MMandM

I came out three years ago at the age of 30. At some point I always knew just didn

Great movie, I have it on DVD

Ahh. Another one of life's mysteries solved. Now somebody tell me what we're standing in line for.

What threshold strikes that someone having so much they are rich? If a person feels they are rich, they will amass the benefits of being rich (as least the emotional ones, which are much more rewarding and less of a hassle than the material ones anyway). I think it has very little to do with any outward comparison and more to do with a comparison to one's own expectations of what and how much of something they had thought they might have one day. For instance, if someone was raised in poverty, and never thought they'd rise out of poverty, but somehow did and managed to attain a middle class lifestyle, that person would probably feel rich, despite not really having an income that others around them would consider overly impressive. Another person might always have believed they would become a millionaire, and if he or she doesn't, they will probably never feel they have made it or are "rich", despite having an income that others would find impressive and define that way. I feel rich or blessed whenever I have more of something than I need. Thoughts?

21? Have a great birthday Matt.

AP) - SELMER, Tenn.-Attorneys for a minister's wife accused of killing her husband in their small-town parsonage asked a judge Wednesday to throw out her statements to police, claiming she was arrested illegally. For the applicable legal standard, see NEW YORK v. HARRIS, 495 U.S. 14 (1990): Petitioner, who had been arrested without probable cause and without a warrant, and under circumstances indicating that the arrest was investigatory, made two in-custody inculpatory statements after he had been given the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 . Thereafter indicated for murder, petitioner filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements. The motion was overruled and the statements were used in the trial, which resulted in petitioner's conviction. The State Supreme Court, though recognizing the unlawfulness of petitioner's arrest, held that the statements were admissible on the ground that the giving of the Miranda warnings served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements, and petitioner's act in making the statements was "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 . Held: 1. The Illinois courts erred in adopting a per se rule that Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. When the exclusionary rule is used to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, it serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth, being directed at all unlawful searches and seizures, and not merely those that happen to produce incriminating material or testimony as fruits. Thus, even if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. Wong Sun requires not merely that a statement meet the Fifth Amendment voluntariness standard but that it be "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint" in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 600-603. 2. The question whether a confession is voluntary under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. Though the [422 U.S. 590, 591] Miranda warnings are an important factor in resolving the issue, other factors must be considered; and the burden of showing admissibility of in-custody statements of persons who have been illegally arrested rests on the prosecutor. Pp. 603-604. 3. The State failed to sustain its burden in this case of showing that petitioner's statements were admissible under Wong Sun. Pp. 604-605. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=495&invol=14 What about the facts surrounding the case of the pastor's wife? Was Mary Winkler taken into police custody (arrested) without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if so, were her statements sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the illegal arrest? Here's an account of her statement: SELMER, Tenn. - A minister's wife told police she shot her husband after they argued about family financial troubles related to an overseas scam and then told him "I'm sorry" as he lay dying on their bedroom floor, witnesses said at a bond hearing Friday. Mary Winkler, 32, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her husband, Matthew, 31, and has been jailed without bond since March 23. Matthew Winkler was killed March 22 at the couple's Church of Christ parsonage in Selmer, a small town 80 miles east of Memphis. Mary Winkler was taken into custody with the couple's three small children in Orange Beach, Ala., after a nationwide Amber Alert was issued for the children. Judge Weber McCraw is expected to decide later, perhaps by next week, if he will set a bond. Prosecutors asked McCraw to keep Winkler, originally from Knoxville, in jail to await her trial scheduled in October. Prosecutor Walter Freeland said Matthew Winkler was shot in the back from close range with a 12-gauge shotgun as he lay in bed, with the blast breaking his spine and tearing into internal organs. "When she left, Matthew Winkler was still alive," Freeland said. Brian Booth, an agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, read a statement Mary Winkler gave authorities in Alabama. In that statement, she said her memory of the shooting was unclear and she did remember getting her husband's shotgun from a bedroom closet where she knew he kept it. "The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom. I remember thinking it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be," Booth read from Winkler's statement. Winkler told police her husband rolled from the bed onto the floor. "He asked me why, and I just said 'I'm sorry,' " Booth read from the statement. Winkler said the two had argued throughout the previous evening about several things, including family finances. The problems were "mostly my fault," she said, because she was in charge of keeping the family books. "He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things - the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped," Booth read to the court. Booth said that shortly before the killing Mary Winkler had deposited in family bank accounts checks totaling $17,500 from unidentified sources in Canada and Nigeria. She shifted money between at least two banks in what he described as "check kiting." The checks and money exchanges were not detailed in court, but defense lawyers said Mary Winkler was the victim of a financial scam

Sounds good to me, I don

What are your plans? That is if you celebrate this holiday in your country. Taking off tomorrow morning early to San Francisco just to get a way and have a good time. Hope everyone has a safe holiday weekend.

Most insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion, and policyholders "adhere" to wording chosen and punctuated by insurers. To keep insurers from abusing their monopolistic word usage authority, regulators typically require plain language contracts. Underlying this public policy is an almost na

Excellent Graeme , as always, and as we have seen of late, they will try to have things both ways. A Family member is any member of the same household unless it would cost the insurance company more money than it's just the way we see it this time.

I forgot to ad he deserved it

I confess, today I made a grown man cry like a baby on the witness stand and I quite enjoyed it. Sometimes I

In a Dissenting opinion, a 9th Circuit Judge Raps Cohabiting Couple. The case stemmed from a 2001 accident in which a man, I'll call Jim dove from a boat owned by his live in Girlfriend I'll call Mary, into shallow water, causing him to become a quadriplegic, according to the court decision. The couple had lived together for 20 months prior to the accident in "an intimate relationship," the decision said. The legal trouble arose when "Jim" sought to claim the maximum benefit, $100,000, from "Mary's"' insurer, Continental. Citing a clause that barred members of the same household from receiving the maximum, Continental instead offered $25,000, saying a provision limited any claim by a "family member" to that amount. The policy contained language defining "family member" as "any member of the same household." When Jim refused that offer, Continental asked the U.S. District Court to declare that Jim was entitled only to $25,000. But a federal judge ruled that the term "household" was ambiguous both by California case-law precedent, and as defined in standard and legal dictionaries. Since precedent required "ambiguous" insurance contracts be interpreted in favor of the insured, the judge ruled against Continental, which appealed to the 9th Circuit. The Senior Judge launched a vigorous dissent. "It appears that "Jim" and "Mary have successfully attached more importance to a single piece of paper, a marriage license, than they have ever before," wrote the Judge. "For quite some time, they have dwelt under the same roof. They have bedded down together in the same bed. The couple apparently felt that they did not need this single piece of paper to enjoy all the bliss of conjugal life. Nevertheless, they earnestly maintain that a marriage license vel non is of great importance to the Continental Insurance Company." Noting that "Jim" had sued "Mary" and that Mary's' counsel had advised her to "confess judgment" in that action, in their efforts to extract money from the insurer, The Judge quoted Holt v. Holt, 77 F2d 538, a 1935 appellate decision from the District of Columbia. "In essence," he wrote, "they undertake to 'litigate by day and copulate by night.'" I wonder if this Judge would have condemned the decision if this case involved a co-habituating homosexual couple rather than a co-habituating heterosexual couple.

That

Unfortunately it seems that few take responsibility for their own actions. It is always easier to blame some one else. Like idiots who spill hot coffee on themselves and then blame the restaurant making the coffee that it is too hot, rather than blaming themselves for drinking hot coffee while driving and talking on the cell.

Interesting. I have a younger brother and he

Lite dinner tonight. Grilled a skinless boneless chicken breast, cut it up over baby spinach with avocado, tomatoes, and cucumber and with a light Italian dressing on top.

IMO life's only purpose is for each of us to make of it what we will, you can be an observer or a participant, you can be a constructive contributor or a destructive critic, you can be a friend and neighbor or a murderer, you can make history or you can read history, it is your choice.

The only time I have use for labels is when I

Haha That is just the best thing I've read/heard/seen all day. Thank you Joe, for posting it, and they have no flack from their neighbors who mind their own business.

It is a red sauce Sharon, my grandmother always makes her own spaghetti sauce. She cooks the braciole along with meatballs in the sauce. The braciole is a Sicilian dish. I have actually found one restaurant that would serve braciole but you have to give them two days notice in advance.

I know how to cook but it's not one of my favorite things to do. Tonight I am celebrating a friend's birthday. There's a great restaurant in a hotel in Laguna Beach called Splash's and that's where I'll be having dinner tonight. Not sure what I'll order yet, everything on the menu is excellent. I come from an Italian family, my grandmother is the best cook and this recipe is one of my favorites but I've never been able to make it and you can't find it in Italian restaurants. It's called Braciole di Manzo, the only thing I don't have is the recipe for her sauce. She always makes her sauce on Sunday. This is the stuffing. !

Thank you Colin, Laws very from state to state. In some states law there are provisions for a parent to sign over their rights (terminate the parental relationship) and quite a few parents of gay and lesbian teens try to do just that, but they are still held responsible for paying child support unless someone else adopts the child. What I usually volunteer to do is file the appropriate paper work in a court of law and terminate their parental rights, but you better believe I make sure they pay support until that child reaches the age of majority.

Happy birthday, I stopped having birthdays once I hit 30

You still are a kid