All Posts (DonKeebals)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 94 »


 
Re: Ohio State Attack
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Looks like another successful refugee screening like the one in Virgina a couple of weeks ago.


Has anyone checked on John Podesta? I know he really gets his hopes up for white dudes with guns in these situations.

Posted on: 11/29 7:18 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Refusing to accept the result of the election is a threat to our democracy.
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992

Posted on: 11/27 10:25 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Jack says... Official unofficial Oklahoma game day thread
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Right now you would have a difficult time convincing me that we weren't paid to throw this game. That is the only explanation I have for that much stupidity in one place, it has to be intentional.

Posted on: 11/19 9:31 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Holgy to Oregon?!?!?
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
I like Holgs but, it doesn't make sense. Oregon is just 2 years removed from playing for a NC and they are going to hire a guy who's never won his conference? In addition to that he doesn't even have a winning record in his conference. I think the talking heads are just throwing his name out there because of his offensive philosophy.

Posted on: 11/17 1:30 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Savage warns Trump on Priebus. It looks like Jeb Bush won
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Supporting Trump was suppose to be a move on the status quo. It concerns me that a Trump would place the head of the RNC in such a position. How does everyone else feel about this move by Trump?


Absolutely terrible. I've not heard one name mentioned so far that sounds promising. This is not a total surprise though, as I never heard anything from him during the campaign that was promising either.

Posted on: 11/15 7:44 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
So, the liberals who celebrated their candidate winning what we now know was a rigged primary are now protesting the results of a legitimate election.

That makes sense.


Given how much violence was promised and predicted had the election gone the other way, a few protests are hardly worth worrying about. I don't want to contemplate how ugly it would have gotten had Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC. There is some pretty strong evidence Trump would not handle it with anywhere near the grace that Hillary has, and it is reasonable that his attitude would spark some serious dissent:


Looks like it's getting pretty ugly to me. I guess that whole, "Refusing to accept the result of the election is a threat to our democracy" only applies when your side wins. Maybe if we give them all participation trophies they'll go home.

Posted on: 11/13 9:24 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
I would assume that the subpoena is for a civil matter for which you are not a party. (Because if it was a criminal matter you would probably be discussing a warrant and not a subpoena, and if it was a civil matter for which you were a party than you would be receiving discovery and not a subpoena.) Is this correct?


More or less. It could also, hypothetically speaking, be a congressional subpoena.

If this were a targeted criminal investigation, the FBI would likely quietly get a warrant and seize the devices without warning. A security review of e-mail practices would be, hypothetically speaking, not really civil or criminal, but possibly could turn into either if evidence supports same.


Subpoena or warrant, both are court orders. Correct? It would seem to me that timing and intent would be of importance. If I get a new phone then destroy my old phone after the new phone is up and running then, 6 months after I have destroyed the old phone there is a court order for it there's not much you can say. But, if I get a court order for my phone then I destroy it knowing it is now completely useless then my intent was to prevent you from having access to it.

Maybe the law doesn't see it that way which is why I'm asking.


This is actually a very complex and complicated area of law and has changed several times over the last ten years or so. The general rule is that a person or entity can follow their regular course of action in destroying electronic data. If you get a new cell phone, then you can destroy the old one or transfer the sim card or whatever you want. Business entities typically have written policies that they follow in that regard, such as automatically deleting emails after 180 days. Once you get sued, however, you must take reasonable steps protect the data that may be relevant in the case. If not, it is called spoliation of evidence and you can get sanctioned. If you receive a subpoena in a civil matter, it (usually) means you are not a party. If you don't respond by producing the data, then you can be brought into court to respond. The court can order that you produce it. If you destroy it at that point, there will be consequences. If you destroy it beforehand there might be, but probably nothing major. But this analysis relates to a civil matter. I am not sure what would happen if you did it in response to a congressional subpoena. I think it would probably play out in the court of public opinion, but I may be wrong.


Thanks for the explanation. That said seems like it's pretty easy to destroy potentially criminal evidence with no real repercussions.

Posted on: 11/11 10:32 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:


Not relevant. They represent the party of acceptance, inclusion and tolerance. They should have those values even when their candidate losses. They are also the same people who told Sanders supporters to "get over it" and "move on" when he lost a rigged primary.


Nice you admit to a double standard, but the claims that the primary was rigged are absurd. Sanders didn't even campaign in the south, and his losing those states by such a huge margin made it almost impossible to win the nomination. The DNC did a few questionable things, but to believe that they made the difference when Hillary won by such a large margin overall is not reasonable.



No it's not absurd. It has been proven that the DMV was purposely attaching the deck in Clinton's favor. That's not questionable, that's corrupt. Questions were leaked to the Clinton camp by the media and the were in communication on his to avoid prior noticing the bias. You can sketchers all you want in what effect it had but the fact remains those things happened and they should never happen in a US election.

Trump throwing out some dickheads tweets four years ago is not even remotely the same as the **** show taking place in cities across the country now.


Totally agree. Donna Brazile was the source and she was justifiably fired by CNN. She will likely never work in legitimate media again...which is just.

Do you have any problems with the Trump camp being in touch with Russia during the campaign? Concerns me a bit.

Do you see celebrations by ISIS and Russia after Trumps victory a little unsettling? I do.

But I'm not crapping all over Trump. I hope he delivers on many of the promises that he made during the campaign instead of cozying up to the establishment republicans...which is more likely to happen in my opinion.


I have all sorts of issues with Trump being President included those you listed. I find him to be just as criminal as Hillary which is why I voted for Gary Johnson(Again).

Posted on: 11/10 7:30 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:


Not relevant. They represent the party of acceptance, inclusion and tolerance. They should have those values even when their candidate losses. They are also the same people who told Sanders supporters to "get over it" and "move on" when he lost a rigged primary.


Nice you admit to a double standard, but the claims that the primary was rigged are absurd. Sanders didn't even campaign in the south, and his losing those states by such a huge margin made it almost impossible to win the nomination. The DNC did a few questionable things, but to believe that they made the difference when Hillary won by such a large margin overall is not reasonable.



No it's not absurd. It has been proven that the DMV was purposely attaching the deck in Clinton's favor. That's not questionable, that's corrupt. Questions were leaked to the Clinton camp by the media and the were in communication on his to avoid prior noticing the bias. You can sketchers all you want in what effect it had but the fact remains those things happened and they should never happen in a US election.

Trump throwing out some dickheads tweets four years ago is not even remotely the same as the **** show taking place in cities across the country now.

Posted on: 11/10 12:37 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
So, the liberals who celebrated their candidate winning what we now know was a rigged primary are now protesting the results of a legitimate election.

That makes sense.


Given how much violence was promised and predicted had the election gone the other way, a few protests are hardly worth worrying about. I don't want to contemplate how ugly it would have gotten had Trump won the popular vote and lost the EC. There is some pretty strong evidence Trump would not handle it with anywhere near the grace that Hillary has, and it is reasonable that his attitude would spark some serious dissent:

(In 2012, at one point Trump was under the impression that Romney would win the popular vote but lose the EC. Here are some Trump tweets from that time period)

Link

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

"This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"

"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Trump apparently deleted one that called for revolution.


Not relevant. They represent the party of acceptance, inclusion and tolerance. They should have those values even when their candidate losses. They are also the same people who told Sanders supporters to "get over it" and "move on" when he lost a rigged primary.

Posted on: 11/10 10:48 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

POWERSWVU83 wrote:
Is it time for the electoral college to go?


No, it worked exactly as designed.

It's more than time though, for us to move on from what is essentially a 2 party system.

Posted on: 11/10 10:16 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Election Day
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
So, the liberals who celebrated their candidate winning what we now know was a rigged primary are now protesting the results of a legitimate election.

That makes sense.

Posted on: 11/10 9:36 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
I would assume that the subpoena is for a civil matter for which you are not a party. (Because if it was a criminal matter you would probably be discussing a warrant and not a subpoena, and if it was a civil matter for which you were a party than you would be receiving discovery and not a subpoena.) Is this correct?


More or less. It could also, hypothetically speaking, be a congressional subpoena.

If this were a targeted criminal investigation, the FBI would likely quietly get a warrant and seize the devices without warning. A security review of e-mail practices would be, hypothetically speaking, not really civil or criminal, but possibly could turn into either if evidence supports same.


Subpoena or warrant, both are court orders. Correct? It would seem to me that timing and intent would be of importance. If I get a new phone then destroy my old phone after the new phone is up and running then, 6 months after I have destroyed the old phone there is a court order for it there's not much you can say. But, if I get a court order for my phone then I destroy it knowing it is now completely useless then my intent was to prevent you from having access to it.

Maybe the law doesn't see it that way which is why I'm asking.

Posted on: 11/8 8:15 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:



But, if you destroyed it AFTER it was subpoenaed that's bad. Right?


Only if there is intent to destroy data relevant to the subpoena. It could contain only information not relevant to the subpoena, or the relevant information could exist on the new phone or other device, and thus was not destroyed in the first place.


But, if you destroy the device to the point that information cannot be retrieved how would anyone know? It seems to be that this would be obstruction. I mean, you were served notice that the phone was wanted for an investigation therefor you had to know it needed to be in working condition to be useful.

Posted on: 11/8 8:08 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:


So completely destroying the device so there could be no data retrieval is illegal.


Only if by doing so you intend to conceal information subject to subpoena. Completely destroying an old cell phone you do not intend to again use is not only standard, but advisable if there is personal information you do not want retrieved.

Usually, information in the old cell phone is transferred to a new cell phone before destroying the old one, so the mere act of destroying an old cell phone does not merit the conclusion that data has been destroyed.

Plus, it helps if the relevant law enforcement agency finds that you had no intent to obstruct justice.







But, if you destroyed it AFTER it was subpoenaed that's bad. Right?

Posted on: 11/7 2:01 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
Hypothetically let's say my cell phone, laptop and desktop computer are subpoenaed as evidence in a criminal investigation. And let's say hypothetically that, I destroy/discard the phone and use software to wipe clean my computers. What would be the possible legal ramifications of doing this?


Just want to know what my options might be.

Thanks,
The Don


It depends on the nature of the subpoena and the timeline. If we assume your facts as read, that is a blanket subpoena and a total wipe of data, in most jurisdictions this would be some sort of obstruction charge.

However, if the subpoena specified e-mails about a specific event, and you only erased, or given that mistakes happen, intended to erase, e-mails that were personal, like for example e-mails to your daughter about her wedding that you would rather not wind up public record, then you would be totally in the clear. Especially if the relevant law enforcement agency says they found no intent to obstruct justice. That would seal it with any reasonable person.

Glad to help!





So, completely destroying the device so there could be no data retrieval whatsoever is illegal. Good to know.

Posted on: 11/7 1:41 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

DonKeebals wrote:
Hypothetically let's say my cell phone, laptop and desktop computer are subpoenaed as evidence in a criminal investigation. And let's say hypothetically that, I destroy/discard the phone and use software to wipe clean my computers. What would be the possible legal ramifications of doing this?


Just want to know what my options might be.

Thanks,
The Don


It depends on the nature of the subpoena and the timeline. If we assume your facts as read, that is a blanket subpoena and a total wipe of data, in most jurisdictions this would be some sort of obstruction charge.

However, if the subpoena specified e-mails about a specific event, and you only erased, or given that mistakes happen, intended to erase, e-mails that were personal, like for example e-mails to your daughter about her wedding that you would rather not wind up public record, then you would be totally in the clear. Especially if the relevant law enforcement agency says they found no intent to obstruct justice. That would seal it with any reasonable person.

Glad to help!





So completely destroying the device so there could be no data retrieval is illegal.

Posted on: 11/7 1:35 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Question for the resident attorneys
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Hypothetically let's say my cell phone, laptop and desktop computer are subpoenaed as evidence in a criminal investigation. And let's say hypothetically that, I destroy/discard the phone and use software to wipe clean my computers. What would be the possible legal ramifications of doing this?


Just want to know what my options might be.

Thanks,
The Don

Posted on: 11/7 10:49 am
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: I'm with her
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Apparently Republicans got the emails first.

But surely this isn't political...only good investigation by the FBI. Obama needs to add the word "former" to the FBI director's title.


Yes, we certainly don't want anything portraying Hillary in a negative light. After all, illegally deleting subpoenaed emails is nothing compared to Trump's potty mouth.

Posted on: 10/30 7:53 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/3/2008 8:47 am
From Parkersburg,WV
Posts: 1992
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Not trying to push buttons...but if the premiums keep rising does it make sense to shop around in order to buy directly from an insurance company like Blue Cross Blue Shield?

Again, not trying to argue. Honest question.


In WV there really is no shopping around. BCBS was the only choice on the exchange until this year. Care Source was added but, one of my wife's doctors is not enrolled with them and probably won't any time soon. Her other doctor is not in their network at all and, most likely will never be. So, I either have to take it in the ass and pay the increase or select a plan with less coverage and a smaller increase in premium. No matter what I choose next month I will be getting less coverage and paying more for it.

Posted on: 10/26 7:25 pm
_________________
High Fructose Corn Syrup Aggies like it in the corn hole.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 94 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved