boosiebadazz

Only because no one would believe we’re smart enough to be realtors or hock mortgages :lol:

Was it happening four years ago?

:lol: those two are unbiased

Why is it not prosecutors overreaching to charge?

I’ll accept these no true bills are in blue enclaves but I can’t help but wonder if that’s somewhat of a canary in a coal mine regarding a larger political shift like we saw in the recent Texas race.

Especially when that central authority is wielded and embodied by one person making a decision to prosecute.

Here’s the text:

quote:

---

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

quote:

---

but the spirit was that

---

You sure you want to open Pandora’s box of criminal prosecution of speech and what “the spirit” of that speech is or is not?

I wonder if you have to run a chain of title on music catalogs similar to land. Something like researching where and when she’s licensed it to whom and for what amount of time and then place a value on the remaining opportunities.

And Britney maybe had some capacity and conservatorship issues that really made things fuzzy.

Well prosecute it after we get to Ted Cruz and the 2016 Iowa primary.

I still can’t believe Cuban sold with a handshake agreement that he’d still be able to run basketball operations.