bodhipooh wrote:
...
Someone else (was it Brewster?) made a good point when he mused why would the state allow this to continue while they had control of the local BOE? And, why did the state ever return control given the fiscal mismanagement?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I did an OPRA awhile back from the Hudson County prison. 50 to 60 percent of the people in the prison are non-citizens. The charges various from sexual assault, rape, drug/and or sex trafficking. The politicans are in favor of immigration due to the census. The more people, the higher the dollar amount and perhaps an additional congressional seat.

This is a perfect example of what happens when people quote numbers and facts without understanding them or their context. Something of which you are quite an expert!

The Kearny jail has an unusually large percentage of non-citizens, but that is because the county has a contract with the federal government to house ICA detainees in that jail. A more informed opinion would be to understand how many of the Kearny jail prisoners are there because of crimes committed locally and are not there as part of the ICE contract. Of course, that would take time, effort, and intellectual honesty. Much easier to spout numbers without logic or reasoning.

Yvonne wrote:
I did an OPRA awhile back from the Hudson County prison. 50 to 60 percent of the people in the prison are non-citizens. The charges various from sexual assault, rape, drug/and or sex trafficking. The politicans are in favor of immigration due to the census. The more people, the higher the dollar amount and perhaps an additional congressional seat.

islander wrote:
....
The debt collection letters are addressed to the condo association which I understand is a corporation which presumably the three condo units are the shareholders of. We didn?t sign any documentation as part of purchase to acquire shareholdings in the HOA so the shareholdings must but at the unit level eg unit 1 is a shareholder and if you buy unit 1 you therefore become a shareholder I guess.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
If not, simply tell the collection agency that you do not recognize the debt.

Isn't the change of ownership of the association irrelevant to it's debts? ...

2. Never admit that the debt is yours
Even if the debt is yours, don?t admit that to the debt collector. There is no reason to do so and it could get you in trouble later on if you try to dispute the debt on your credit report as inaccurate. Many times old debts have fraudulent interest charges that you aren?t obliged to pay but debt collectors will attempt to collect anyways.

Again, it?s best to just tell them to send you everything in writing and then hang up. You have the right to do so, and we?ll talk about that in a minute.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Not saying after-school programs are a bad idea. Saying they won't work for everyone.

Nothing does, which is why some problems need to be picked at rather than coming up with a "Grand Solution for Everyone". But defunding after school activities is patently stupid.

Yvonne wrote:
The original employees at fast food restaurants were high school teenagers/college students and retired seniors. It was never meant to be employment for raising a family. Immigrants took those jobs and it became the staple for their income. I remember going to a fast food restaurant and gave the cashier $4.01 so I would get back six dollars from a ten. The cashier was clueless to what I was doing and another cashier had to help her. It didn't help her English was limited.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Can't help think if you took 20% or so of school funding, and gave that directly to the students or parents as conditional incentives - standards of attainment, behavior, and attendance and would skyrocket.

How about, for a fraction that price, attractive after school programs like music and sports that you must maintain a certain GPA for?

K-Lo2 wrote:
Do criminal defendants deserve different rights depending on the charge? That sounds like what I'm hearing.

bodhipooh wrote:
... but your suggestions are outlandish and your proposed solutions unworkable and will never see the light of day.

...

jerseymom wrote:
Here's a little food for thought. This is just to make one consider the issue of consent and how one obtains it and keeps it - is a contract/app/agreement really workable?

New app lets you request consent

An open letter from all women...to LegalFling

The Problems with Sexual Consent Apps

...and I thought dating in the 80's sucked.

K-Lo2 wrote:
So married/engaged/living together couples would have to sign off each time? That's going to work out really well.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

@bodhipooh

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

Just because you consider it a rare and/or absurd example, it doesn't make it so. This is PRECISELY why our legal system is predicated on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is an extension of the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be unfairly incarcerated. The burden of proof is high, and on the accusing party, because that is the only way to more or less ensure that innocent people are not unfairly convicted.

As I said in my original reply to you, thankfully we will never see your idea become reality. It would never pass muster, because it lacks common sense, it runs contrary to our established system of law, and the courts would never uphold such a law.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

Personally, I think that the law should be changed. Proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent should be grounds for a conviction.

That?s a CRAZY idea. Thankfully, it will never come to pass.

jerseymom wrote:
Thank you for the question. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Sexual assault needs to stop being a "man vs. woman" issue. It's a perpetrator vs. victim issue. Victims need to feel comfortable reporting a crime - but in a case of a sexual assault, it's just not that easy. It's not the laws that need changing, per se, it's the stigma and denial that happens to victims by themselves, their peers, employers, coworkers, teachers, religious leaders and families that needs to be changed. There's a lot that happens between the time an assault takes place to the time that it's reported - we need to work on that as a society.

2. Sexual assault needs to be adjudicated in a court of law - not in a sensationalist media event or in hearings. There is a procedure to follow, laws and rules of evidence. The perp, male or female, is innocent until proven guilty. That's the U.S. justice system, like it or not.

3. I cannot comment with certainty on this case in particular. But Hudson County never disappoints and often stinks. Things are covered up here at an alarming rate by people with just a little bit of power. Katie seems to have followed protocol and does make a striking allegation. She has risked enormously to put herself in the front of a media storm. I admire her tenacity and courage and really hope she gets her legitimate day in court.

4. Moving forward - talk to your children, tell them your own stories (most of us likely are or know someone who is a victim of some kind of unwanted sexual comment, groping, or assault - most often by someone we know). Role play, create a plan, a code word, open up the dialogue to your sons and daughters about what is right and wrong and empower them with tools for situations where they could become a victim. Create a loving environment where open dialogue is welcome and your kids know they have a safe harbor in a storm.

Just my two cents.

brewster wrote:
...
The battles with the HP dog people who were against constructing a dog run because they considered the entirety of the park their dog run were epic. Now it's just oral history, like the Trojan War.

Yvonne wrote:
Actually, I do not believe the nonsense that downtown was paying less than other parts of JC...

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

And he can't part with some of his unexpected millions via reverse mortgage to pay his taxes because....?