VakAttack

Hardcore amputee pornographer/calligraphy. He does good work.

I didn't purposely include him (or DSJ) in the part about sure-fire recruits. They're in a separate paragraph. Both Metcalf and DSJ were big-time recruits. I was simply using Metcalf and DSJ to bolster the Brands success in the middleweights. After all, most of PSUs success at those weights includes super high end recruits. Trust me, I know Metcalf was a sure-fire guy, he's my all-time favorite Hawkeye.

It seems pretty clear that she told the prosecutors she didn't want to testify. At that stage, prosecutors can subpoena them and try to force them to testify, but will often just drop cases in that scenario. 1. They don't want a reluctant witness because to affects their ability to win 2. They don't want to retraumatize somebody or 3. They no longer believe the accused is guilty...this is the most rare occurrence of the 3, as I've often found that prosecutors will continue to believe in my clients guilt long after the victim's story has fallen apart Typically this will occur in cases like this one or "regular" domestic violence cases. Most often it's because the victim has had a change of heart after they see what the person they've accused is facing. They'll then say "I just wanted him/her to get help, not go to prison" and then ask for the charges to be dropped. The second most common occurrence is what the alleged victim's attorneys are alleging here, that they don't want to be retraumatize and just want to move on with their lives; often the victims are constantly facing social media attacks on their character from the accused's family (or in a case like this where the accused is [relatively] high profile), from the family of the accused OR fans of said (again, relatively) high profile person.

Surpassed, to me, reads as "become better than" but again, I may have fallen into my own trap.

Being surpassed by Alirez is a little strong. Alirez won the match, but it was off one move where he was being ridden like a dog. He scored no other points. The year before, when Woods beat Alirez at the Scuffle, it as a 5-4 decision. The two are close. No doubt Alirez won, but surpassed is probably not the correct word choice there, though I suppose I'm devolving into the same semantics debates I criticized others for earlier.

Not being Penn State isn't the same thing as being bad. Iowa has developed well at the middleweights. They took Lugo from a non-AA to the 1 seed at NCAAs. They developed Max Murin into a high seed/eventual AA. Kaleb Young was a multiple AA. Brandon Sorensen was a multiple AA and finalist. None of those guys were can't miss recruits. Going back a little bit before that you have Derek St. John and Metcalf as success stories. Mark Perry took that final step under the Brands regime. The biggest individual ding against them is probably Marinelli's postseason faltering.

This doesn't make any sense because we literally saw the 141 lb. match happen, and Bartlett never approached scoring an offensive point. We have not seen either Franek-Haines or even seen Messenbrink wrestle a ranked D1 opponent in Folkstyle.

One more time. Maybe call it lawyerly again?

Post the article again, I'm sure then it will become credible.

The victim can not withdraw the charges, they are not technically parties to a case, they are witnesses. The case is typically the state vs. the individual. They can ask that prosecution be dropped or recant their allegations, but prosecutors get the final call, they have to decide if they feel they can prove the case. They can not. This is true. If the eyewitness was served with a subpoena for trial and then doesn't show up, thus violating the subpoena, you would ask the judge for a mistrial on that basis; you have to have served them, though. Unfortunately it happens a lot. Not really directed at you, but since you used the "innocent until proven guilty" line, I wanted to address that quickly. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to taking somebody's freedom away. People are not "innocent until proven guilty" in any other context, and you see us, in society, not hold to that standard all the time. OJ Simpson. Casey Anthony. Trump and/or Biden right now. You even see it in lesser circumstances like people making judgments on the athletes competing based on our very limited information. People getting fired based off accusations. It's fine. The court of public opinion does not have that standard, nor is it required to. Part of being human is we form opinions. Both statements are incredibly, incredibly false. Ann Coulter's reasoning is terrible and biased, and her research skills are not provable based on what you've offered here. There are many, many twit attorneys.

Geezus this thread. Most of you are just arguing semantics about what constitutes a toss up, other than the good doctors in the thread diagnosing the amount of effect an infection was having at different points of a 12 hour period.

"Nagao has been cleared for drilling" Well this sounds familiar.

For RFK Jr! Weird!

This is, of course, very wrong. I'll follow up later when I'm at my laptop.

The bit lives again.

I promise you, it's ok not to comment on shit you don't know about. He was charged with rape and forcible penetration WITH A FOREIGN OBJECT. So no, the verdicts re not inconsistent.

Oh good. We're referencing Ann Coulter. Quick perusal of her "lawyerly article", GTFOH.

Christ.

Well, I have some bad news if people think that don't happens, lol. However, in a case like this, it would be more likely they were lied to, if the information in the report was false. Obviously they were not direct eye-witnesses themselves.

I think I read no more votes this week in the House. It's Tuesday.

What a Shitshow. Shambles in the House right now, McCarthy has had enough of this shit, he just announced he's not running again.

Asking someone to disprove a negative. It's on the person making the claim to prove it. That said, I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to discuss the situation, as long as it's couched in the framework that it's speculation. If we're being honest, my first thought when I read the story was that it didn't quite add up; that doesn't mean it's not true, I've had stories that didn't make sense to me end up being true in my line of work

It's not perfect at all, but it's a far better solution with better results than we have here. I'm going to leave the conversation here, not to avoid it, but this is the wrong forum and I don't want to go into a political or political-adjacent debate in a non-political forum. @Barracuda141 I tried to add your post into this one to let you know I wasn't avoiding the discussion, but it wouldn't let me do the multiquote for some reason. People who illicitly deal drugs should face consequences, especially high volume dealers. People who do drugs should receive treatment if they want it, or be left alone, unless they commit an actual crime with victims, similar to how we treat alcohol. ETA: To be clear, Barracuda, this is my opinion on the matter, not me claiming it is a fact. I think the evidence is with me, but it's still an opinion.

The results in Portugal have been staggering, and just another demerit on America's "War on Drugs."

This is not how...existence works.