Calendar

February 2017
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 << <Jul 2017> >>
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Announce

Who's Online?

Member: 0
Visitor: 1

rss Syndication

Posts sent in: February 2017

07 Feb 2017 
While some of these situations are actually committing DUI, what about the others where it seemingly does not make sense, especially if it seems like the responsible thing to do? The answer lies in the elements that the prosecution uses in proving DUI:



They have to be under the influence of alcohol or another substance;

Their driving ability has been affected enough to be considered dangerous, or their BAC (from blood, breath, and urine tests) has reached or exceeded 0.08%;

They were driving or have actual physical control of a vehicle motor vehicle

The third element, actual physical control, is interpreted differently by each state. Usually, the dui consequences defendant has to be driving a vehicle, which is proven if the police or a witness has seen them, but other states include having "in physical control" of a vehicle, but what does that mean?



Per NRS 484C.110, actual physical control means that it does not matter that they were not driving the car as long as they still have the ability to drive, even if they have no intention of doing so. Exact definitions for actual physical control varies, but a notable case (Rogers v. State) has outlined the following factors that constitute if a person has actual physical control of the car:

If the vehicle's engine was running or not. Even if you were just using it for the air conditioner, the court reasons that you can start driving at any time.

How warm the engine is, which shows that the vehicle was running earlier.

The location of the keys. The worse thing that could happen is the police finding you with the keys in the ignition.

The defendant's position in the vehicle. The size of the vehicle also plays a part in this, which is particularly important for large vehicles or vehicles with sleeping areas like campers.

Where the vehicle is parked. The reason behind this is that, if the person was apprehended at the side of the road where they were parked, and the BAC results show that they exceed the limit, then it stands to reason that they have driven there while drinking.

Are the vehicle's headlights on? This is especially important if the defendant was apprehended during the night.

Were they trying to move the vehicle, aside from driving it? The reasoning behind this is they are still "controlling" the vehicle if for example, they were pushing it around. This can actually be more dangerous than if they were behind the wheel.

Is the property that the vehicle is located on is public or private? There's less of an offense if they were allegedly driving (or not driving) in their own private property.

Does the defendant own the vehicle?

Do they have any passengers or other potential driver? Sometimes the police are convinced that the "drunk one" was driving, even if it was their sober friend was actually the driver. Erratic driving or reports might be the reasoning for their suspicion.

Adding to the complication is the fact that each case is different. The best way to avoid this problem in the first place is to get as far away from your vehicle as possible whenever you are intoxicated and get a taxi, a designated driver, or a friend to take you home. Even if it's inconvenient or costly for you, it's a small price to pay than fighting the case in court. If it still happened and you dui drysuits were charged with DUI, the only thing you can do now is to contact a DUI defense attorney and fight your case for you. They are all too familiar with cases like this, and they know the best ways to argue the case in your favor.
Admin · No views · Leave a comment
06 Feb 2017 
Want to own a little piece of heaven? It's yours, starting at $19.99 an acre--on the moon. If you prefer, you can buy property on Venus or Mercury.



Mercury is nice this time of year. The temperature tops 700 degrees but they say it's a dry heat.

If that's still too close to the hustle and bustle of Earth, there's Mars--33.9 million miles from Times Square. A deed, with your name on it, to a prime-view one acre lot on Mars will set you back $22.49, plus tax, plus shipping (not from Mars) and handling.

The man selling these lots is Dennis Hope, founder and owner of Lunar Embassy Corp of Gardnerville, Nev., which claims to hold the property rights to several heavenly bodies. How many? "Nine altogether," says Hope brightly. "When we started, Pluto was still considered a planet."

That was 1968. At the time, Hope was unemployed, hadn't worked for a year, was getting divorced and lived in San Francisco. Things looked bad. He remembers thinking that if only he only had property, things might be better. "Then I saw the moon," he recalls. "I thought, there's a lot of property up there."

He discovered that little stood between him and ownership--hardly more than stood between proud Cortez and, say, and Mexico, once the intrepid Spaniard had taken a shine to it.

Hope consulted what was--and is--the governing document of outer space, the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the shortsale Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," known for short as the Outer Space Treaty.

While the Treaty explicitly forbids the nations of Earth from making territorial claims on how long does a short sale take other planets, it does not address what claims might legally be made by private companies--a possibility not imagined in 1968.

Hope asked three lawyers whether or not he could assert development rights to the moon.

Two told him they didn't know. The third said, "Oh, sure, why not?" Hope was off and running. He has never received, he says, a challenge to his right to sell space real estate from any terrestrial government.

From peddling moon acreage, Hope branched out to the other properties in his nine-planet portfolio.

It's the moon that's been his biggest seller to date. Why? "You can look at it," he points out. "It's all view property." Still, by his own estimate, he has sold only about 7.5 percent of the moon so far--"600 million and 11 acres." That compares to his having sold just 325 million acres of Mars.

Planetary properties he has sold range in size from a single acre, on up to nation-sized parcels. The buyers of the biggest parcels, he claims, have included 1,800 corporations, including two leading U.S. hotel chains. "The very biggest property we've sold was 2.66 million acres. We sold that for $45,000. Today, that same parcel could run you $2.66 million."

Hope has drafted a lunar constitution. As the moon's representative, he says, he has established relations with some 30 earthly nations. He has issued a lunar currency and has made overtures for the moon to join the International Monetary Fund.

As Hope's website makes clear, he is far from being an unscrupulous salesman. There are things--23 of them, to be precise--he will not sell, for any price.

These include, on the moon, the Apollo landing sites.

On Mars, sites not for sale and off limits are addressed under the Frequently Asked Questions portion of Hope's website, which asks:

"Can I Buy The Face on Mars?"



The property referred to is a topographical feature photographed by NASA. Early images of the parcel showed what appeared to be a giant rock formation in the shape of a human face, with pyramid-shaped structures nearby it. One faction of space enthusiasts has argued that these features are the work of intelligent life. NASA's position is that the face and the pyramids are illusions cast by shadow.

Explains Hope's website:

"Unfortunately, certain places on Mars are not for sale because we firmly believe that they should remain for the good of all Mankind. This includes the famous "Face on Mars," as well as the "Pyramids on Mars." It would be irresponsible of the Lunar Embassy to sell these historic areas of general interest."
Admin · No views · Leave a comment