KanchanaburiGuy

Yes, in fact, it can be a defense in court.

Maybe you need to try being civil rather than snarky.

Why does everyone forget that the boy gets killed at the end of the story, because there WAS a wolf, that time? Lol

Thank you. I had never seen this. [Picture me a little red-faced! Lol]

Actually, if the "defendant" can show that it was the government itself that created the confusion........... it is. (I got a speeding ticket thrown out for this very reason. I was able to show that a particular stretch of road in Anacortes, WA, actually had TWO posted speed limits, depending on how you arrived on that particular stretch of road. They threw out the ticket because the government itself had created the confusion.)

Once again, nearly everyone seems to breeze past the point that as a past President, Mr Trump almost certainly gets handed classified material on a regular basis. Ex-Presidents have always been kept abreast of the current and ongoing situations of the Nation. They are considered a resource. They are people who happen to be uniquely qualified to provide suggestions, advise, and help to a sitting President, should that be needed. But to BE a resource, they need to be kept informed. So they are! So, why would a guy who regularly gets handed classified material............ ever believe he wasn't entitled to have classified materials in his possession? If youre going to send out mixed messages........... don't get tweaked when the person you're interacting with.......... doesn't behave the way you think he should! Lol

Spidermike: "Does that mean it does not exist?" No, it means it is time to start asking questions and trying to confirm its existence. It doesn't mean it's time to automatically conclude therefore that it does. Belief proves nothing. Sincere belief proves nothing. Being absolutely certain in your belief proves nothing. Indeed, being absolutely certain in one's beliefs only means a person has become too tired, lazy or frustrated to keep asking questions. So they grab onto any answer they feel comfortable with....... probably something that people they like and admire agree with and speak favorably about......... and they stop caring whether it's true or not! But stopping asking questions......... is not the same thing....... as finding actual answers! Ultimately, asking "If you can't see it, touch it, feel it....... does that mean it doesn't exist?" is the wrong question. It's asking someone to prove a negative, which we all know can't be done. The right approach is to require someone who claims something DOES exist....... to prove it. And if all they can present is their belief that it exists......... well......... Belief proves nothing----Never has, never will. Belief can be strong enough to make you stop asking questions. But belief will never be strong enough eliminate the need to ask more and better questions......... if what you really want is the truth!

You raise an interesting question, one I've never considered. I've always heard of "Attorney-Client Privilege" in the context of things an Attorney cannot reveal about his or her Client. But in this case, the records have been taken directly FROM THE CLIENT. Therefore, there's no need for sheltering by an attorney. The records came directly from the client, so no "middleman" [the attorney] was involved! But if "Attorney-Client Privilege" is still an issue......... doesn't that suggest that the it's THE ATTORNEY that is seeking protection from the "Privilege," not the Client? It has never occurred to me before that "Attorney-Client Privilege" may sometimes be called-upon to protect THE ATTORNEY........ rather than the Client! It has never occurred to me that the concept can be applied both ways! Heck........I dont even know if it can! At a minimum, anyway, it seems to me that "Attorney-Client Privilege" cannot be an issue........... when the information is coming directly from the Client. Direct collection from the Client makes the Attorney's role moot. Unless.............

Lol Even in The Andy Griffith Show from the early 60's, the town drunk, Otis, was effectively given a pass. He got drunk, wandered into the jail, and spent the night there to "sleep it off." In the morning, Andy and Barney would bid him a "Good Mornin', Otis" and Otis would amble on out the door. No booking. No charges. No arraignment. No judges. But definitely, unquestionably drunk. Lol Now, you might say, "Yeah, but that's fiction." But think about it. Do you think The Andy Griffith Show could have gotten away with how Otis was managed by the Sheriff, rather than prosecuted.......... if Americans of that era hadn't recognized that as typical and expected Small Town behavior? Yes, Otis was the town drunk, second. But he was their neighbor and a member of the community, first. And that's how they treated him........ Not as a Law and Order problem, but as a neighbor WITH a problem. The point is........ Discretion is not a new idea. 60 years ago, it even played a part as a recurring idea on one of the major TV sitcoms of the era. ---------------- ---------------- (((The actor's name was Hal Smith. He had another role at the same time playing "The Pancake Man" on a local Los Angeles children's show sponsored by The International House of Pancakes [IHOP]. My father worked for IHOP at the time......."I hop, you hop, we all hop for IHOP!" Lol ........... as a training coordinator. But he also had the responsibility of finding ways to work creative versions of pancakes [International Pancakes] into the "Pancake Man" story lines. We had Mr Smith over for dinner a few times, to treat him to "a home cooked meal." Lol [My grandma's foil-wrapped Pot Roast with the Lipton Onion Soup topper and roast potatoes was to die for! Lol] I recall him being a nice man and a friend to my dad, but nothing else.))) Ah, isn't it true: Every life is a fascinating life, because everyone lives many lives.......... on their journey from birth to death!

Lol Remember......... His Game show/Reality show "The Apprentice" was based entirely on "hiring" a bunch of "wrong" people.......... then he "You're Fired!" them one by one, until there was one "right" person left. Lol Before he was elected and shortly thereafter, people kept saying he was going to be able to get great people. I responded, "Look at The Apprentice. He usually chooses veryn very poorly, not great people!" His rapid revolving-door administration proved me right. In, out. In, out. Indeed, in the last two years, he basically stopped giving people the job! They were all "temps" or "acting" So and So's! Hahahaha

Actually, pretty much everything you said was thoroughly addressed in my first post in this thread, not many posts upthread from the one you responded to. Thanks anyway, though. Lol

The President's job is not in the White House or the Oval Office. The President's job is wherever the President happens to be. When the President is on Air Force One, that's where his job is. When he's on Marine 2, that's where his job is. When he's in Asia to meet with Kim Jong Un, that's where the job is. When Obama spent a lot of time on golf courses, that's where the job was. When Trump spent even more time on golf courses, that's where the job was. And when President Trump was spending considerable time at Mar-a-Lago instead of the White House, that's where the job was! The point is, it doesn't matter where he was when he was handed those documents. Because wherever he was........... that's where the job was! The Presidency is absolutely NOT a 9-to-5 Office Job! The President's "Office"......... is wherever the President happens to be!

Donald Trump is a narcissistic buffoon. As a narcissistic buffoon, he would believe rules only apply to him if he decides they apply to him. And that means that whenever he can justify to himself that a certain rule doesn't apply......... that's what he's going to do! ------------------ ------------------ Now, as a former President, Donald Trump probably gets exposed to classified materials each and every day. Former Presidents are kept abreast of current and ongoing events in case they're needed as a final fallback should a catastrophe occur, and all Constitutional Leadership be killed or incapacitated. (When all the "qualified" people are unavailable, the next logical extra-Constitutional choice to lead the country......... is someone who has done the job before!) So, how might this shape what Trump has apparently done?........... First, because Mr Trump gets handed classified material on a regular basis.......... probably daily......... it would be easy for a person like him to conclude he is entitled to keep and store whatever classified materials he has in his possession. That's how HE would probably interpret it! Second, while there are processes and procedures that should be followed to declassify documents, there also must be exceptions extended to a President for "exigent circumstances." For example, say Canada is decides to attack Greenland based on faulty information, and the President has a "classified document" in his hands that can PROVE the information is false, thereby averting a major catastrophe. What he has is a "classified document" that can end the crisis. What he doesn't have............ is TIME! The President must have the ability to "instantly declassify" that document, to prevent this major mistake. He has to be able to react in the moment, without fear of censure, reprisal or impeachment. A narcissistic buffoon like Mr Trump would likely interpret this to mean..............."I have the right to declassify anything I want, whenever I want!" ----------------- ----------------- Because a narcissistic buffoon is trying find any and every reason to say that someone else's rules should not apply to them........... they would think just like that! Am I saying Trump deserves to be let off the hook for whatever "hook" he may be on? Nope! I'm just trying to show that from Trump's point of view........... and with Trump's personality.......... there are reasons why he may not believe he's done anything wrong! I mean, how would YOU react if someone gave you classified material on a regular basis......... maybe even daily....... then suddenly claims you're doing something wrong by being in possession of "classified material?" Personally........ I'd at least be a little baffled by the inconsistency of it! How about you?

Now, the McMuffins came from Bali, Indonesia, so maybe it's different, but.......... McDonald's Sausage Patties are Pork, not Beef. But maybe, because it's Indonesia, they are made from Beef, instead? Seems to me, if a person is being given a serious warning about Beef.......... but what they have in their bag is Pork, not Beef........... (and fully cooked Pork, at that).......... they might not expect there to be a problem? (Edit: Looked up McDonald's in Bali, Indonesia. Their Sausage Patty in the McMuffin is CHICKEN, not Beef. Apparently, according to the Guardian, the second sandwich had Ham? Still not Beef! Lol)

Actually, my interpretation comes from being sensible. If a person...... or a law...... is incapable of distinguishing between a smuggler and an error......... then both the person and the law deserve to get tossed. A smuggler deserves a hefty fine and maybe even jail, depending. An error deserves, yes, "a slap on the wrist." That is all that's needed for THAT person to learn!* The Punishment Should Fit the Crime. . * (Or perhaps you are under the impression that this "scoflaw smuggler" intended to black-market their TWO several-hour-old Sausage McMuffins with Egg to an unsuspecting Sausage Farmer............... who would then plant them and grow a couple of fields of tainted sausage patties and "alien" English Muffins?)

My own story, similar in ways to the bizarre experience described in the OP.......... ---------------- ---------------- I used to own and operate a Futon Store in Anacortes, Washington, about 70 miles south of the Canadian border. The excellent brand of Futons I carried was called Renelle, which came from Surrey, BC, near Vancouver. Because the factory was only about 100 miles from me, and........ Because US Customs would allow me to carry up to $2,000 of commercial goods across the border, duty free, and.......... Because I could go up to Vancouver............ a World-Class City!......... on a Friday, and pick up my goods the following Monday morning.............and write-off nearly my whole Vancouver pleasure weekend as a "business expense"............. I used to drive my delivery van up fairly regularly to pick up merchandise for my store, then bring it back for about half what the freight charges would've cost. No problem. Easy-peasy! And I'd get a weekend away in Vancouver! But then.............. It had become fairly routine that one trip in five, I'd be told to park my van, turn my paperwork in inside, and take a seat. 30-45 minutes would go by sitting with the truckers. Then a Customs Officer would hand my paperwork back and tell me I was free to go. No explanation, but no problems, either. Except for this one time......... I got this one Customs Officer who said, after a 90-minute wait, "You're carrying 'Agricultural Products' and 'Textiles' These require very different documentation and sizable duties!" I responded, "These are not 'Agricultural Products.' They are finished furniture; finished goods. They've been sawn, shaped, assembled, glued, lacquered, and boxed! "And the Futon Mattresses? As 'Textile Products?' No, just like the wood frames, these have their own category as 'finished goods.' They are not 'Textiles.'" This guy............ THIS GUY........... believed that if it was made of wood, it was "Agricultural," and it it was made using fabric, it was a "Textile!" Now, I know better than to aggravate one of these guys. He gets all the say and I get none. So I politely told him I've made this trip with these same things at least 20 times, with no problems. His reaction? "Well, you've been very lucky, then" (!!!!!) So I asked, "Could you check with a supervisor, just to be sure? Cuz, I'm pretty sure everything I'm carrying has its own category, and that it will show I'm okay." (In fact, I had a copy on the applicable codes with me in my notebook, and had already reviewed them during my 90-minute wait! But I also knew better than to pull out the papers and show the guy up! "See? See?") Could he check with a supervisor? Yes, he could. Two hours later! I've now been waiting in the waiting area gor 3 1/2 hours. I've literally seen dozens of others come and go. But I stayed calm. I stayed patient. Finally, I see my guy talking to another man. They look at the papers, they look at me. At the papers, at me. As I watch the other man, his body language and expression got more and more tense. He's getting mad. He seems really pi$$ed about something. He's looking at my guy like he can't believe the guy. He clearly thinks the guy must be some kind of idiot! The second guy walks into his office and closes the door. I think he went in there to cool down. My guy sits back down at his desk, looking downcast. About two minutes later, the supervisor comes back out of his office, scoops up the paperwork off my guy's desk and waves me up to the counter. He says, "You can go. Sorry for the delay." And that's it. That's all he says! By now, almost 4 hours waiting for something that should not have happened in the first place........... for something that, 4 times out of 5, has just been a wave-through at the outside booth............ and that's all he says! Hahahaha! Sometimes, U.S. Customs is manned by idiots. And sometimes you're gonna get one. And lord help you if you try to argue with them............ cuz they can just make you wait........ and wait......... and wait! And then you're gonna lose, anyway! ------------------ ------------------ Epilogue............. I never got a wave-through at the border again. Every time...............EVERY TIME!............ I came to the border, thereafter, I had to park the van and go inside, where U.S. Customs would review my paperwork........... (30-45 minutes)........... then let me go. I assume........... because of the "incident".......... my embarrassed Customs Officer Red-Flagged my passport, so I could no longer get waved through. I don't know this is true, though. I only know that after that "incident," I never got waved-through again. Not once! Eventually, I got so frustrated and annoyed that I just started having Renelle ship to me, instead, rather than picking up. I only had to eat about 30 bucks per Futon to have them shipped............ but it also cost me my semi-regular "free" trips to Vancouver! That $250 I now had to pay in freight....... was almost exactly what I paid the Crowne Plaza Hotel for a a 3-night "businessman's weekend!" Lol ------------------ ------------------ And how does this relate to the OP? Those supposed "Agricultural Products" I was importing to the U.S. were potentially as "dangerous" to American agriculture......... as those pork sausage patties were to the Australian meat industry.............. exactly ZERO! The Customs Officials.......... (or the laws they are following).......... are just wrong, wrong, WRONG! Those cooked sausage patties were no more a threat to Australia ............ than my lacquered Futons were to America! Pffft!

As for the OP......... The principle still applies............ The Punishment Should Fit the Crime. In my opinion, the proper punishment would be the loss of the goods........... (goods the traveler paid for, but does not get to enjoy)............ and maybe a $25 fine, for failure to declare. But what they WERE fined? That level of punishment should be reserved for third or fourth offenses by the same traveler. The Punishment Should Fit the Crime! This punishment is way, way, WAY out of proportion to the crime committed! (In my next post, I'll tell the story of a similarly INSANE interpretation of hahaha "the law" that I personally experienced at the U.S./Canadian border, near Vancouver, BC.)

Well, there IS a serious threat of McMuffins running around, tearing up the landscape. And we all know the Sausage McMuffins are the most pernicious of the lot............! *wink*

There are those who will find it DOES make sense. That's who it was written for.

Undeclared food. Sausage McMuffin with Egg. Undeclared food. Sausage McMuffin with Egg. Why is it I seem to be unable to put those two things into the same sentence? ---------------- "Your honour, this case needs to be immediately dismissed. My client was cited for Undeclared Food. Yet no evidence exists that proves that a Sausage McMuffin with Egg from McDonald's qualifies as such." --------------- --------------- Please note: It was fully my intention this very morning......... until my plans got changed........... to drive the 20km to the nearest McDonald's and eat not one but two DOUBLE Sausage McMuffins with Egg! I open them up on one of the wrappers and separate out the layers, sprinkle a bit of salt on the eggs, then eat them with a knife and fork! * 4 sausage patties. * 2 fried eggs. * 4 English Muffin halves, two of which have melted cheese attached. (Butter for the other two!) Fork up a triangle of egg and a similar sized triangle of sausage patty, and eat them together. The egg tones down the intensity of the sausage, but it's still a lot more intense than eating them in the sandwich would be. (I really like the flavor of McDonald's sausage patties!) Then, I might take one of the remaining sausage patties, put it open-faced on one of the cheesy English Muffin halves, and gorge on it that way. I might do both of them this way! Maybe, maybe not. Lol Finish off with the two buttered English Muffin halves, maybe with jam, for a buttery-salty or sweet finish! Call it 1,600 calories and enough sodium to choke a horse. And I'm left in over-stuffed farang heaven......... (or will be arriving there, soon!) Lol (Yeah, I enjoy Thai food. But that doesn't mean I don't get homesick from time to time for my American bad habits!)

Do you know...... Was Mexicans representing "less than half" of Illegal Aliens because the numerator went down.......... or because the denominator went up? Either of those two changes could result in Mexicans becoming "less than half." Do you know? Did you even ask?

It is interesting to note that in the timeframes mentioned in the quoted articles........... (2009 to 2014 in one; 2007 to 2017 in the other)............ there were some interesting changes that occurred. For example: Pew Research's window 2009 to 2014 when a "net loss" of 140,000 Mexican Illegals is highlighted.......... also had 5 of the 6 highest years of court ordered deportations in the history of the country. (Roughly 400,000 per year) (These are called "Removals," which are court-ordered and compulsory.) So yes, Mexicans were "leaving." But apparently, it wasn't so much that they were "leaving," as they were getting thrown out! ----------------- At roughly the same time......... The number of what might be called "voluntary" expulsions dropped precipitously, from about 800,000 per year, to less than 170,000. (These are called "Returns," which have confirmation that the Illegal Aliens have left the country, but occurred without needing a court-order. We might consider these.......... "Caught, then allowed to leave.") ---------------- https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/table39 ----------------- So........ While "court-ordered and compulsory" expulsions were at their peak........... the number of Illegal Aliens leaving "voluntarily" ["Returns"] dropped like a stone.......... (800,000--1.5 million to under 200,000).......... and has never come back up! A look at the chart in the link will show that the number of "Returns" in 2019............ was roughly only 10-15% of what it had been, not that many years ago! It also suggests the drop in Illegal Aliens overall........... and of "Mexicans" in particular............. has been the result of "court-ordered and compulsory" expulsions............. NOT because they have been leaving "voluntarily." At least, that's what it looks like to me. Thoughts?

Speed limit signs? I thought the appropriate speed was gauged by how fast the "Benz" or BMW was going............

A perfectly reasonable assertion. Now, who is supposed to pay for all these extra people? After all, it wasnt The French who voted themselves out of the EU, throwing aside the time-saving border efficiencies that come with EU membership. So why should the French have to pay?

So........ * The UK passes brexit. * Brexit causes border checks to become more involved and time-consuming. * This causes FRANCE to have to put more immigration officers at the border, to check passports. So............ The UK passes brexit.......... but it's FRANCE that winds up having to spend extra money on immigration officers? . Seems to me, France ought to follow Thailand's lead on this. They ought to charge a €20 "entry fee" to enter France from the UK.......... to help offset the additional expenses incurred BY FRANCE ........... because of brexit! And the delays that just occurred? Well, I guess we should just consider that part of the learning curve! . Brexit............ caused a negative impact on France's immigration staffing needs........ which lead to long waits for travelers. Now France........... being France......... might very well have said, "You did this to us, so now we are going to do that to you! Would you like a baguette and cheese while you wait?" Just a little tit-for-tat to show these disloyal brexiteers that their decision did not just affect them, eh, mon cheri? Lol