newnative

As Judge Kaplan, who handled Trump's rape trial notes, you can be a rapist while also being convicted for a lesser charge. Per The Washington Post: The filing from Judge Lewis A. Kaplan came as Trump’s attorneys have sought a new trial and have argued that the jury’s $5 million verdict against Trump in the civil suit was excessive. The reason, they argue, is that sexual abuse could be as limited as the “groping” of a victim’s breasts. https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com/static/my-post/images/topics/trump-tracker-180px.png Follow Trump’s second term Follow Kaplan roundly rejected Trump’s motion Tuesday, calling that argument “entirely unpersuasive.” “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote. He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.” The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.” So, to sum up, although he raped Ms. Carroll, he escaped a rape conviction in NY by using one of his tiny fingers rather than his tiny penis to rape her.

Agree.

As an American, this was very hard to watch. Substitute the uniforms and it could easily be Nazi Germany. Except I think Nazi Germany had less intimidating uniforms--and no masks. If you are making righteous arrests and are following, and not breaking, the law, you don't need to hide behind a mask. Task 1 in ICE reform needs to be outlawing the masks, as California has done. I would outlaw the assault rifles, as well, except in extreme situations. Also hard to watch, another video showing an ICE agent smashing in the car window of an American citizen. The agent obviously was breaking the law when he did this, as he had no warrant and no probable cause--the driver was a US citizen. It bears repeating over and over, an ICE agent can not engage unless he has either a warrant or probable cause. Their task is, by purpose, narrowly focused and it does not include randomly stopping or confronting American citizens--as they tragically and illegally did with Ms. Good, ending in her needless murder. The citizen in the video I saw was well within his right to remain safe in his car, being an American citizen and not subject to an ICE warrant. Appalling that the agent would illegally smash in his window, possibly causing harm to the citizen. Also appalling, that so many other ICE violations, like this, are happening in America. I think most Americans, including me, are in favor of immigration enforcement. But, not like this, with far too many agents, dressed for war, running amok in packs, with hidden faces and heavily armed, indiscriminately breaking the law and illegally going far beyond their mandate. That mandate, incidently, does not include intervening in a traffic issue of a car partially blocking a road.

"As Donald Trump prepares for his second term. . ." . Don't you editors even read what you publish? I know it's all mostly AI but, still, there should be someone taking a look at what goes out.

How, pray tell, was she 'interfering'? She was sitting in a parked car. Yes, the car was partially blocking the road--something for local traffic police to handle--they have the legal authority to do this, NOT ICE. Repeat, ICE has no legal authority whatsoever to handle traffic matters. Could the agents drive around her car, as others did, and continue on their donut run, not 'interfered' with? Yes. Did the agents have the legal authority to approach her car? No. They had no warrant and no reasonable cause to suspect an immigration violation. Although it's been trampled to death by ICE agents going rogue and breaking the law, as it was also done in this case, ICE agents can only legally engage with one of those two things: warrant or reasonable cause. They had neither. By approaching the Good vehicle with neither of these, they broke the law. The agents then also broke a number of ICE rules and regulations regarding engagement, including not placing yourself in front of a vehicle, creating a target, not firing at a moving vehicle, etc. The final rule break, of course, was firing point blank at an unarmed citizen from the side of the car when, at that point, the agent was in no danger at all. That's murder, no matter how MAGA tries to deny it.

Any time the subject is real estate in Thailand on Asean Now you will get a number of posts telling you to only rent, never buy in Thailand. My Thai spouse and I arrived in Pattaya 15 years ago and thank goodness we did not follow that advice. During that time span we have bought and sold 22 properties, both condos and houses. Two in Rayong, one in Bangkok, and the rest in Pattaya. Every one was sold at a profit. Some of the profits were small, especially on the small condos, some of the profits were larger, especially on the larger condos and houses, but all sold at a profit, and most within a few months. We have never lost a penny buying property in Thailand. Not knowing the specific location and specific condition of the property you mentioned, I can only give general advice--which you, of course, are free to ignore. If the location is fairly favorable, I would say a 5-bedroom house needing work for 5MB could be a bargain and could appreciate if it is given a good fix-up. I would caution not to rush into anything and I would have the house structure looked at first to give you some idea of what would be involved with the renovation and to ensure, as much as you can, that you are not buying a money pit. The trend these days is to slather on marble or granite on just about every wall of a house, often outlining the real or fake stone as if it was art in gaudy rose brass or aluminum edging. Mix with gaudy, poorly scaled, and incorrectly placed furniture, topped off with even gaudier chandeliers--most of which have to be a nightmare to keep clean in Thailand. We use granite or marble only on kitchen and vanity counters and kitchen backsplashes, where it belongs. I suspect the current gaudy, flashy trend will not stand the test of time. My suggestion would be to use your renovation budget instead on good design and use of space, with quality built-in cabinetry and good furniture and appliances. Instead of gaudy granite on the walls, a designated laundry area with washer and dryer, not in the kitchen, will provide much better value--and be far more useful. We have found that houses with larger numbers of bedrooms are both fewer in number and in good demand. Several times we had buyers look at 3 and 4-bedroom houses we had for sale and they liked the houses but wanted more bedrooms. We are currently putting our money where our mouth is--we are building a 5-bedroom, 5 1/2 bath house that we will be living in. It is in the Lake Mabprachan area, which we like and has become a very desirable area of Pattaya. Good luck with whatever you decide. By the way, if our track record is any indication, your condo overlooking the bay of Pattaya should be a good investment. Every single condo we bought and sold in Pattaya also had a bay of Pattaya view--it was a requirement for us because we, ourselves, always wanted a seaview and we knew seaview condos hold their value well.

The judge who handled the case had this to say: As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.” Under NY law he was convicted on the lesser charge of sexual abuse due to the type of rape involved. As I said in my earlier post, what a state we are in even debating this issue in the context of a president of the US. We have been in the Twilight Zone for sometime now, and it seems to be getting darker every day.

She was not interfering in any federal activities. The agents were in their car, driving somewhere. Maybe on a donut run. In any case, they should have continued to drive and let the local traffic police handle the possible traffic violation.

Nice try. You know exactly what the brief is. ICE has no authority to get involved in a traffic situation, which this was--a vehicle partially blocking traffic. Absolutely nothing to do with ICE. They had no warrant for any occupant of the vehicle and no reason to justify approaching the vehicle. They should have obeyed the law, notified the traffic police, and drove on.

Maybe you should 'look it up'. Yes ICE agents are Federal officers. But, only with specific duties and authority related to immigration. They are not authorized to be traffic police. In the Minneapolis case, with a stopped vehicle, they had no authorization to stop their vehicle and interfer with a possible traffic violation. As I said in my earlier post, they should have reorted the vehicle to the Minneapolis traffic police. As Google states: ICE functions as a federal law enforcement agency with specific authority to enforce U.S. immigration laws within the country's interior. Unlike local police officers, federal immigration agents cannot conduct stops based solely on traffic violations. This was exactly that, a possible traffic violation--a vehicle blocking the street. ICE had no authority whatsoever to get involved. And, also no legal authority to approach the vehicle, as the agents had no warrant and no evidence of any immigration issue to justify approaching the car. That's the law and the facts--but feel free to ignore both--that's the Trump Way.

She's in a stopped car on the side of the road. Yes, it's partially blocking traffic. Is she obstructing Federal officers with her stopped car? No. And, as I said, her car could be stopped for a number of reasons. The ICE agents were returning to their office. They could easily have gone around her stopped car, which they should have done, as it was not their jurisdiction to stop and get involved. As I said, they can only legally confront someone with a warrant or a reasonable justifiction to suspect an immigration issue. Coming upon the stopped car randomly, they had neither. By confronting Ms. Good with no warrant and no reasonable justification via an immigration issue, they were breaking the law and violating her 4th Amendment rights. This was initially a local traffic police problem, nothing more. ICE got involved illegally and the result was a dead American citizen.

Yes, and with two of those shots from the side of the car, when he was clearly in no danger at all. Those two shots make it murder.

Wrong. Right from the get-go, the ICE agents had NO authority whatsoever. None. They did not have a warrant for Ms. Good for an immigration issue. They had no reasonable belief when they came upon the car that any of the occupants of the stopped car had an immigration issue requiring and authorizing ICE intervention. So, absolutely not their jurisdiction. The ICE agents were the ones breaking Federal law, specifically the 4th Amendment, by confronting the occcupants of the car with no warrant, and, of course, absolutely no justification for confrontation since they had come upon them randomly. Back to the scene. There was, indeed, a stopped car on the street, partially blocking traffic. But, traffic, including the ICE agency car, could get around the car. Now, why is the car stopped? The driver might have had a medical emergency. The car might be stuck in the snow. The car might have had a mechanical problem. Any of these breaking 'Federal law'? I don't know. But, none of these issues pertain to immigration. Again, not ICE jurisdiction. The ICE agents coming on the scene should have reported the stopped car to the LOCAL TRAFFIC POLICE, to have TRAINED traffic police deal with this local traffic issue. When all is said and done, this is all this initially was, a LOCAL TRAFFIC PROBLEM, which local traffic police resolve thousands of times a day all over America. MAGA is welcome to prance and dance and try to portray it otherwise but it started as a local traffic problem, nothing else. Nothing to legally involve ICE. The ICE agents stuck their noses where they had no legal right to be and the result is an American citizen gunned down and killed. Americans in general, and ICE agents in particular, need to be reminded of the limited scope ICE agents are required to be operating under, but have way too often overstepped, as they certainly did in this case. You might want to take a look at my earlier post that re-posted an excellent summary I saw on Facebook regarding ICE agents and the legal limitations they are supposed to be following.

Just saw this on Facebook, posted by Adam Miller. I know it is long but well worth reading. It clearly lays out just what an ICE agent is, and what an ICE agent is NOT. It clearly lays out what an American's rights are regarding interaction with ICE agents. It clearly lays out the limited area ICE agents should be working under. It clearly lays out all the mistakes and rule violations the ICE agents made in the Good case. Worth your time to read, I think. Here it is: "It is clear that US citizens' ignorance of federal laws and law enforcement duties, procedures, and limits of authority is getting to the point where it is deadly. I spent probably 3 hours watching and re-watching, and finding every single video and angle I could of the situation in Minnesota yesterday and came to one immovable conclusion based off of what I saw and what I know from a professional standpoint. This is long, but please give it a read. "As a former officer, let me make something clear: ICE agents ARE NOT police officers, deputy sheriffs, or troopers. They are not local/state law enforcement. They are not federal criminal law enforcement. They have an INCREDIBLY limited scope of authority, and that scope of authority exists in detaining and arresting with probable cause and/or SIGNED WARRANTS those investigated and suspected of being in the US illegally. "They cannot just pull anyone over for a traffic violation or because their car is in a place they don't want it. They have NO authority to pull people over for ANYTHING other than immigration enforcement- and even then that involves probable cause, such as a known vehicle of someone they have been tracking, or a warrant. On very rare occasions they have the legal authority to pull someone over if they are threatening the lives of others, but that was not happening in this case. They do not have the training nor the authority to pull ANYONE else over. They cannot arrest legal citizens. They cannot detain legal citizens without probable cause to believe they might not be legal. They have ZERO authority to be attempting to force entry into a vehicle- without even identifying themselves, without a warrant, without exigent circumstances such as a life being directly threatened- that is trying to drive down the street without probable cause in relation to IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. "This ENTIRE situation in Minnesota was outside of the scope of legal authority from the get go. None of it was done within the scope of authority of ICE. Every single behavior those agents made was procedurally incorrect, done without proper authority, and was based off of intimidation and the assumption that people do not understand the law and their rights in regards to interactions with ICE. "On no planet should an officer, agent, or any human being ever step in front of a car in 'drive' that is actively trying to leave and use their body as a shield to prevent a person from LEGALLY LEAVING a situation in which they are not legally being detained. It takes maybe a week of any kind of actual law enforcement training to understand that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you ever place yourself in front of a vehicle in 'drive.' That agent had every single opportunity to simply take two steps to the right and not be standing directly in front of a vehicle attempting to conduct their legal right to drive away. "You can see the wheels are turned, [Renee] backed up and turned them to the right, moved forward a bit to leave, couldn't because an agent was standing in front of her, and continued to try to leave by TURNING HER WHEELS TO THE RIGHT and moving forward. He continually chose to stand there and not allow her to legally leave as she had every single right to do. The officer pulling on her door and banging on her window and swearing at her had ZERO authority to order her out of her vehicle or attempt to make entry into her vehicle. NONE. A single day of actual training of the legal scope of authority and the LAW would've prevented that from happening. "You now have a frightened citizen being blockaded by immigration agents (with another person in her vehicle) who had zero obligation to follow legally invalid orders from that agent, being blocked in and having a fully grown, masked man attempting to make entry into her car. If this were reversed, every single person would immediately feel she had every reasonable expectation to fear for her safety. It doesn't matter if she knew it was ICE because the agents weren't even acting in their scope of authority anyway. "Whether or not she made the right decision by very CLEARLY- based off of how hard her wheels were turned and how low and to the driver corner windshield that shot was fired- trying to drive to the left of that agent is IRRELEVANT in the picture as a whole. None of this would have happened if those agents had done even one single thing correctly. Not just correctly, but within their legal scope of authority. Every single moment of that interaction was escalated by untrained, unprofessional, procedurally inept "agents" who not only had zero control of themselves but everything around them. And not because they are helpless, but because their actions that did not fall under their scope of power CAUSED this. Their tempers, lack of training, and the knowledge that they can get away with violating their own scope of authority caused this. "I will always be the first to defend law enforcement when lethal force very clearly is required. But this was not even remotely the case, and as an actual TRAINED professional in that field with experience and understanding of both the law and procedures, there is no justification for this- and it would benefit EVERYONE to actually read up on the laws, scope of authority, and use a single shred of common sense to see that this situation was started, escalated, and caused by the ICE agents involved. I have zero respect for those in power who are ignorant of the scope of their authority and abuse it at the cost of lives around them."

You have to admire the chutzpha. Automatically thinking Disney would just leap for joy at the chance to build a theme park out in the sticks in an area with not a lot going for it. When the Disney brass stops laughing, they might be enticed to consider a Bangkok Disney, perhaps somewhere between Bangkok and Pattaya.

22+ pages later, despite all the MAGA efforts to portray it otherwise, it remains as it was, and always will be, murder. Each new video release just makes it more clear. The ICE agent murdered the woman in cold-blood. No, his life was not in danger at any time. The woman was unarmed and posed no threat. If her car was blocking traffic, that is a job for the Minneapolis traffic police to handle, trained for that duty, not an ICE agent. The most damning video evidence, and thank god it exists, shows the agent, standing by the side of the car, shooting the woman at point blank range. No matter how you try to spin it, if you are standing by the side of a car you are in no danger of being run down. If there had been a danger, it was no longer there and there was no need to continue shooting. The agent needs to be arrested and locked up pending his trial for murder. Hopefully, the wide-spread nationwide outrage will at least result in much needed changes to the ICE out-of-control process of finding and detaining persons suspected of being in the US illegally. This process should start with a change in the combat military type uniforms being worn, facial masks eliminated, and the open display of combat weapons prohibited. Their training needs to be focused on their narrow charge of immigration-based duties. They are not local police, nor are they the National Guard.

ICE agents do not have the same powers and duties as local law enforcement police. Their power is limited to finding and arresting persons suspected of being in the US illegally. Period. Basically, they are glorified bounty hunters--who are running amok, in my opinion, as shown by this case, and many others.

ICE agents are not police officers.

This was an act of murder, pure and simple. The videos prove it. Disgusting that 'domestic terrorism' is being used to justify the murder. This is a term being used way too often to justify illegal, brutal behavior by the government. Important to remember that ICE agents are not police and do not have policing powers. They had no legal right to attempt to pull the woman out of her car, nor to detain her leaving.

Read the headline and I thought Thailand was getting a Disney theme park.

Absolutely love it. But, why do you need a public referendum to get something like this built. Just do it. This is why Thailand is lagging behind. They plan and plan and plan and plan and finally get ready to do something--like casinos--and some people object and the plan is dropped. I suspect some people will like this bridge and some won't. Innovative, striking design is often like that. So, unlikely it will ever be built. Pity. Bears remembering that the Eiffel Tower was very disliked by Paris residents when it was first built--likely without a public referendum.

Thankfully, the idiot didn't kill anyone else.

Don't know where you are but we drive a BYD Sealion 6 plug-in hybrid in Pattaya and love it. Bought it about this time last year and I assume they are still available for sale. Around town, we never use gas. The gas engine only kicks in when we drive to our Bangkok condo. We're saving at least 4,000 baht a month in gas expenses that we had with our Honda CR-V.

As another poster has mentioned, the lake area you mentioned is due east, not west. You are correct that it is, indeed, a very pleasant area to live. I would suggest the OP check out the Lake Mabprachan area, where my spouse and I have relocated after living in a number of Pattaya areas, including Jomtien, Pratamnuk, beachfront Pattaya, and Wongamat. The Lake Mabprachan area of Pattaya is booming and there are many new housing projects in all price ranges. The OP can certainly find a 3-bedroom house with a pool for 5 million. Last year my spouse and I bought a new construction 3 bedroom, 3 full bath house with a pool for 4.4MB, unfurnished. We are living in this house while we build another, bigger house in a different housing project in Lake Mabprachan--we obviously like this area of Pattaya. The smaller house is in Pong and not far from the Motorway and Regent School. If you buy near the Motorway, it is very easy to jump on the Motorway and be on Sukhumvit in 10 or 15 minutes. Entering Pattaya from the Motorway puts us near the places we frequent: Bangkok Pattaya Hospital, Terminal 21, Central Festival, Index, Boonthavorn, Little Walk, Home Pro, Big C Extra, Tesco, our car dealer, etc. As I have posted many times, one of the biggest strengths of Pattaya is the large number of different neighborhoods, each with its own vibe, and the huge selection of housing, both condos and homes, to buy or rent, in all price ranges. To the OP, good luck with your search.

Agree. The big question for me is why he signed the 1 year extension in the first place if he wanted to leave. Makes no sense at all. And, no, I will not reference his Asean Now moniker.