Croatian man killed in Ireland "for speaking Croatian"

[Kess]

Probably because I'm one of the few normal males here.

You are anything but normal.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Get a grip. I never tried to hurt her. I just stated my observations. If Elizabeth is hurt, I am sorry. I did not mean it.

Your 'observations."

How about you keep your retarded observations to yourself or does that - lolz - make me a hypocrite? Remember when you called me a hypocrite and revealed you don't know what the word means? Same with grifter.

Dumb as fuck... Anyway, I'm now learning UK law so I can attend a US law school... lolz...

You're embarrassing.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You are anything but normal.

I'm surprised that wasn't written in caps.

[Kess]

I think it's high time you stop hanging off my balls. Everyone is noticing your bitterness.

By the way, "High time" is typically used with a past participle or an infinitive.

"I think it's high time you stopped hanging off my balls."

That's the correct version of the sentence. No need to thank me; it's not my first time educating you. It's become my duty, unfortunately.

[Kess]

It wasn't your debate.

But it's evident that after our debate, you started giving a thumbs up to everything that he posts.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

By the way, "High time" is typically used with a past participle or an infinitive.

"I think it's high time you stopped hanging off my balls."

That's the correct version of the sentence. No need to thank me; it's not my first time educating you. It's become my duty, unfortunately.

Always trying to prove you're not dumb. That's how people know you're dumb. We all know you use ChatGP, dumb fuck.

I was simply repeating you. I don't care if it was grammatically correct. I thought it was funny that a foreigner uses an expression only someone's grandpa's generation uses.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

But it's evident that after our debate, you started giving a thumbs up to everything that he posts.

There was no debate. You were just an idiot responding to me.

[Kess]

"According to UK law..."

I'm American, dumb fuck.

You know that but - because of your dishonest nature - ignored that I'm American.

You can't be an anonymous witness in a US trial.

Thank you for providing hard proof of your idiocy.

First, you missed my point, which was that the notion of "anonymous witness testimony" can exist in law. It doesn't matter which country has specific laws in regard to anonymous witness testimony or not.

Second, you embarrassed yourself yet again, but you are too shameless to be embarrassed anyway.

https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/nc-cri...mous-witnesses

Here's your precedent:

The Fourth Circuit recently decided United States v. Ramos-Cruz, a case involving an MS-13 member who was convicted of assorted federal crimes, all generally tied to his gang membership and activity. The defendant appealed, inter alia, “the district court’s decision to permit two witnesses to testify against him without revealing their names or other identifying information.” I thought it was an interesting issue, so I looked into it a bit.

The two witnesses in question were police officers from El Salvador. The Government sought permission for them “to testify under pseudonyms and without revealing their dates and places of birth and home and work addresses,” arguing that the officers and their families would be endangered if it were known that they had testified. The Government submitted affidavits from the witnesses regarding the danger, and it “disclosed . . . in advance the substance of their proposed testimony,” which concerned MS-13 generally, not the defendant’s conduct specifically. The district court held an ex parte hearing and granted the Government’s motion. It also ruled that there was no Giglio impeachment information for the Government to disclose.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court’s “ruling violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, arguing that without the withheld information, he was not able to conduct independent research about the witnesses’ veracity.” The Fourth Circuit agreed that normally, “the Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant the right to question an adverse witness about identifying information, including his full name and address,” citing Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 (1968). However, it stated that identifying information may be withheld if the Government establishes an “actual threat” to the witness. The Fourth Circuit, after reviewing the affidavits filed by the witnesses, found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that an actual threat existed. It further noted that the witnesses’ testimony did not concern the defendant directly, and that the Government revealed the witnesses’ testimony to the defense in advance in order to facilitate meaningful cross examination.

I couldn’t find any North Carolina cases on point. If you know of one, please let me know. Gang cases, including MS-13 cases, are regularly tried in North Carolina’s state courts, so it seems as though the issue could come up here as well. It’s somewhat similar in principle to the idea of granting protective orders limiting discovery based on danger to a witness under G.S. 15A-908, though it seems like a more extreme measure that should be taken only in quite unusual circumstances.

Those interested in further reading might look at the law review literature. A couple of articles that caught my eye were Mirjan Damas̆ka, The Competing Visions of Fairness: The Basic Choice for International Criminal Tribunals, 36 N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 365 (2011) (“[F]ew [nations] reject anonymous witness testimony out of hand. Most of them allow the use of anonymous testimony as a means of last resort in some circumstances, provided that anonymity is the only available measure to protect the witness.”), and Joan Comparet-Cassani, Balancing the Anonymity of Threatened Witnesses Versus a Defendant’s Right of Confrontation, 39 San Diego L. Rev. 1165 (2002) (principally discussing California law).

[Mingle]

79% Of Millionaires Are Self-Made — Lessons From Those Who Built Wealth Without Inheritance

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/79-mi...wNm_ui52Aqwzu8



Most of today’s millionaires weren’t born into their wealth, research shows. Further, a second study by Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of all millionaires are self-made, meaning they did not inherit their wealth.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/28...-got-rich.html


A good explanation why the discrepancy:



https://www.ramseysolutions.com/reti...d-their-wealth

If you exclude everybody who got some inheritance the percentage lowers but it's no different than the general population.

The fact "fool.com" sells financial services might have to do with it to convince their readers they can become millionaires without really working but rather investing their money with them.

Being a millionaire isn't that special anymore. When people talk about being born into wealth, they're thinking of people with hundreds of millions or billions.

[oszkar07]

There has been a rising trend on Tik Tok recently where Eastern Euro / Balkan women are complaining about British / Western men asking to split the bills for every date while comparing it to balkan men who pays for all.

What is your opinion on Balkan dating culture especially for paying bills



"My take as a balkan 24F:

If you go out as friends, you split the bill according to who had what. No 50/50s.

If it's a date, especially early on, I do expect the guy to pay. Call me shallow, but i want to maintain a comfortable life style and not count pennies. Paying for the date is a way of showing that. And it absolutely does not have to be a gourmet restaurant, it can be just coffee or take out. In my experience it's a pretty good indicator for what up front in the relationship.

The last guy (westerner) i dated asked to split bills for stuff like pizzas, meanwhile he was spending hundreds and thousands of euro on video games, all the consoles, gaming computers etc while living like a hobo. That just shows me you dont have your priorities straight and I don't want to mom a grown ass man child. Different core values I guess. Am I generalizing? Probably. Have I ever been wrong till now? Nope"




"Bosnian girl here, firmly of the belief that men should be paying for dates. Coffee, dinner, etc. This being said, you should always have the means to be able to pay, and offer to do so.

That's not to say that we shouldn't pay for anything. Things like gifts, splitting rent if you live together, groceries if you're the one getting them, etc. should be on us. But if you're taking a girl out, you should be the one to pay.

If a woman likes you, she'll spend money on you. The guys that get it, get it, and the guys that don't ... well, it shows why this debate exists."


https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBalkans/...mes/?rdt=40051

Yeh when was I courting my wife who is Armenian I was happy to pay for dinners and outings and I knew this was normal in her culture.

With western girls i dated in past it is a mixture i paid for most date dinners i think but also had dated a couple western girls where they seem to be more accustom to split bill. Maybe because if its a first date some western women think guy paying for dinner is assuming the relationship has already progressed into
next level of courting stage.

On the other hand i have also witnessed in a group conversation at work some women recalling with laughter at how good it was in days when they were younger and went clubbing and random guys would buy them drinks all night , even though the girls had no intentions to be with them.but they were happy they could get free drinks.