Beautiful Differences | Court News Service

I have a rhetorical question for you. I don’t expect an answer. Just think about it.

If you represent a government agency being sued for a $50 fine by a self-represented individual, do you recommend a full defense that goes all the way to an appellate court? Wouldn’t it cost more than $50?

Ok, there may be a precedent to uphold, but some precedents are more important than others.

With that in mind, I present one The 23-page decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia whether a boy should have been fined $100 or $50 for speeding.

The boy represented himself. Five attorneys were listed as representing the District of Columbia.

The five lawyers lost.

At issue was whether the driver, caught by an automated speed camera, was driving more or less than 11 miles over the speed limit. The fine for driving 11-15 miles over the limit was $100. Just 10.99 miles over the limit costs $50.

The camera claimed the driver was going 61 in a 50 mph zone — but the camera had a one-mile margin of error, so the real speed could be 60.9 or less.

We learn two interesting things in this decision. One is that the cameras are tested with the tuning forks. I don’t know how, but this explains why you’ve never heard a noisy camera.

Next is this from a footnote: “(T)he chances that Ricciardi was traveling exactly 61 mph when he was photographed — and not one of the infinite fractions above or below him in the 60-62 mph range — are mathematically zero.”

So he may not have been traveling at any speed.

Don’t think too much about it. You will have a headache.

It’s not rocket science – or any kind of science. Regardless of your position on the use of hormone therapy and puberty blockers to treat underage transgender children, you might think that people debating the issue have scientific evidence to back up their arguments.

Okay, of course you don’t think so. Plain old prejudice is the most likely reason for being against treatments.

The Colorado Supreme Court in a in power The day before the issue noted that Children’s Hospital Colorado stopped offering hormone therapy and puberty blockers to transgender patients under 18 after the federal government threatened to withhold funding because Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that the treatments were not safe.

The next sentence in the decision: “However, CHC continues to offer hormone therapy and puberty blockers to cisgender youth.”

Apparently they are perfectly safe for straight children.

Be careful what you believe. With all the fake information out there these days, you’d think we’d all be wary of believing anything.

we are not.

Some very surprising examples of this have appeared in recent conflicting decisions.

or the judge in New York decided that consumers should not have believed that gummies sold as “whole foods” were really very nutritious. “The statement that Gummies provide ‘all-inclusive’ nutrition is a statement ‘on which no reasonable purchaser would be justified in relying.’

Apparently, the plaintiffs had not been reasonable in buying something they thought was good for them.

Meanwhile, a Utah judge has ruled that a group of women can argue that they were forced into sex trafficking because they believed it was the only way to save other women and children from sex trafficking.

The plaintiffs allege they believed they had to have sex with the founder of an anti-human-trafficking group as part of a “couple scam” to infiltrate real sex traffickers.

This court held that the plaintiff had a reasonable belief: “Because the assertion that the other women and children would remain trafficked in the absence of the plaintiffs’ participation in the Russian Couple constituted a threat “another person would suffer serious harm or physical limitation,” the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that they were obligated to provide work.”

Totally reasonable. How else would you stop sex trafficking?

Make of this what you will.