xtwheeler

These are federal charges, aren't they? There is no parole in federal court, though they may reduce a sentence for "good behavior." Not my jurisdiction, but generally, unless the offenses were against their own children, offenders are unrestricted around their own children, and others for that matter, aside from schools, parks, etc. (depending on the level of offense). Everything in his life, if convicted, will be regulated by the specifics of his post-release plan. Christ on a bike. Before this I had no idea there were "sex offender rights" organizations. I don't know how to feel about that. The current proximity rules are all but worthless. And of course, Josh is a repeat reoffender. Yuck.

They're evangelicals. She has a vested interest in going soft on them.

I just cannot connect with Willie's music. He's obviously insanely talented, and has a beautiful tone to his voice. I've never heard him hit a wrong note. But it just leaves me absolutely cold. Maybe it is easier to connect with him if you have a background filled with church music, but for me -- I don't find him distinctive or memorable. He'd be a great studio singer, but I would never be able to pick out and identify his voice. I won't remember him a week after the show ends. Grace just has my number, somehow. I don't usually like the kid of music she is singing -- I've only watched the past 4 or 5 episodes -- but I think her voice is really unique. If Janis Joplin and Edie Brickell had a love child, it would be Casey. She has the potential to have a good career if she really finds her lane, and really works on excellence in that lane, rather than trying to do everything. Once she really finds her lane, I think her artistry will come through more. Chayce. Chayse, Chayse, Chayse. When Rolling Stone named Bob Dylan as one of the ten best singers in history, they wrote, "Bob Dylan did what very, very few singers ever do. He changed popular singing. And we have been living in a world shaped by Dylan's singing ever since. Almost no one sings like Elvis Presley anymore. Hundreds try to sing like Dylan. When Sam Cooke [ . . . ] explained that from now on, it's not going to be about how pretty the voice is. It's going to be about believing that the voice is telling the truth." I'm slightly overselling this, but Chayce has that quality too, I think. I don't care if the notes are perfect, but I'm captivated by the story he is telling and the vulnerability he shows. I would absolutely go see him live. I think he's the real deal.

Am I the other one who felt... Deeply uncomfortable with Luke Bryant's performance? Just me? Marijuana is a hell of a drug.

In my practice I've only conducted... I think 1 bench trial (in 24 years). Jurors are just easier to sway, and as you say, judges are less emotional. There are a few categories of cases where you're not entitled to a jury--in equitable cases (asking for the right to do something or not, like Dec relief actions). The number of jurors varies on civil cases, and jurors also don't have to reach a unanimous verdict, unlike criminal cases. I wish people were enthusiastic about jury duty! I would LOVE to serve, but they can't get me out of the box fast enough. I don't subscribe to the "but first, let's bounce all the lawyers" philosophy. If the judge determines that Smuggar can't get a fair trial, they could move it to a jurisdiction where he is less well known (they did this in the Scott Peterson case and I want to say the trial of the cops who assaulted Rodney King). It is fascinating to me that you can be a sentient human and not have formed an opinion about cases like that before being impaneled. Is Josh/JB a big enough deal in NWA that everybody has heard of them/can't be partial? I don't really have a sense of how well-known they are in real life, as opposed to all of us who know their intimate details! At least we know Derrick won't represent him! Given Josh's case is set for July, do you think he'll waive his right to a speedy trial? If he does he'll definitely get violated between now and trial!

Being incarcerated does not mean you can be deprived of one of the most fundamental human rights--to parent your children. Without extreme extenuating circumstances, that deprivation is cruel and unusual. Bless you. You are doing the work of angels!

Try to imagine saying, under penalty of perjury, "nah, I'm not bothered by looking a CSA videos, even the ones the arresting officer said were in the top 5 of worst he's ever seen." Jurors do not get a choice about which cases they serve. It is going to be presumed the photos will gross everyone out, but he's entitled to a jury of his peers. During voir dire most jurors would say they find it sickening and can't stand to see this material. The judge will then inquire with the jurors if, even given being a victim of SA they think they could judge on the evidence. The lawyers will also have asked about personal experience with that in an initial questionnaire. Judges bend over backwards to elicit a "yeah I could be fair" from jurors. I don't think that in 20+ years of litigation that attempt to get bounced ever work (as a for cause dismissal, not one of the lawyers' preemptory exclusions). The lawyers will bounce someone with a personal history if they can, but you only get so many preemptory challenges. Think about what the jurors had to see in the OJ Simpson trial, or Casey Anthony, or Scott Peterson. They're horrific images. But you don't get to say "I'm disturbed by images of decapitated homicide victims, or decomposing bodies of children" because of course everyone is. The evaluation is only "can you be fair in deciding guilt" not whether or not you share the same revulsion at such this, as 99.99% of all humans do. In these cases judges are extra motivated not to let people off of jury duty because they think the topic is gross--if they did, they'd never seat a jury. Also, you be surprised at how reluctant people are to say "no, I can't be fair" because we all like to think we could fair. It's a weird aspect of trial science. People have a weird ego thing that makes them reluctant to do that. Even if you say you can't be fair, usually the judge will want to know your personal reason for saying that, and guiding potential jurors into saying, "yeah, my experience sucked, but I guess I can be fair." Imagine if we let all jurors who have been raped or sexually assaulted or molested, or know someone who has off any cases on those topics. You've just eliminated the 1/3 women who have been raped, plus the 10% of people who have been molested in childhood. Now imagine excluding everyone who has a personal connection to anyone who has suffered that. Now you've eliminated virtually 100% of your jury pool. TL;DR: Jurors do not get excused for feeling "oh, that's icky." Being excused for cause (like "I can't be fair") is exceedingly rare in my experience.

I'm sorry, but this is just false. The vaccines have been tested in, now, millions of people. Before they were approved for emergency use, they went through rigorous testing. The FDA did not just throw these out there. The rapidity of their approval is based on the FDA waiving the waiting periods between evaluations. The research as testing was still done. Moreover, many of the components had otherwise been determined safe. The vaccines began development in January, and entered the third, large-scale FDA required testing months before they were approved. The FDA did things like shorten the waiting time from at least 2 years to 6 months. Thus, these COVID-19 vaccines have gone through preclinical testing, three phases of clinical trials and external review by two independent panels of experts and two civil service scientific reviews. The speed of approval for these vaccines is because: Newer vaccine technology is being used; There is unprecedented financial support; researchers were able to leverage previous coronavirus research; and hundreds of vaccine candidates are being developed and tested simultaneously. An emergency use authorization does not mean any safety testing was shortcut--it ONLY means that the FDA put the drugs at the top of the queue for review. They were tested, as Phase 3 testing requires, in hundreds of thousands of people & deemed safe and effective. In addition we now have hundreds of millions of in vivo uses to review, and they have proved to be safe and effective. A vaccine that provides up to 99% efficacy against a disease that has a 5% or so death rate represents millions of lives saved, not to mention the infections that were debilitating, causing long term illness that were prevented. The vaccines also protect the most vulnerable, who cannot themselves be vaccinated. As of this week, there have been ZERO deaths attributable to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Just because there were deaths after vaccination does not mean they are attributable to the vaccines. We have no evidence that the post-vaccine deaths exceed those deaths that would have usually occurred. Please let me know if you'd like references to actual scientific sources for any of the above. Finally, self-reporting to VAERS is exactly that - - self-reporting, which is inherently useless. Anybody can report anything to VAERS. I have seen reports to VAERS that claimed some vaccine or other turned recipients into Spiderman. People have reported deaths by car accident as caused by the vaccine. I have extensive experience with regulatory law and pharmaceuticals. Follow the reputable science, not memes, rumors, or claims by people who are just scared for no reason. These vaccines have been tested just like any other pharmaceutical, and have been proven safe and effective.

The only thing creepier than The Surgeon is CZJ's immobile face. It is really disturbing.

SAME.It is such a beautiful moment of true, confident, optimism in a song that is so tentative and vulnerable. I'm going through some shit right now, and I'm pretty emotionally numb--Grace's performance absolutely shook me and flooded me with emotion. It was powerful not just because her voice is powerful (obv it is). The emotion and vulnerability she showed were equally moving to me. Wow. (sorry if that is too personal)

I'm sorry I responded in haste, and was trying to communicate that I knew I was missing pieces of what you were trying to say. I apologize again that I didn't understand your comment, nor the many nuances. My anaesthesia is still wearing off, and I'm absolutely not at my best right now. I apologize I didn't understand.

You mean if he'd never been arrested but wrote a book about liking pictures of CSA? Or about his childhood in general? I'm sorry, I know I'm missing what you're getting at, and I'm sorry! We have a good example of how a civil suit might factor in, in the Goldman v. Simpson case. He was found legally responsible for Nicole & Ron's deaths, and has a HUGE cash judgment against him. ALL of his "income," including the proceeds from "If I Did It" (what a bastard) all go to satisfy that judgment. That's actually how he go caught up in the Nevada case -- he was trying to get cash on the sly so he didn't have to pay it towards the judgment. Hard to imagine an identifiable victim who could sue for such a judgment here.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. Most Son of Sam laws have been revised not to prohibit the writing, but affecting the money earned. The Arkansas Son of Sam law does not prohibit him from writing, but from profiting. Any profits must be turned over to the board to compensate crime victims. I don't know if AR's also prohibits friends, family, etc., from writing about them, but some do.

Arkansas has a "Son of Sam" law that prohibits criminals from benefitting from their crimes, including income from selling their life stories, a tell-all about the crimes, etc. So if Josh were able to string a few sentences together, he will never be able to make a dime on it. I'm sorry if this has all been covered, but if not: Often what brings CP under federal jurisdiction is the use of a computer in procuring or sharing it. Just like conducting nefarious business on the phone, committing a crime using a computer is by nature across state lines. This includes texting, social media, essentially anything to do with the computer. I imagine that Josh being the tiniest fish in the tiniest pond makes his only value the ability to implicate others. I doubt he knows anything of substance, and once he was busted on the dark net, anyone in that network will have been arrested or at least identified already. Long story short, he has nothing of value the feds want, and prosecuting him to the max is quite beneficial as an example. The only thing he could dish on is his parents' shady financial stuff, but if he wants any access to that upon leaving prison, he'd keep his mouth shut. However, Josh is not known for making overly-thought-out decisions

Federal district judges (before whom Josh would have appeared) get paid a little over $200k a year, and have the job for life.