The Dragon Saga
Whale in a Teardrop
How The Miz has fallen.
Raw SuperShow LD 23/04/2012 - Car-Enthusiast John Cena Celebrates Turns 35 in Motown
- Thread starter Coco
- Start date
Richard Blonoff
Make America Rassle Again
The US title can't even get on the actual PPV?
AnvilForever
Occasional Pre-Show
I like this idea of putting the PPV dark matches on Youtube. As long as they are quality, it's a good way to bring in some last minute buyers.
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
Lulz. You take things too seriously, man.
PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
it's a shame miz can't even make the main card of ER
This university of yours doesn't care much for citations, it seems.
Honestly, that looks more like something written by a high school sophomore. So, while you're moving up the ladder, you still aren't all that impressive.
I'm sure your pretend university is just great, though.
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
Man, you brits really love online gambling, huh? I've seen a ton of commercials for it tonight.
Brahma_Bull9
Pre-Show Stalwart
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. _______ (2012)
Facts: A joint FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force obtained a warrant from the U.S. District court of Columbia authorizing the installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones’s Jeep. On the 11th day, agents installed the tracking device on Jones’s Jeep and used evidence obtained from the tracking of his movements for 28 days to convict Jones with both conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. A district court rejected Jones request to suppress evidence obtained through the tracking device, however, the court allowed the admission of the evidence on public streets, resulting in a conviction of Jones. The United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia reversed the decision claiming the evidence obtained through the warrantless use of the device violated the 4th Amendment citing United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544 (2010).
Issue: Does the use of a GPS tracking device on public roads constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment?
Decision: The court ruled that the government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information which would have undoubtedly been considered a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment at the time of its adoption.
Reasons: Due to the installation of the device beyond the ten days, it is concluded as a warrantless search. The next observation of the Court is that the use of the device tracking does indeed require a warrant, despite arguments involving precedents denying the right to privacy in travels on public roads.
The Court notes the Fourth Amendments close connection to property as it states “the right of people to be secure in…their effects, against unreasonable searches”. The court ruled the Jeep falls under “effects”, as “effects” articulates possessions. It is not the government’s physical placement of the GPS onto the property that constitutes a violation, however, it is when the sole intent is to obtain information that a violation occurs. The court has evolved from holding the view that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places as previously established in Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928). It was in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), when the Court began to deviate from this precedent. In which the Court specified Justice Harlan’s analysis that a violation occurs when officers violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” to be accurate in this case. The reach of the fourth amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion.
Changes in The Law: The Court is not deviating completely from the precedent set in Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983), that a person travelling on public roads has no expectation of privacy in his movements. However, it is ruling that GPS tracking is different from “traditional surveillance”. The ruling defers on why the difference between short term physical surveillance and GPS tracking is different claiming that it is not pertinent to the case and will be established at the appropriate time. The Court exercises judicial restraint in that they do not grant additional law enforcement powers to the government, additionally, the Court could have set a precedent opinion on the difference between GPS and traditional surveillance as well as long term and short term tracking, but decided to wait for when a case dictates that as necessary.
Concurring Opinions: Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion that confronts the issue with GPS tracking over long periods of time, pointing out that GPS tracking creates a detailed record of movements that can indicate almost all aspects of life imaginable, religious, familial, professional, religious sexual associations as well as health issues. Additionally, the affordability of the technology gives potential for rampant abuse.
Justice Alito criticizes the reasoning of the majority, claiming the Court relied on 18th Century tort law in its explanation that the officers violated common trespass law. Justice Alito contends that an apt analogy does not exist for the purposes of this case in comparing it to the 18th Century. Like Justice Sotomayor, it is the long term monitoring of movements that is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Case Significance: It is the tip of the ice berg of how the Constitution will determine the legality of the gray areas of privacy that newer technologies create. From new methods in law enforcement and the growing industry of personal preferences by third party agencies, to the tracking of movements through cell phones and numerous forms of possible electronic surveillance one passes in commute. The future presents many questions the ruling suggests the Court maybe sympathetic to protecting traditional expectations to privacy.
Facts: A joint FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force obtained a warrant from the U.S. District court of Columbia authorizing the installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones’s Jeep. On the 11th day, agents installed the tracking device on Jones’s Jeep and used evidence obtained from the tracking of his movements for 28 days to convict Jones with both conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. A district court rejected Jones request to suppress evidence obtained through the tracking device, however, the court allowed the admission of the evidence on public streets, resulting in a conviction of Jones. The United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia reversed the decision claiming the evidence obtained through the warrantless use of the device violated the 4th Amendment citing United States v. Maynard, 615 F. 3d 544 (2010).
Issue: Does the use of a GPS tracking device on public roads constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment?
Decision: The court ruled that the government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information which would have undoubtedly been considered a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment at the time of its adoption.
Reasons: Due to the installation of the device beyond the ten days, it is concluded as a warrantless search. The next observation of the Court is that the use of the device tracking does indeed require a warrant, despite arguments involving precedents denying the right to privacy in travels on public roads.
The Court notes the Fourth Amendments close connection to property as it states “the right of people to be secure in…their effects, against unreasonable searches”. The court ruled the Jeep falls under “effects”, as “effects” articulates possessions. It is not the government’s physical placement of the GPS onto the property that constitutes a violation, however, it is when the sole intent is to obtain information that a violation occurs. The court has evolved from holding the view that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places as previously established in Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928). It was in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), when the Court began to deviate from this precedent. In which the Court specified Justice Harlan’s analysis that a violation occurs when officers violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” to be accurate in this case. The reach of the fourth amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion.
Changes in The Law: The Court is not deviating completely from the precedent set in Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983), that a person travelling on public roads has no expectation of privacy in his movements. However, it is ruling that GPS tracking is different from “traditional surveillance”. The ruling defers on why the difference between short term physical surveillance and GPS tracking is different claiming that it is not pertinent to the case and will be established at the appropriate time. The Court exercises judicial restraint in that they do not grant additional law enforcement powers to the government, additionally, the Court could have set a precedent opinion on the difference between GPS and traditional surveillance as well as long term and short term tracking, but decided to wait for when a case dictates that as necessary.
Concurring Opinions: Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion that confronts the issue with GPS tracking over long periods of time, pointing out that GPS tracking creates a detailed record of movements that can indicate almost all aspects of life imaginable, religious, familial, professional, religious sexual associations as well as health issues. Additionally, the affordability of the technology gives potential for rampant abuse.
Justice Alito criticizes the reasoning of the majority, claiming the Court relied on 18th Century tort law in its explanation that the officers violated common trespass law. Justice Alito contends that an apt analogy does not exist for the purposes of this case in comparing it to the 18th Century. Like Justice Sotomayor, it is the long term monitoring of movements that is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Case Significance: It is the tip of the ice berg of how the Constitution will determine the legality of the gray areas of privacy that newer technologies create. From new methods in law enforcement and the growing industry of personal preferences by third party agencies, to the tracking of movements through cell phones and numerous forms of possible electronic surveillance one passes in commute. The future presents many questions the ruling suggests the Court maybe sympathetic to protecting traditional expectations to privacy.
That was really interesting. Thank you for this insight.
Brahma_Bull9
Pre-Show Stalwart
if I copied and pasted that u could copy and paste that into google and it will come up... goodluck
Brahma_Bull9
Pre-Show Stalwart
Nope I have a 30 pg project right here I had to do... ill post it up..
PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
Plenty of grammatical things wrong with this. The fact that you used wasn't instead of was not in a formal assignment is pretty telling.
It's...Baylariat!
Team Finnley Baylor
TIGER BOMB, JERICHO!
Richard Blonoff
Make America Rassle Again
I wish I could red rep you again.
Vincent Michaels
My weapon of choice? A green onion.
Don't insult me like that.
Richard Blonoff
Make America Rassle Again
Why was Austin never in trouble?
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
Jericho looks fantastic.
Brahma_Bull9
Pre-Show Stalwart
Burma
Also known as Myanmar in English as ordered by ruling military junta. Much of world refuses to refer to Burma as Myanmar in an attempt to avoid legitimizing the current regime.
Former British Colony as a province of India, uses remains of British Court system, however, no guarantee to a fair trial.
Burma is a Southeastern Asian nation, on the Indian Ocean between the Bay of Bengal and Andaman sea, between India and Thailand.
Take into account poor HIV/AIDs, higher death rates and lower birth rates Burma has an estimated population of 53,999,804
Capital City recently moved from Ragoon (or Yangon) with a population of 4.259 to million small city of Naypyitaw.
Bicamarel legislative branch consisting of 224, 168 elected and 56 appointed by the military.
Most Recent elections in Novemeber 2010 which attracted suspicions about its validity when the junta's Union Solidarity and Development Party won over 75% of the seats. However, the government has shifted to under civilian control to a limited extent.
Prime Minister and President Military General Thein Sein
Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 15 of 22 years of Junta rule.
Predominantly Buddhist population with minorities of under 5 % consisting of Christians, Muslims, animist, and other religions
Shares a borders with Bangladesh, China, India, Laos, and Thailand.
Burma has a land area of 653,508 square kilometers, slightly smaller than Texas.
Has a diverse population, Burman people make up 68% of the population while Shan, Karen, Rakhine, and Mon make up a considerable portion. Most immigrants to Burma are of Chinese or Indian or origins.
Abundant in natural resources of Teak timber, petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas, hydropower.
History of Burma
King Anawrehta founds first unified Burmese Buddhist state uniting almost all of present day Burma until Kublai Khan conquers Pagan in 1287 ultimately destroying the Burmese state.
Burma is reunited under the Toungoo Dynasty in 1486 until 1752, internal divisions led to the fall. The Konbaung dynasty soon would take power and rule until the final confrontation with Britain in 1886. Britain wasged three wars to conquer Burma beginning in 1824, resuming in 1852, and culminating in 1886. Britain would place Burma under the rule of British India as a province.
1937 Britain separates Burma from India and places it under direct British rule.
Japan foments support from a separatist group within Burma, invades and occupies in 1942. Japan trained Burma Independence army to help with invasion; the organization would changes its name to Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) and become adversarial towards the Japanese rule. 1945 - Britain ends Japanese rule with the help of Aung San, father of Aung San Suu Kyi and leader the AFPFL. Two years later he would be assassinated by U Nu, who served in Japanese government and would become PM in 1948.
Under the guidance of U Nu, Burma is a founding member of the Movement of Non-Aligned States to remain neutral in the Cold War.
In the late 1950's, a split emerged in the ruling AFPFL party, General Ne Win emerges as interim leader until U Nu wins elections in 1960, however, his tenor was short as his Buddhist beliefs and tolerance of separatist factions in the military sparked a coup led by General Win.
In 1974 a new Constitution transferred power from the military to the People's assembly, essentially a figure head government that consisted of Prime Minister, Ne Win and other former military leaders in charge.
In 1988, Wide spread riots in response to a currency devaluation trigger the formation of The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). The council declared martial law and in the process arrested thousands including placing Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, moving the capital to Ragoon, and renaming Burma Myanmar in English.
Elections are held in the aftermath of the 1988 uprisings in 1990 in which Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) wins landslide elections. She is kept under house arrest by the military and the elections are ignored. Aung San vows to continue working for a peaceful change and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maps
Political
Also known as Myanmar in English as ordered by ruling military junta. Much of world refuses to refer to Burma as Myanmar in an attempt to avoid legitimizing the current regime.
Former British Colony as a province of India, uses remains of British Court system, however, no guarantee to a fair trial.
Burma is a Southeastern Asian nation, on the Indian Ocean between the Bay of Bengal and Andaman sea, between India and Thailand.
Take into account poor HIV/AIDs, higher death rates and lower birth rates Burma has an estimated population of 53,999,804
Capital City recently moved from Ragoon (or Yangon) with a population of 4.259 to million small city of Naypyitaw.
Bicamarel legislative branch consisting of 224, 168 elected and 56 appointed by the military.
Most Recent elections in Novemeber 2010 which attracted suspicions about its validity when the junta's Union Solidarity and Development Party won over 75% of the seats. However, the government has shifted to under civilian control to a limited extent.
Prime Minister and President Military General Thein Sein
Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 15 of 22 years of Junta rule.
Predominantly Buddhist population with minorities of under 5 % consisting of Christians, Muslims, animist, and other religions
Shares a borders with Bangladesh, China, India, Laos, and Thailand.
Burma has a land area of 653,508 square kilometers, slightly smaller than Texas.
Has a diverse population, Burman people make up 68% of the population while Shan, Karen, Rakhine, and Mon make up a considerable portion. Most immigrants to Burma are of Chinese or Indian or origins.
Abundant in natural resources of Teak timber, petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas, hydropower.
History of Burma
King Anawrehta founds first unified Burmese Buddhist state uniting almost all of present day Burma until Kublai Khan conquers Pagan in 1287 ultimately destroying the Burmese state.
Burma is reunited under the Toungoo Dynasty in 1486 until 1752, internal divisions led to the fall. The Konbaung dynasty soon would take power and rule until the final confrontation with Britain in 1886. Britain wasged three wars to conquer Burma beginning in 1824, resuming in 1852, and culminating in 1886. Britain would place Burma under the rule of British India as a province.
1937 Britain separates Burma from India and places it under direct British rule.
Japan foments support from a separatist group within Burma, invades and occupies in 1942. Japan trained Burma Independence army to help with invasion; the organization would changes its name to Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) and become adversarial towards the Japanese rule. 1945 - Britain ends Japanese rule with the help of Aung San, father of Aung San Suu Kyi and leader the AFPFL. Two years later he would be assassinated by U Nu, who served in Japanese government and would become PM in 1948.
Under the guidance of U Nu, Burma is a founding member of the Movement of Non-Aligned States to remain neutral in the Cold War.
In the late 1950's, a split emerged in the ruling AFPFL party, General Ne Win emerges as interim leader until U Nu wins elections in 1960, however, his tenor was short as his Buddhist beliefs and tolerance of separatist factions in the military sparked a coup led by General Win.
In 1974 a new Constitution transferred power from the military to the People's assembly, essentially a figure head government that consisted of Prime Minister, Ne Win and other former military leaders in charge.
In 1988, Wide spread riots in response to a currency devaluation trigger the formation of The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). The council declared martial law and in the process arrested thousands including placing Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, moving the capital to Ragoon, and renaming Burma Myanmar in English.
Elections are held in the aftermath of the 1988 uprisings in 1990 in which Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) wins landslide elections. She is kept under house arrest by the military and the elections are ignored. Aung San vows to continue working for a peaceful change and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maps
Political
Big Papa Santo
Ryder? I barely even know her!
So I guess that Stone Cold was drinking vitamin water this whole time?
Similar threads
