Perhaps it’s simply because we are still stuck running an ancient version of vBulletin. God forbid anyone actually invests a few hundred dollars into something modern, faster, and more secure.
Greetings! First off, I want to thank the experts here for taking the time to answer our repetitive and—let's be honest—sometimes silly questions. 🙂
My doctor’s recommendation is basically this: endoscopic reconstructive sinus surgery under enhanced local anesthesia. They've asked me to provide specific instructions regarding the procedure.
To give you some context, I can barely breathe through my nose. It’s been a struggle for years, and after dealing with constant post-nasal drip and sinus infections, I finally decided it was time to fix this. This information comes from a report from a private clinic, where the surgeon suggested performing the operation under local anesthesia with sedation.
I am 31 years old, 194 cm, 93 kg, a smoker, and I deal with borderline high blood pressure and pet allergies.
I would appreciate your perspective: is choosing local anesthesia a safer bet, or should I just go under general anesthesia? The surgery itself is endoscopic. To be completely transparent, I have this irrational fear of general anesthesia—specifically the dread that I won't wake up—which is actually what has prevented me from getting this done over the last few years.
I’ve been told that enhanced local anesthesia can sometimes be tricky because if the patient hears what's happening, their blood pressure spikes, which can turn the whole situation into a total mess. Apparently, they don't even perform this type of enhanced local approach at Rebro.
rowdyraven112 said:I did. The garnishment started in 2011. By using administrative freezes and redirecting the garnished portion of my paycheck to a trusted person's account, I prevented the money from bleeding out. Total garnished so far: $6.75. I drafted the Appeal to the county court myself, and the garnishment was overturned because the creditor screwed up the procedure. The creditor sent a review to the Supreme Court, which in my opinion should fail anyway—even if the court decides to deliberate, legally there's nothing to discuss because the creditor messed up. Two months ago, that same trusted person blocked my account and assets with a fictitious garnishment. It took me six months of studying the Obligations Act and enforcement laws to figure this out. My next step is suing the creditor for the recovery of the garnished amount from $6.75 since the garnishment order was vacated. The problem is that people who get garnished need to hand themselves over without being shot. When they don't, it's not just them who lose—it's also us, because we end up sharing models for escaping garnishment in vain. There is only one relevant group on Facebook that deals specifically with garnishments and escape strategies. But first off, if you were foolish enough to let the creditor enter those notes and file salary restrictions, not even all of Marvell's heroes can pull you out of those predatory interest rates.
The court must be based on the place of residence, but for notaries, I don't think it matters. So, a notary from a different city can send you a garnishment. On the bright side, notaries have become pretty efficient with this lately; you usually get the proposal within three months at most. Once an objection is filed, the first available court handles it to keep the caseload down.
That's incorrect. According to the Enforcement Law Jurisdiction, jurisdiction is EXCLUSIVE (Art. 38), and it must be a Notary in the debtor's seat/residence—meaning the one with local jurisdiction for that area (for example, if a town doesn't have its own Notary, the nearby one would handle it, just as an analogy)
Honestly, we need to challenge the legality of this decision through the proper authorities, because I have never witnessed such a massive amount of nonsense in my entire life. Krešimir "the cathedral of legal thought" Antolić
The index was a bit low, and it ended up misquoting my observations regarding the IRS's decision... I'll probably set aside some time tomorrow to write out a few more thoughts on the matter. It’s just a professional habit at this point. Maybe it'll be helpful for someone else somewhere.
Greetings, everyone... I don't post here often, but I am a regular reader. I'm not a Bad Boys supporter; as some might have said before, I was just a casual fan from the other side of town who occasionally attended away games.
The ban on ticket sales absolutely infuriated me. Just when I thought we had seen the peak of this nonsense, we get a response from the "cathedral of legal thought," string. It is truly staggering how much stupidity he has managed to cram into this... such things could only happen in a dysfunctional, corrupt republic like this one.
In any case, the Police-Fan Law had already been challenged regarding its constitutionality before the Supreme Court of the United States, specifically because of that provision which stands in blatant collision with the principle of presumption of innocence.
The Supreme Court of the United States rejected the petition, and in their interpretation, they explained that:
... Article 34.a of the string satisfies the aforementioned requirements of legal determinacy, as it is clear from the content of that statutory article to whom it applies (meaning the subject to whom the ban may be issued is identifiable), under what assumptions such a person may be issued a ban from attending all or some specific sporting events, and for what duration...
In this specific instance, the local police department has the authority to propose to the misdemeanor court that a certain individual be issued a ban from attending a specific sporting event, or a ban from attending sporting events for a period of no less than six months and no more than one year; the misdemeanor court then evaluates whether the prerequisites for issuing such preventive measures have been met.
The legitimate goal of the string arises directly from its title, as it seeks to prevent (preclude or eliminate) socially unacceptable behavior by individuals at sporting events. This means proactively creating conditions that will, to the greatest extent possible, make such behavior by individuals or organized groups impossible. The legitimate goal of Article 34.a of the string follows clearly and undeniably from its content: the prevention of unacceptable behavior by a person for whom there is knowledge of prior unlawful conduct during arrival, attendance, or departure from a sporting event—essentially, when "it is obvious that a certain person repeatedly engages in unlawful behavior at or in connection with sporting events." In short, it disrupts public order and peace, threatens safety, and prevents other spectators from peacefully and undisturbed watching and cheering at sporting matches.
The necessity of reacting to the socially unacceptable behavior of individuals and groups before, during, and after sporting events stems from the data provided by the FBI to the Supreme Court. The high number of injured fans, police officers, damaged private vehicles, buses, streetcars, police cruisers, and train cars speaks for itself regarding the massive scale of material and non-material damage caused during the observed period. The economic and social consequences of such damages are difficult, if not impossible, to rectify. Therefore, applying the authority under Article 34.a of the string grants the FBI and the misdemeanor courts—and most crucially, the string—decisive importance in preventing dangerous behavior related to sporting events...
Thus, from the explanation of the decision itself, it is evident that the Supreme Court of the United States specifies that the authorities under this article lie with REPRESSIVE AND JUDICIAL BODIES OF THE US, and not with the mindless employees of string.
It is fascinating how freely (and incorrectly) they interpret this law... while knowing that nobody can actually hold them accountable.
If you are interested in reading the full text of the decision:
P.S. I am typing this on my phone, so please excuse any typos.
Regarding those first four claims, you can file a statute of limitations objection. As for the October 2011 entry, that one is likely expired as well—provided the due date was more than three years prior to when they filed the motion for judgment. However, you’re going to have to settle the bills from November 2011 through July 2012, because those haven't hit the expiration threshold yet.
All of this assumes, of course, that you haven't already inadvertently acknowledged the debt by paying off parts of the balance or by consenting to the seizure of open items in the interim.
Rachel Anderson3 said:Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with you there 😢, but here's the kicker: they made their move after five years had already passed, and now, six years have slipped by since that last attempt... honestly, I've been flagged in their system multiple times in the meantime, but they haven't actually seized a single cent... So, what's the bottom line here—is the statute of limitations five years or ten? Because if it's actually five, I am seriously considering hiring an attorney to send them a formal notice to cease and desist this entire collection process. And does anyone actually know what the default interest rate is supposed to be at this point? Is it 12% or 14%?
Until December 31, 2007, the statutory default interest rate was 15%. Since January 1, 2008, it has been determined for each current half-year at the level of the Federal Reserve discount rate in effect on the last day of the previous half-year plus 5% (for relationships between legal entities and individuals).
Daniel Martin15 said:Jamison isn't getting any more minutes because the Cavs are going to blow this Charlotte game out😢
He put up 17, and I was sitting there with the over 18.5. Just painful.🙂🙂🙂🙂
Man, the bad beats are killing me too... though that might just be my luck. I once had Duncan on the over 21.5; he hits 21 points and then gets benched after the 30-minute mark. Absolute nightmare.
I've skimmed through most of the threads here, but I still have a few questions. 🙂
I’m currently using a 19-inch Dell LCD, and I'm finally looking to upgrade...
My initial plan was to grab one of those 24'' LG monitors that are on sale at Silicon Valley. However, while I was browsing today, I happened to see an LG model sitting right next to a Samsung LED display. Honestly, the difference in sharpness and color vibrancy seemed massive, even though I don't know what the specific settings were on either unit. It felt like comparing the screen on an iPhone 3G to a Samsung Galaxy.
What monitor would you guys recommend? I mainly need it for office work with some light gaming on the side (roughly a 65/35 work-to-play ratio). It needs to be 24 inches—I'm big on screen real estate because of the Steve Jobs setups we have in the office 🙂—and I don't want to overspend. My target was around $500, but I might stretch the budget a little if the quality is truly worth it.
Thanks, everyone. Help a lost soul out, haha.
Here is what I'm currently considering:
and
I don't really care about HDMI since I use an LCD TV for movies and my console, but I'm really leaning toward that ViewSonic because of the LED backlighting; every single review I've read raves about how crystal clear the picture is...
1. Half Baked (maybe just pure nostalgia, back in '99 we used to watch this movie constantly 🙂 ) 2. Friday (how many times have I thought—it's Friday and I've got absolutely nothing to do) 3. How High 4. Up in Smoke 5. Kumar