Free Republic

A properly drafted trust can pass the bulk of one's assets outside of probate. Jointly held property (e.g, with right of survivorship, tenets by the entireties, etc.) passes outside probate by operation of law. IRA, 401K, and life insurance proceeds pass to the designated beneficiary outside of probate. What is left can, in most jurisdictions, be “probated” by a simplified procedure that is much faster and less complex than a full/traditional probate proceeding. Typically, the court appoints an “administrator” (often the same as an executor under a will), who makes an accounting, pays debts, closes accounts, files tax returns, distributes property, and files a report with the court. The process can take a month or two, as compared to many months or even years for probating a large estate.

A significant advantage of a trust, other than avoiding/minimizing probate, is that it is (or can be drafted to be) much more difficult to contest than a will in a probate proceeding.

Another significant advantage of trusts for largish estates is their use in minimizing estate taxes by fully utilizing each spouse's unified gift/estate tax credit in the face of the unlimited marital deduction.

See a competent trust and estates lawyer. This is not an area to trust to Nolo or legalzoom.

Oh, I could NEVER fly a flag that might OFFEND someone.

His anatomy actually has features not found on the French, namely, testicles and a backbone.

Testicle (singular). One was removed for cancer.

I sometimes do follow police. That way I can legally drive 90.

What makes you think that is legal?

There is no question that stopping a car is a 4th Amendment seizure.

"Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of [the 4th Amendment]. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)." WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).

Cops have no Constitutional authority to stop a vehicle to hand out a "good driver" certificate. That doesn't mean they can't do it, or that a sheriff cannot adopt a policy to do it - they have the practical authority but not the legal authority to do so. The distinction is that, IF the stop leads to an arrest (say the cop sees drugs in the car after the stop), all evidence (the drugs) will be suppressed at trial and the state will not be able to convict. Ergo, the prosecutor will never indict on such a case.

In any event, we're discussing "facts not in evidence" (as those lawyer slime like to say :^). The reporter in the article repeatedly used the term, "pull over" a car, but the sheriff said they would follow the driver home or to a store. If a cop approaches an individual leaving a parked car and offers her a citation for good driving, no seizure has occured. I strongly suspect the reporter -- not the sheriff -- is the source of the "pulling over" language (hey, it makes for a catchy headline, no?). I find it hard to believe any competent sheriff wouldn't run this by the county attorney, and even harder to believe any competent attorney would approve such a plan.

Most likely, this story is much ado about nothing. If there is anything to it, it should be addressed (somebody call the ACLU!), but it does NOT pose any significant threat of prosecution resulting from a fishing expedition.
.

I'd be hard-pressed to name Democratic core beliefs. Can you?

Victim disarmament.

It was, but it wasn't the off-the-cuff remarks portrayed.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/glenn.htm

I'm not going to send my men out there with weapons that are going to malfunction

Are the officers of Sweetwater patrolling the streets with flintlocks? Even cheap Chinese and Eastern European firearms are as reliable as an axe with even basic cleaning and routine maintenance. The mere fact that the Brady Bunch compares guns to cars should be enough to flag the analogy as flawed -- you don't have to trade a well maintained gun for a new one every few years to have a reliable weapon. My granddaddy's handguns are every bit as reliable as any pistol new out of the box.

If Chief Fulgueira needs money to arm new officers with new weapons, he has a problem. If he "needs" to trade in existing officers' guns for new ones for "reliability" -- he's got a heck of a lot bigger problem than his budget.

> The sentence is eternal, and cannot be appealed or commuted.

Until Israel frees them in trade for hostages or soldiers' bodies...

Doh. I just caught your meaning. You're right.

The sentence is eternal, and cannot be appealed or commuted.

Until Israel frees them in trade for hostages or soldiers' bodies...

No gun control? Here are a few:

You believe the word "people" in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments to the Constitution refer to individuals, but the word "people" in the second amendment refers to the National Guard.

You would rather see a woman strangled with her own panties than "allow" her to effectively defend herself.

Handguns cause crime, which is why Washington DC, where they are illegal, is the murder capital of the nation.

The presence of guns causes crime, which is why mass shootings happen so often at police stations and military bases, but never at schools, office buildings, or postal facilities.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stated in their ruling that the "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" applies only if use of the patented invention is "solely for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry,"

And while you may claim riding around in your Jeep copy is amusing, intellectually satisfying, and philosophically enlightening, the fact remains that your copying it gets you from hither to yonder, in the uniquely Jeepish way, without paying Jeep for its inventions. In the face of such financial advantage, the high-minded claims as to motive ring a bit hollow.

The Duke case, and those cited in it, involved universities and/or businesses. AFAIK, no case is on point to the proposition you assert -- that every individual is free to infringe any patent so long as he can claim it amuses him to do so, and further claims that he would not have purchased a commercial product embodying the patented invention even if he didn't copy it. And, as I pointed out earlier, there likely never will be, since companies don't generally bring patent infringement lawsuits against individuals, and when they do, accused infringing individuals don't generally fight the lawsuit to the Federal Circuit. Hence, it is largely an academic question. The case law simply does not support or refute the broad application of the experimental use defense to individuals outside of the context of business development or the educational environment. All of the case law does, however, emphasize the narrow and limited application of the doctrine.

How many people build their own electronics, cars, and medicines? Very few.

How many people build their own woodworking jigs, or write their own software? Lots. Depending on the application, the simplicity of the invention (many of which are simply procedures), its ease of fabrication, and the cost of commercially available alternatives, unfettered copying may well render some patents moot -- a result I do not believe the "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" will be widely applied to allow.

Of course, this is really all irrelevant as it pertains to the article we're discussing.

I know, but it's an interesting question anyway...

Courts have held that "experimental users", people who duplicate a patented object for their own use and enjoyment without the intention to sell or profit from the resulting duplication, are not infringing on the patent holders ability to market and profit from his invention, and are therefore exempt from patent law.

I believe you are reading the defense of experimental use far more broadly than the case law supports, primarily by an incorrect definition of the term. The defense is strictly limited to bona fide research; it has been expressly rejected where the "research" is to adapt the patented invention to a business purpose (e.g., generic drugs), and has never to my knowledge been defined to encompass "personal use and enjoyment."

In fact, your assertion that infringement is legal for one's "own use and enjoyment without the intention to sell or profit from the resulting duplication," is not supported by your proffered justification that it is "not infringing on the patent holders ability to market and profit from his invention." Your example is illustrative: If you duplicate every detail of a Jeep (or two) in your garage, including patented parts, for your own use and enjoyment, you have very much affected the patent-holder's profits -- you've cost him one (or two) sale(s) (and please don't resort to the software pirate's lame excuse that "I would not have otherwise bought one, so no lost sale"; you're riding around the countryside in a patented invention for which the patent holder received no remuneration). I am positive such use would not be accepted as "experimental," and would not be considered a valid defense to a charge of patent infringement.

As a practical matter, an individual making one infringing copy for personal use is not likely to be sued, particularly where the infringement involves a woodworking jig rather than an automobile... but that doesn't mean the activity is legal. (And who knows, the woodworking tool makers association may take a page from the RIAA and surprize us on the enforcement front...)

If I were a hobbiest and built my own copy of this tool so that I could build myself a better gunrack for my family room, it WOULD be legal.

You could do so with impunity, but it would most definitely not be legal.

If we're talking about an invention covered by a currently active patent, like electronics hardware, the rules about selling the clone change (can't do it) but there's still nothing stopping me from building a few copies for my own personal use.

Not true.

35 U.S.C. § 271 (emphasis added):
(a) [W]hosoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention [in the U.S., or imports it], infringes the patent.