eisfeld

You are correct that it was not specifically referenced in the indictment, at least I didn't spot it anywhere but I'm also not surprised because the referenced paragraph is the current version of it. If someone says Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 37 Paragraph 793(e) then that's totally meaningless to a regular person. But saying Espionage Act makes it pretty clear what it's about. So they are giving up a little bit of precision in order to gain a lot more understanding. Fair tradeoff imho.

Because that's from 1917, more than a hundred years old and laws have been updated, amended and re-organized since then. They are found in the mentioned paragraphs of Chapter 37 of the 18 U.S.C Code these days.

Counts 1 to 31 are brought under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 37 which deals with Espionage and Censorship. Specifically paragraph 793(e) "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information". These paragraphs originate from the Espionage Act.

It's so sad to see high level politicians not caring about the rule of law. So what now? Storm the court?

I see where you are coming from but at that time it seemed to me rather like high level corruption. But now it seems more like some hollywood movie villain kinda level. Or as one might say: sh*t just got serious!

Here is the indictment: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839625/trump-indictment.pdf 37 counts! Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-faces-federal-charges-classified-documents-case-adding-legal-woes-2023-06-09/ This looks incredibly bad for Trump. He's going down hard, wow. I always understood he's a BS talker with super inflated ego. But taking documents about a secretive US nuclear program and domestic vulnerabilities in the event of an attack? Sorry that doesn't even fit his normal bad character. I wouldn't be surprised if some foreign players have him by the balls and made him do this. Absolutely insane. Now I'm not surprised anymore his lawyers quit right after reading this indictment.

Just too bad that the indictment seems to not even care if the docs were classified or not. He broke enough other laws that carry felony charges.

Fantastic post @weelittletimmy! We need more valuable content like that on this site. Best of luck for the future with your side business. If you post the name I'm sure a few readers, me included, might hop by and check it out. Can be via PM of course.

Seems like the disaster for Trump continues to grow. Article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-faces-federal-charges-classified-documents-case-adding-legal-woes-2023-06-09/ Non-paywall: https://archive.is/jQgXr

Your first point is as previously explained simply not true. You can't take away documents from the governments possession nilly willy. Doesn't matter if classified or not. Why are you claiming the documents were personal letters to the leader of North Korea? That's absurd.

Are you aware that RT is Kremlin's self-admitted international propaganda and misinformation machine? RT is banned in numerous countries for good reason. You might want to reconsider getting your information from them. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

If documents are not classified that still doesn't mean you can just remove them from the governments possession. He didn't retain copies, he kept and hid originals according to the reports.

I love how Fox News as usual can't get even the very basic things right. The DOJ does not indict anyone. It's a grand jury that indicted trump. Grand juries are not part of the DOJ, they are randomly selected residents of the location of the case. BTW this also means that at least 12 randomly selected people from Trumps homebase agreed after being presented the facts that Trump needs to face trial.

No, it is going to work in that it will put a roadblock to the most aggressive and pushy marketing tactics that put people under pressure to invest. If someone is serious about becoming an investor then spending 24h to think about it is more than reasonable. A lot of brokerages require a lot more than that to allow people to trade. It's the fishy players that don't like rules like this cool-off period.

You simply misunderstood what a cool-off period is. The article doesn't explain it at all unfortunately. It means after initially engaging with an investor through marketing, there will be a mandatory 24h period that the company has to wait and then get another confirmation from the investor that they are still interested in going forward. In practice that means that upon signing up the user will have to wait 24h before they can actually do trades. The purpose is to prevent compulsive actions by users that might be even driven by pushy marketing tactics. That's where the wording comes from, the user has to cool off from any marketing or news and jumping into trading in a hasty manner. They get a last chance to think it through.

Note that Russia engaging with troops from NATO countries in a non-NATO country (e.g. polish soldiers inside Ukraine) would not trigger the collective self-defence or Article 5. This only gets triggered if Russia were to attack on the ground of a NATO country, e.g. inside Poland. At this point in time I don't see other countries sending their soldiers to fight in Ukraine. And I'd prefer it remain that way because that would turn the clock to really close to midnight.

An executor can either transfer the shares according to the will or can step down as the executor and potentially choose a successor. He is not bound forever to hold the shares.

(1) The share information before delisting can be easily seen. And even after delisting it's still a public company at least it's still called public company and registered as such. It just can't be traded on the SET. That means the usual disclosures etc. Pita was stated to be the trustee but no mention was done on if he is a beneficiary. I can't believe his father entrusted him with taking care of the inheritence without inheriting a chunk to his son. (2) You can sell or transfer them privately. This very article says he transferred them to family members. No valuations needed. The value of the shares anyways is irrelevant because the law just says that you can't own shares in a media company. The intent is to prevent people who have control over media to influence public opinion from running. (3) Unfortunately ITV PLC still has subsidiaries which are active from what I've read. It generated over 23M THB in revenue with more than 10M in net profits after tax in 2021 according to its financial filings. A completely defunct company doesn't do that. (4) Come on, are you really putting into doubt that ITV PLC is a media company? There's even an english wikipedia page about its TV broadcasting channel. It's really not just in their articles of association. Started as part of Thaksins Shin Corp btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_(Thailand) (5) No that is not true, in their latest financial filings they describe themselves as "Motion picture, video and television programme distribution activities" (6) Yes the intent is to prevent people who can use their media companies to sway public opinion during an election. Unfortunately the law doesn't state that the person needs to have controlling interest in the company or something along those lines. If you just go by the letter of the law then Pita is hosed. But if one examines all the facts one could come to a reasonable conclusion that he violated the letter of the law but not its spirit. And that's exactly why it's such a messy situation. The annoying part is that it was completely unnecessary.

The share ownership information is public. It doesn't matter who the complainant is because the EC is obliged to investigate complaints like that irregardless of who brought the complaint. It's a very unfortunate messy situation that should have been avoided in the first place. Not sure why they are opening themselves up for getting attacked.

A friend of mine had a very similar situation. Found the shop who was happy to give it back without asking for money. My friend even offered a finders reward which the shop declined. The shops know they have stolen goods and worst case you get the police involved. Best to collect evidence to prepare for worst case but chances are you'll just get it back without much fuss.

I don't think one can label not believing in a conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory itself. The two conspiracy theories that relate to this topic: 1. Biden or someone in his family had corrupt ties to foreign entities 2. The FBI, left, woke, democrats, "the man" are hiding the evidence supporting 1.

By that logic shouldn't Trump leave DeSantis alone then?

Like I said, if the ratings were honest you'd see something like a bell curve that gravitates to the lower end. Let's assume it's a crap, truly terrible movie. A movie where a majority of people would honestly say it's a 1. You'd see a ton of 1s, then a lot of 2s but less so than 1s. Then again fewer 3s. And even fewer 4s and so on. You don't see a lot of users voting in the range of say 5 to 7 and then suddenly a jump to all 1s. The ratings here are a very obvious example of manipulated and dishonest voting to push an agenda. Also known as review bombing. It's fine if people are unhappy with alterations to a classic. They can voice their opinions and deduct a bunch of points from the rating if they want to. But it doesn't justify an honest objective rating of 1 which would mean terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible direction, terrible visuals etc. all together. BTW the same goes for the jump to 10s. There seems to be numerous dishonest ratings giving it a full score while there are a lot less 9s compared to 8s or 7s. But the manipulation with 1s is much higher.

In a rating with honest participants you would see something along the lines of a bell curve in the distribution of ratings. When there are massive amounts of statistical outliers like it happened with the IMDB user ratings for this movie with a huge amount of 1 star ratings while there are very few 2 or 3 star ratings then you know these 1 star ratings are not honestly rating the quality of the movie but are just trying to influence the overall rating to one extreme. The movie might not be great but even without having seen it I can guarantee you that a big production like that has about a zero chance of being an honest 1 (all around terrible movie in every way). The motives of these bad faith voters don't really matter though it's pretty clear that in this case that they dislike the main protagonist being black now. So, as you suggested IMDB is manipulating the rating the actual truth is that a group of users with an agenda manipulated the rating in a dishonest manner in the first place. The only way to counter that is by manipulating the system to try and exclude the dishonest votes. For what it's worth I personally think it was a bad idea to change the race of Ariel and don't plan on seeing the movie but Disney is free to do whatever they want.

I suggest you consult the rental contract that you signed.