The difference being I have a legit reason to certify when I’m doing a search, and I’m not accessing records directly from the government.
So either the newspaper employee committed identity thef or accessed a closed, government computer system under false pretenses, also known as hacking (unauthorized access).
Those were the two probable crimes set forth in the warrant. There is no journalist exception for crimes.
As I understand, the newspaper owner admitted that their employee falsely certified as to her right of access, but refused to give a statement or provide records.
The same officer who applied for the warrant is also the officer who initially received the document on behalf of the police. He recognized that it implicated the police chief in financial crimes, and referred it to internal affairs.
The only wrongdoing I could see is the appearance of conflict of interest, in that the department or prosecutor should have referred the matter to state law enforcement or law enforcement in a different county.
I don’t like police raiding reporters in any sense, and that’s what prompted me to read the warrant application, but after reading it I understand why the police, prosecutor, and judge all signed off on it. It seems legit.
There are 14 clearly defined rights of access. None of them apply to journalists.
I agree journalism is important and rooting out public corruption is a good cause. They should have requested the records by FOIA. Some records are exempt from FOIA and I have hunch these were such records. Congress passed the law setting out those fourteen reasons a person could have a valid legal right to the data, and fishing expeditions by well meaning journalists isn’t one of them, for good reason!
Don’t forget, the document was the proof of the corruption, before that, sounds like, it was allegation and conjecture motivated by a small town grudge.
I don’t know, assume the affidavit is true and the actions of the newspaper employee were illegal, is the raid objectionable for any legal reason?
Thanks for the details, genuinely. I’ve not fired up PACER myself here, as much as me a private non-lawyer citizen could really follow along there.
Personally, I side with the newspaper morally in this matter. I’m much more of a “if raiding a newspaper over peacefully attempting to uncover corruption in local governments because they lied to do so is legal than the laws need to change” kinda guy.
I know that’s pivoting. I also don’t have any good ideas on how to improve the laws. Personally, I don’t see any way of making a law that doesn’t become either a target of or a tool for abuse of power, and this really feels a lot like people in power using the law to help a friend in a way that most citizens would not have access to.
They should have issued a subpoena, like every other case. Also the judge ordered the return of seized items from the search. Not a good sign of confidence in their legality.
A subpoena is a demand to appear issued by a lawyer. A witness has to be subpoenaed to something. You subpoena testimony, usually by deposition, to a hearing or to a grand jury. A subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena to show up and testify and bring documents, too.
Government subpoenas are usually in connection with civil enforcement. In the criminal context, they are to compel a witness to a grand jury or to testify at a pretrial deposition or at trial after the suspect as been charged, or in the case of secret proceedings, when a grand jury has convened.
“We finally were able to obtain the probable cause affidavit that was supposed to support the search warrant. It was filed three days after the searches were conducted, which is a little suspicious,” Meyer said in a CNN interview Wednesday.
The affidavits authorizing the searches and seizures at the paper and the publisher’s house were signed by Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, and while her signature was dated Aug. 11, the court did not receive the affidavits until Monday, Aug. 14 — three days after the search was conducted.
The top prosecutor, who ordered the seized materials be returned, said themselves that “insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized.” There was never probable cause, no evidence that this alleged illegal access ever happened. There never should have been a warrant in the first place.
Not sure what you’re asking when you say “on what grounds”.
The warrant was issued without any evidence supporting it, which I thought I made clear in my comment.
I did read it, it’s linked within the article OP posted that we’re replying too, or maybe it’s a couple clicks away.
The fact that shit hit the fan seems like a red flag to me that things were wrong from the get go. Cops get away with misconduct every day, for it to make national news means they probably acted indefensibly inappropriately.
You’re saying the warrant was issued without supporting evidence because the affidavit was filed after the warrant was served?
I don’t know what the recording requirements in that court are. It may be that affidavits are submitted sealed and then not filed until after the warrant is served. That doesn’t seem out of the scope of ordinary to me.
I’m not sure it’s filing means the judge didn’t see it.
You don’t need to abuse a dog in to mauling people’s faces in order for it to act as a deterrent. Nor, again, should a dog be a burglar alarm first and foremost.
After Covid killed more people daily than 9/11 every day for a year and no one cared, I’m just done caring a single event that happened decades ago when a larger tragedy more recent was ignored.
That’s what makes terrorism terrorism. It not only inflicts casualties, it causes terror. A terror that impacts individual and collective thoughts. It impacts policy and government action.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.