I actually read that in a hard-copy paper - one of the military papers, either Stars & Stripes or perhaps Military Times.
With respect to the BAC, I mention just above that I'm not sure how the Academy came to be in possession of that test. It's possible that they simply asked the cadet to provide it, or he volunteered the information. Remember, when you're a member of a service academy, lying is just as bad (and maybe worse) as any infraction. I believe it's rule number one - don't lie.
And, as you point out, it's possible that he lied about consuming the booze, and then the Academy read the police report that decried the cadet as smelling of alcohol. However, I don't think that's likely because if he was expelled for lying, it's not likely that they would have been so immediately agreeable to reinstatement in 18-months, which they clearly have been.
I'm not going to disagree with you. It has always been my experience that the service academies won't punish public drunkenness in civilian areas unless that behavior rises to a criminal charge (or arrest causing the cadet to miss time). I don't believe that happened here.
Instead, somehow a blood alcohol test was administered and the results of that test was provided to the Academy. How that happened has yet to be publicly explained. It's odd. And, I agree about the ridiculous policy about the BDUs (or as the Navy and Marines call them, cammies). They're fine for garrison, but outside of garrison, you should be wearing your service uniform. In this regard, the Marines have always had a much more (I think) respectable policy of NOT allowing Marines to wear cammies off base, except when in the course of an official duty that prescribed cammies.
"Finally, why would West Point expell a student who claims to have been attacked?"
The service academies have "honor codes" or "honor concepts" in the case of the navy that forbid public drunkenness. I have read that the cadet was over the legal limit, which I have also read was confirmed by a BAC test when he received medical treatment at the hospital. Whether or not he did or did not start the donnybrook, the fact that he was publicly drunk (allegedly) would have been enough to expel him if command wanted to expel him.
Having said all that, it seem like the Academy overreacted, and possibly overreacted because of information provided by Rasmussen. Also, the other element(s) of this suit aren't necessarily dependent on the cadet's inebriated state. Drunk or not, you cannot assault someone, and you can't assault someone just because he may have said something provocative or even insulting.
The Cadet (now enlisted man), will be able to reapply for admission in 18-months and it's likely that application will be accepted irrespective of the outcome of this civil suit. Even his superiors at West Point have said on the record that he was an otherwise excellent cadet.
"Leaving marks on the bottom of a 2 year old is not a spanking. It is a beating."
I think this is the part that is overlooked by people. Since this story broke, the prosecutor released via email a statement that more completely described the events of the plea agreement. Apparently, the medical evidence demonstrated convincingly that their were bruises on the child's lower back and bottom. I don't know how anyone can say that bruising a child (a child who isn't even yet two) isn't abuse. Of course it's abuse.
As for the judges editorial comments - they were just that - editorial comments at sentencing. Judges, especially municipal and county judges (those that are elected) say all kinds of stupid things at sentencing. Those comments don't have any legal consequence. It's just the editorial (not legal) opinion of the bench.
"It needs to go furtherno foreign law of any kind is to be considered for any purpose when deciding legal matters in the US."
Sure, that's brilliant. That's exactly what we should be doing in an era of double-digit unemployment, a cratering dollar and anemic economic growth - erecting even more barriers to international trade.
"I dont think that insurance will cover that persons survivor claims against the estate."
Sure, the claims against the estate for negligent driving (drunk and reckless operation, both crimes), the insurance company will have to pay. There's not a state in the union that insulates insurance companies from DUI liability claims from victim's. In fact, this is reason that states mandate liability insurance - to pay the claims of victims.
There is a chance that the driver's estate's claim would go unpaid, and the claim to replace the vehicle would (might) go unpaid.
Think about the libality insurance you carry on your own home - if you own a home and have a liability rider for you home policy - which most people do - if someone dies in your home from your criminal negligence, then that liability insurance still pays the victim of your crime (criminal negligence). Criminal Act Exclusions are designed to keep the perpetrator from financially benefiting from his crime. They are not designed to insulate insurance companies from the claims of victims.
"Almost any conventional insurance policy states in the fine print that there is no coverage if the vehicle is used during the commission of a crime."
While it's true most (virtually all) insurance policies - both standard liability and automobile insurance policies - contain what is known as a Crime Act Exclusion clause, most (but not necessarily all) will pay for a damages even when convicted of a DUI.
There are exceptions written in for DUIs in some policies to especially include high-risk policies.
Of course, you're very likely to get cancelled as a result of an at fault DUI accident.
It’s against federal law to knowingly hire, or to continue to employ an illegal alien. With this admission, he has implicated his employer - the Washington Post - in at least one federal crime, and perhaps several federal crime.
I wonder if they’ll be an investigation and prosecution? /sarcasm
To the people asking who much this cost and who paid for it, I would say that just by reading the abstract of the study, it's pretty clear it was done on the cheap. We aren't talking about a survey of thousands over multiple countries or states. We're talking about a survey of roughly 100 on a college campus. Simply, it's the kind of study a grad student does for his/her doctoral dissertation.
To the extent that there was any cost at all however, it's not hard to imagine who would like to finance it - gays. The import of the survey suggests that homosexuality manifests itself not just in behavior, but in other physiological and/or anatomical characteristics. That would further suggest that homosexuality isn't a choice, but a biological disposition. You can imagine how such a survey would benefit homosexuals, politically.
"Im sure all the Hollywood leftists reported this income to the IRS "
I have absolutely no doubt that the IRS is coming through the tax returns of all those named. From what I understand, Maguire actually accepted a check for payment of a marker he gave to this guy. I'm not sure if anyone else was that stupid. It was probably a (for the most part) cash business, which would make it a bit more problematic for the IRS - not impossible, but problematic.
"Even if we are to stipulate that the embezzled funds were used in a poker game, once they hit the table, they were gone"
Actually, not exactly. I won't bore you with the legal finer points, but in law there is something known as an "ill-gotten gain". This would be that. Gambling like this in California is illegal. In fact, it's a felony.
"How do you know Maguire did not subsequently "lose" that money to another person at the table?"
For the purposes of this discussion, whatever Maguire did with the funds once he received them, is irrelevant. He still benefited from the ill-gotten gains. "This is unlike Madoff's ponzi scheme."
To an extent. If the Feds could have proved that Madoff used those monies in another illegal enterprise, and the other party to the transaction knew it was an illegal enterprise (and in some instances, even if the other party didn't know), the money could be recovered under the same principle.
The plain legal truth is that Maguire is in a corner and he'll probably be on the hook for this cash. The reason the others aren't named in the suit is probably because they weren't stupid enough to accept a check like Maguire was.
If other checks do surface, you can bet you'll see additional defendants added to the complaint.
Look, you're entitled to your very strange opinion, but if you're going to opine that someone is wrong, perhaps that will carry a bit more weight if you can provide some supporting evidence of that opinion, preferably a court decision or two would be nice.
"If you had loyalties elsewhere by being born to one parent who was a citizen of a foreign country, regardless of where you were born, you can not be president."
See Post #158. The Indiana Court of Appeals, the only US court to offer an opinion on the merits of this question, disagree. A unanimous held...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens
I understand that you probably disagree with the finding of the court, but so far, that's the only legal opinion where comment on the merits of this issue have been offered as the central legal holding of a case.
"subject to the jurisdiction is not settled law."
Well, ignoring Plyler v Doe argumentum, what is SETTLED law is the context of how that phrase is applied in Ark. And in Ark, the Court says...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
If Ark - a child with no citizen-parents is a US citizen, and he CLEARLY IS, then Obama is a US citizen. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.
"There would not be an amended BC in HI if the adoption happened in Indonesia"
Yes, I agree entirely. THAT was the point I was making. Some people are claiming that Obama's purported birth certificate is fraudulent because it doesn't show his Indonesian adoption. My point was, because of HI law, that Indonesian adoption wouldn't have been reflected in Obama's original birth records unless his mother and step-father moved legally to change those records.
"Obama, Sr, was a Kenyan citizen, so Kenyan law might matter but HI law would not have anything to do with anything."
How can the law of the place of one's birth "not have anything to do with it"?