Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next President of the United Fates of America
and what is with this Trump may make a Profit When Obama is Buying How many new Mansions !
Hysterical !

Doh

(01-12-2017, 08:55 PM)EA Wrote: EXCLUSIVE

Anthony Weiner hoping Huma will call off divorce
By Emily Smith
January 11, 2017 | 9:01pm

“He knows he’s hit rock bottom. But now they are both out of the limelight, they can focus on their son. They are actually getting on pretty well, and he and his friends are hoping that they might reconcile.”
[Image: GettyImages-174297859-e1484231404712.jpg]
But another source said that a “reconciliation is very unlikely.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/anthony-weiner-is-hoping-huma-abedin-will-call-off-their-divorce/#ixzz4Vaz0Fahv

Why a spouse’s secrets are above the law

Dec 3, 2015
By Brette Sember
10

Can you imagine if the things you whisper to your spouse during pillow talk were made public?
Most people have heard of spousal privilege and how spouses can’t be forced to testify against each other in court, and so they assume that what is said between spouses is confidential. But are all communications with your spouse legally a secret? Is everything you tell your spouse really protected by privilege?
Consider the case of Sheila Davalloo. Davalloo killed a co-worker who was the other woman in a love triangle she was involved in. When the trial was held in Connecticut, Davalloo’s husband was brought to testify against her. During the affair, she had told her husband stories about co-workers and a fictitious love triangle. The murder remained unsolved and their marriage later disintegrated after she stabbed her husband (there are clearly some anger management issues here).
He told police that they should consider her as a suspect in the murder and was called to testify at her trial, where she was convicted. She appealed, saying that he should not have been allowed to testify against her because of spousal privilege. The Connecticut court in this case held that nothing she told him was intended to be confidential information induced by marital affection, and allowed the testimony to stand because it was not privileged.
How does privilege actually work?
The case called into question the absolute nature of marital privilege, a pillar of law that goes back to medieval times and which is similar to attorney-client privilege. In 1839, the Supreme Court formally acknowledged this privilege, calling marriage “the best solace of human existence.” Marital privilege is generally considered to be necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage and marital harmony so that spouses do not have to worry that they will rat each other out.
The law usually has two parts: that confidential statements made to your spouse don’t have to be revealed and that you can’t be compelled to testify in court against your spouse.
Claiming the privilege
The privilege belongs to both spouses. A husband being asked to testify against his wife can claim it, but the wife can also claim it to prevent the testimony. The privilege exists only when you’re married. After a divorce, the privilege continues for things you told each other during the marriage, but not after. And once you’re divorced you can testify against each other, just not about things told in confidence during marriage. Spousal privilege is applied in both federal and state courts.
Making the privilege stick
A quirk of the law is that things you tell your spouse are privileged only if you intended what you said to be confidential. A case from 2012 held that information in emails sent from a work computer to a spouse were not covered by privilege because there was no way that they could be completely confidential since the employer owned the correspondence. If you tell your spouse something and he tells his sister or posts about it on social media, it’s no longer confidential and is not covered.
Likewise, if what you say is overheard by someone else, there is no privilege. The privilege only covers things you say to each other and not acts you observe each other doing (if you see your husband shoot someone, it’s not a privileged communication so you could share what you saw, but you still can’t be forced to testify against him).
It’s possible to waive the privilege and federal courts have found that you can waive the privilege even if you don’t even know that you’re doing so. In one case, a wife testified against her husband unwillingly but didn’t invoke the privilege. Giving the testimony was considered to be a waiver of the right, even though it wasn’t discussed at the time.
Each state has its own law about spousal privilege that is worded uniquely. The basics of the laws are the same, but the details may not be. This explains why Davalloo’s husband had to testify in Connecticut. The law there requires a connection between the communication and spousal affection. This interpretation could be applied in interesting ways.
If you and your spouse are having marital problems, does the privilege still apply? This case does seem to expose some gaps in the privilege, so the lesson may be to be careful about what you tell your spouse.

Anthony Weiner Is Hoping Huma Abedin Will Call Off Their Divorce

KAITLAN COLLINS

9:32 AM 01/12/2017


[Image: shutterstock_417334108-e1472589000600.jpg]
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/anthony-weiner-is-hoping-huma-abedin-will-call-off-their-divorce/#ixzz4Vaxzhl1J

Sheep

Huma may be on he Rebound
from Hillary !
Lol !!
Doh

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017...ium=social

CalExit just received a big boost from an unlikely source: Peter Thiel, billionaire tech buddy of President-elect Trump.
In a “Confirm or Deny” interview with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, the 49 year-old Thiel confirmed that he believed California should secede.

Maureen Dowd: California should secede.

Peter Thiel: Confirm. I’d be fine with that. I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.

Apparently Thiel’s comment that “…it would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign” was made rather tongue-in-cheek.
But it does raise an interesting question.  With California Democrats abuzz with rancor against Trump — making plans to be the heart of the resistance to his presidency — what will Trump make of his contrarian tech pal’s remark?

Since Thiel not only supported Trump when it was extremely unpopular, but more importantly, where it was the most difficult place on earth to be a Trump supporter — Silicon Valley — it seems unlikely Trump will take him to task.  His legendary loyalty will most likely cover all offenses.

After all, Peter Thiel made a fortune being a contrarian.

But Dowd missed an opportunity to ask a follow-up,  something lik:, “How would it be good for the rest of the country to have California secede?”

Thiel’s thoughts on that would be interesting, because he’s an incredibly smart man — the kind we need advising Presidents.
As I wrote in a recent piece for Breitbart, food, energy and border security are huge components of national security.  California is key to all of them.

California not only supplies critical energy and food products that would be difficult to produce elsewhere, but it is also home to a good portion of the defense industry.

Even though it isn’t what it once was, the defense industry in Southern California is still formidable — to say nothing of the strategic defense of the nation and the entire continent with crucial military bases stretching from San Diego to the Oregon border.  Some things are harder to move than others, other things are impossible.  It’s geography — not demography.

Admittedly, it’s a popular sentiment on comment sections of newspapers and Facebook to talk of California “falling into the ocean and the rest of the country will be better off”.
But would the U.S. really be better off?

Sure, it might feel good to have Hillary’s army fall into the Pacific’s deep blue waters for a moment.  Remember Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments, standing up on the rock as the Pharaoh’s chariots are churned under the rushing Red Sea.
Epic moment, but it would be a pyrrhic victory at best.

Without the “food basket of the world”, the strategic coastline defenses, the intrepid energy and defense sectors (among the most persecuted of any industries anywhere), the U.S. would be in serious trouble.

And without Thiel’s own Silicon Valley — the technology industry—that made efficiencies real, that were once the stuff of dreams, we’d be sunk.  Technology companies and national security are strange, but necessary, bedfellows — to say nothing of the nuts and bolts of too many government bureaucracies maintaining trillions of bits of information securely.
Without strategic partnerships with companies like Thiel’s own Palantir Technologies, the dull, plodding bureaucracies that process all that information would grind to a halt.

Would #CalExit’s secession equal shutting down the government?

Now, that can’t be all good—or can it?   Confirm or deny.

Tim Donnelly is a Former California State Assemblyman – Author, Patriot Not Politician: Win or Go Homeless – FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.donnelly.12/ – Twitter: @PatriotNotPol

Sheep
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - by Wook - 01-12-2017, 09:36 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)