You have an optometrist fetish?
The think about a northern winter is that some folks get cabin fever. When they happen to be a Northern Piper, well . . .
Don’t judge me.
Too late! 
Had a coworker who was married to an opthalmologist. So of course we’d start the work week getting coffee (right next to her desk) and recreating her weekend: “Is it better like this… or like this? This way…or this way? This? Or this?”
You forgot: “Number one or number two?”
Too kinky. I think they were strictly a “this way or this way” kind of couple.
All I know is that I want every minute of this trial on CourtTV. 
I like your link. But, immediately upon reading it, within the first paragraph, i realized I was not reading something written by a man who is within 10 light years of the Bundys.
The reason for this is that within the first couple of paragraphs he outlines his reading list and displays some signs of critical thinking and self-reflection.
Cliven Bundy and his cult cannot possibly read anything that does not support their view, they interpret everything within their narrow view and they have no ability to self-reflect.
This is why Cliven could actually think his anti-fed, ant-gov, anti-negro butt could board a plane and go to Oregon with no consequences after pointing guns at federal agents in 2014.
Let’s face it, Cliven Bundy and his ilk are absolutely crazy, not mentally ill, not curable, just the kinda folk our society needs to remove.
I am more scared of Cliven Bundy than I am of 10,000 drug users. Which, to be fair, is about as scared as I am from a flea. But, somehow, drug users end up in prison and Cliven and his ilk avoid it.
Unfortunately, it won’t be televised, but you can probably get the same effect if you run an article through text to speech software while looking at the hilarious courtroom sketches.
In the sketch artist’s defense, she explains here that she only does court work occasionally and that the preliminary hearings happen so fast that it’s difficult to do well. Her other work looks just fine, but some of these Oregon court sketches hit my funny bone.
Not anymore they don’t. I think the feds handled this rather well. Only one person was killed and that was clearly the result of his own stupidity. They waited until they had enough evidence and waited for a chance to take them all down with minimum violence.
Now let the law run its course. None of them will be mistreating cattle for a long time to come.
Assuming they’re found guilty, I’m very interested in what the actual sentences will be.
Latest news is that Cliven is to be extradited back to the [del]District[/del] State of Nevada to face his charges there.
Say, do you suppose maybe those “EAT MOR CHIKIN” cows maybe engineered this whole thing just to get Cliven to stop neglecting and mistreating them?
…
Naaahhhh.
At the federal level, no, though obviously foreign cases are generally persuasive rather than controlling authority (in theory, a pre-1777 English/Commonwealth case could be controlling). At the state level, there are now a number of statutes precluding consideration of foreign law (of any kind) because of the moronic backlash over largely imaginary Sharia courts.
[/QUOTE]
Weird. Canadian courts don’t hesitate to cite foreign law if it’s applicable. Inheritance from the Imperial tradition, I guess. The English court decisions were obviously important, and decisions from other Commonwealth countries can be persuasive, plus no hesitation in citing US law, particularly on constitutional and commercial issues.
I’d say that one cow has an IQ equal to the collective IQ’s of all the Bundy’s put together…
…but that would be unfair to the cow…
The US State laws against any reference to foreign decisions is a potential problem in my area (maritime) because in recent years there has been a (worthy) push to try to interpret international treaties with impact on commercial decisions and insurance consistently around the world so that the picture is less confusing.
Really? Canadian courts cite U.S. law? As a precedent, or just as a “Hey, here’s how the Americans handled this question when it came up” sorta way? IANAL, so I don’t know the proper legal terms - maybe “controlling” vs “advisory”? But that seems really weird to me. Why would American law, or any other foreign nation’s, apply to Canada? Some sort of acknowledgement that (at least for Commonwealth nations, plus the U.S.), our legal systems all derive from the same source?
Because at some point in the future, it might be helpful and necessary for Canadians to understand that a burrito is not a sandwich.
It’s not unusual. Since both U.S. and Canadian legal systems are based on English common law, a judge might see how a court in the U.S. resolved a question that Canada hadn’t yet dealt with. Doesn’t mean they point to it as a precedent that must be followed (yeah, “adivsory,” not “controlling” - I’m not a lawyer either so I couldn’t say). And for the same reason, American and Canadian courts frequently discuss English common law, though Americans usually don’t go past the American revolution when we broke off and started our only legal traditions.