Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
jberryhill
jberryhill's Journal
jberryhill's Journal
January 15, 2020
We now know where Avenatti has been hiding some of the stolen loot:
https://www.docdroid.net/Km6I6tp/carlin.pdf
"Carlin Divorced Avenatti in 2007...
On May 8, 2019, Avenatti Sent A Cashier’s Check to Carlin for $717,723.00...
On August 20, 2019, Avenatti Delivered Artwork He Purchased at an Auction to Carlin...
On or about May 30, 2019, Carlin Registers a Mercedes S550 (License No. 7ETG892) in her Name that is being used by Avenatti..."
On November 25, 2019, Carlin attended the examination, but refused to answer most of the questions based on the Fifth Amendment privilege. (Frank ¶ 28.) She also refused to produce any documents based on the privilege.
For chuckles, here's the DU thread about how Avenatti is such a nice guy because his first ex wife (he has two) speaks highly of him:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11926899
She has since deleted her account amidst accusations that it was actually run by him.
Avenatti's First Ex-Wife Next In Line...
We now know where Avenatti has been hiding some of the stolen loot:
https://www.docdroid.net/Km6I6tp/carlin.pdf
"Carlin Divorced Avenatti in 2007...
On May 8, 2019, Avenatti Sent A Cashier’s Check to Carlin for $717,723.00...
On August 20, 2019, Avenatti Delivered Artwork He Purchased at an Auction to Carlin...
On or about May 30, 2019, Carlin Registers a Mercedes S550 (License No. 7ETG892) in her Name that is being used by Avenatti..."
On November 25, 2019, Carlin attended the examination, but refused to answer most of the questions based on the Fifth Amendment privilege. (Frank ¶ 28.) She also refused to produce any documents based on the privilege.
For chuckles, here's the DU thread about how Avenatti is such a nice guy because his first ex wife (he has two) speaks highly of him:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11926899
She has since deleted her account amidst accusations that it was actually run by him.
January 14, 2020
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1217114224264130560
Catalonian Independence Leader Carles Puigdemont Making New Friends At the Euro Parliament...
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1217114224264130560
January 14, 2020
So, just around Christmas, when anyone who was getting a drone for Christmas would have started playing with it, there were a number of claimed reports of mass drone activity over Colorado and Nebraska. No one who has set out to record and document the mass drone activity has been successful at doing so, but that didn't stop widespread concern over observations which, even if true, don't add up to anything illegal going on.
A recurring theme of modern life seems to be the urge to involve law enforcement into investigation of activity which is not even illegal in the first place. To be clear, if you want to argue for rules around flying drones over private property, that's one thing. In fact, there are a number of players in the agricultural, manufacturing and chemical industries who have been strong advocates for rules against the right to photograph things in plain view on private property. They do not want prying eyes into their compliance, or not, with regulations on the handling of toxic materials or animals, etc..
Oddly, while it is generally our side of the political spectrum which stands for things like not having the police pry into your lawful conduct, there are some who can't resist the desire to believe that everyone else has some right to know what some law-abiding person is up to. To be clear, if someone is flying a drone within the law, taking photographs while standing on public property, or otherwise minding their own business, then it is their business.
Absent a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity taking place, law enforcement does not have the right to detain you for questions, even briefly - and even if you are legally operating drones.
That's what I found curious about the "we gotta find out about these drones!" thing. Suppose that they found someone flying these drones in public airspace within FAA regulations for drones, who landed them in her own field and was packing them up. The police would be free to ask him what she was up to, and she would be free to say "Nunya business".
If it was, for example, a mining company doing a survey with some kind of sensing equipment, that would be entirely their own business and they would have no obligation to disclose their trade secret information to anyone without a warrant issued on probable cause that a crime was being committed.
In any event, this article brings home some of what bothers me about the reaction to the drone story.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkeb9k/mass-panic-its-not-clear-that-colorados-mystery-drones-even-exist
But the most popular theory is that the timing is just a little too coincidental with a recently proposed FAA rule that would require drones to be identified remotely using a unique identifier and GPS coordinates sent via cellular signal to a central database, which many enthusiasts worry will ruin their hobby. What a great way to drum up support for such a policy, these posters suggest, than a nationally covered drone mystery.
This FAA conspiracy is, like most conspiracy theories, less a genuine assertion of the version of events they think actually occurred and more an expression of a larger frustration with the way the world works. Lisberg—who for the record does not believe the FAA is running a secret campaign to fly drones over rural Colorado to scare people in order to pass a remote ID rule for drones—pointed out that the FAA has been working on its rule change for years in consultation with key players in the drone industry. But he did concede the specifics of the FAA’s remote ID rule are not popular in the drone community. For its part, DJI advocates for a different type of remote ID technology than the one the FAA is proposing. Motherboard reached out to the FAA about this particular theory but did not hear back.
If there is a worthy lesson from this whole affair, it is unlikely to be a product of finding out who is actually flying the drones. Instead, it has to do with our attitudes towards the unknown. In this sense, there is some semblance of agreement between the drone enthusiasts and local officials trying their best to navigate this new, strange world.
“The question is do authorities NEED to know what it is?” Sean Wendland, a drone enthusiast in Sacramento, Calif., asked Motherboard over Facebook Messenger. “Is it causing any harm? Has it created danger? Do Americans NEED to know what it is? I would argue no, not at the cost of freedom.”
Mass Panic: It's Not Clear That Colorado's Mystery Drones Even Exist
So, just around Christmas, when anyone who was getting a drone for Christmas would have started playing with it, there were a number of claimed reports of mass drone activity over Colorado and Nebraska. No one who has set out to record and document the mass drone activity has been successful at doing so, but that didn't stop widespread concern over observations which, even if true, don't add up to anything illegal going on.
A recurring theme of modern life seems to be the urge to involve law enforcement into investigation of activity which is not even illegal in the first place. To be clear, if you want to argue for rules around flying drones over private property, that's one thing. In fact, there are a number of players in the agricultural, manufacturing and chemical industries who have been strong advocates for rules against the right to photograph things in plain view on private property. They do not want prying eyes into their compliance, or not, with regulations on the handling of toxic materials or animals, etc..
Oddly, while it is generally our side of the political spectrum which stands for things like not having the police pry into your lawful conduct, there are some who can't resist the desire to believe that everyone else has some right to know what some law-abiding person is up to. To be clear, if someone is flying a drone within the law, taking photographs while standing on public property, or otherwise minding their own business, then it is their business.
Absent a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity taking place, law enforcement does not have the right to detain you for questions, even briefly - and even if you are legally operating drones.
That's what I found curious about the "we gotta find out about these drones!" thing. Suppose that they found someone flying these drones in public airspace within FAA regulations for drones, who landed them in her own field and was packing them up. The police would be free to ask him what she was up to, and she would be free to say "Nunya business".
If it was, for example, a mining company doing a survey with some kind of sensing equipment, that would be entirely their own business and they would have no obligation to disclose their trade secret information to anyone without a warrant issued on probable cause that a crime was being committed.
In any event, this article brings home some of what bothers me about the reaction to the drone story.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkeb9k/mass-panic-its-not-clear-that-colorados-mystery-drones-even-exist
But the most popular theory is that the timing is just a little too coincidental with a recently proposed FAA rule that would require drones to be identified remotely using a unique identifier and GPS coordinates sent via cellular signal to a central database, which many enthusiasts worry will ruin their hobby. What a great way to drum up support for such a policy, these posters suggest, than a nationally covered drone mystery.
This FAA conspiracy is, like most conspiracy theories, less a genuine assertion of the version of events they think actually occurred and more an expression of a larger frustration with the way the world works. Lisberg—who for the record does not believe the FAA is running a secret campaign to fly drones over rural Colorado to scare people in order to pass a remote ID rule for drones—pointed out that the FAA has been working on its rule change for years in consultation with key players in the drone industry. But he did concede the specifics of the FAA’s remote ID rule are not popular in the drone community. For its part, DJI advocates for a different type of remote ID technology than the one the FAA is proposing. Motherboard reached out to the FAA about this particular theory but did not hear back.
If there is a worthy lesson from this whole affair, it is unlikely to be a product of finding out who is actually flying the drones. Instead, it has to do with our attitudes towards the unknown. In this sense, there is some semblance of agreement between the drone enthusiasts and local officials trying their best to navigate this new, strange world.
“The question is do authorities NEED to know what it is?” Sean Wendland, a drone enthusiast in Sacramento, Calif., asked Motherboard over Facebook Messenger. “Is it causing any harm? Has it created danger? Do Americans NEED to know what it is? I would argue no, not at the cost of freedom.”
January 13, 2020
And he's not going to take anyone who is not at the pickup spot with him.
Uh-oh, looks like the Evangelicals might have been right....
And he's not going to take anyone who is not at the pickup spot with him.
January 12, 2020
Have you ever had "Noodle Bowel"?
https://twitter.com/Berryhillj/status/1216405757958283264?s=20
January 9, 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/09/michael-avenatti-nike-extortion-case-trial
A US judge on Thursday rejected the celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti’s bid to dismiss a criminal charge that he defrauded a client whom he said knew about improper payments that sportswear giant Nike allegedly made to families of college basketball recruits.
...
Prosecutors accused Avenatti of telling Nike last March he would not publicize his client Gary Franklin’s claims about the payments if the sportswear company would pay Franklin $1.5m, and him up to $25m to conduct an internal inquiry.
They said Avenatti also failed to tell Franklin, who coached a youth basketball team in a Nike-sponsored league, that Nike offered to settle the coach’s claims without paying Avenatti, and instead used those claims to secure riches for himself.
...
Avenatti also faces an 21 April trial in Manhattan for allegedly cheating Daniels out of proceeds from a book contract, and a 19 May trial in Santa Ana, California, for allegedly defrauding other clients and lying to the Internal Revenue Service.
-------------
I'm starting to think he's not going to get many votes in Iowa.
Judge rejects Michael Avenatti's bid to dismiss criminal charge in Nike case
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/09/michael-avenatti-nike-extortion-case-trial
A US judge on Thursday rejected the celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti’s bid to dismiss a criminal charge that he defrauded a client whom he said knew about improper payments that sportswear giant Nike allegedly made to families of college basketball recruits.
...
Prosecutors accused Avenatti of telling Nike last March he would not publicize his client Gary Franklin’s claims about the payments if the sportswear company would pay Franklin $1.5m, and him up to $25m to conduct an internal inquiry.
They said Avenatti also failed to tell Franklin, who coached a youth basketball team in a Nike-sponsored league, that Nike offered to settle the coach’s claims without paying Avenatti, and instead used those claims to secure riches for himself.
...
Avenatti also faces an 21 April trial in Manhattan for allegedly cheating Daniels out of proceeds from a book contract, and a 19 May trial in Santa Ana, California, for allegedly defrauding other clients and lying to the Internal Revenue Service.
-------------
I'm starting to think he's not going to get many votes in Iowa.
January 9, 2020
The city of New Castle has approved a rebuilding plan to restore and expand Old New Castle. The newly restored section of town is to be called New Old New Castle.
Old New Castle redevelopment plan
The city of New Castle has approved a rebuilding plan to restore and expand Old New Castle. The newly restored section of town is to be called New Old New Castle.
January 9, 2020
I’ve heard of bighorn sheep, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of little horn sheep.
Isn’t it like wide mouth bass and small mouth bass?
Where are the little horn sheep?
I’ve heard of bighorn sheep, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of little horn sheep.
Isn’t it like wide mouth bass and small mouth bass?
January 3, 2020
I like the question... "Is it true?"
And this is why I'm not a good customer support kind of person, since my first question would be, "Well, golly, I don't know if it's true. Let's start with 'How much internet porn have you been masturbating to?'"
Another good practice, if you do not do so, is to put a piece of tape over your laptop camera if you don't use it for anything.
If you do use your laptop camera for things like teleconferencing, then you can always fold a post-it over the camera, or you can get fancy with a stick-on camera privacy cover:
Brace Yourselves For This Shocking Porn Revelation - I'm Not Paying My Blackmailer
If you haven't gotten this spam email yet, then you might want to see this one, since it is amusing.
The subject line will sometimes contain an actual password you've used on a low security site possibly years ago. This one started with a weak password I used on a throwaway account for some message board site ages ago.
Anywho, the hook is that someone has infected your computer while you've been masturbating to porn on the internet, and they've recorded split screen video of what you were watching and what you were doing. They also have obtained all of your contacts, and will send the video to all of them if you don't send $1500 in bitcoin to a bitcoin wallet address which they provide.
Usually, these kinds of emails are just one-offs, but I like the style of this person, who sends a followup email:
Now, I'm not too sure what a 2008 Smart Car Cabriolet is going to look like with my dick and my face on it, but he says he is going to be uploading the video to "the online forum".
I just don't care anymore, so you better get the popcorn ready.
I can imagine there are, unfortunately, people who are susceptible to this kind of thing.
One thing that is often educational, is to use the search in quotes function in Google, in order to see whether an email you have received might just be something that is relatively well known.
For example, if you put "stop shopping and fucking around" in quotes into a Google search, the results are illuminating:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22stop+shopping+and+fucking+around%22
I like this result, personally:
https://support.google.com/mail/thread/13007705?hl=en
Got blackmail 2x (2nd warning from previous email) is it true? 1 Reply
Hi,
Would like to us whether this blackmail is true or not? I've got 2x blackmail (2nd was warning from first email).
Kindly really need community help..
I like the question... "Is it true?"
And this is why I'm not a good customer support kind of person, since my first question would be, "Well, golly, I don't know if it's true. Let's start with 'How much internet porn have you been masturbating to?'"
Another good practice, if you do not do so, is to put a piece of tape over your laptop camera if you don't use it for anything.
If you do use your laptop camera for things like teleconferencing, then you can always fold a post-it over the camera, or you can get fancy with a stick-on camera privacy cover:
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444
