OP posts pictures of their parents and then us redditors try to photoshop the two pictures together to see what OP look's like!
The inordinate narrowness of the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, redaction of exhibits & denial of public call-in line can still be reversed (at least 2 out of 3) at this late stage: #MaximumMaxwell By Matthew Russell Lee Link to full story
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 28 – Ghislaine Maxwell, charged with sex trafficking and other charges, is nearing the end of trial that started on November 29, after the November 23 final-final pre trial conference, vlog here.
On December 28, the fourth day of jury deliberations, Judge Alison J. Nathan cited the spread of Omicron's impact on the trial going forward.
Inner City Press minutes later renewed its request for a public call-in line to the proceeds, as it provided in DDC, EDNY and by other judges in SDNY, including in criminal proceeding.
Inner City Press filed a letter for docketing and ruling on:
"Dear Judge Nathan: On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity, I have been covering the above-captioned case, and have repeatedly asked that a public call-in line be provided, in light of COVID-19 restrictions and spread. Now this morning the Court has taken note of the rapid spread of Omicron. This is the time to belatedly provide the public call-in line, for jury notes, counsel's argument, and the reading of the verdict, if and when it happens.
Yesterday Inner City Press was informed that a person who has been attending the trial in the overflow courtroom(s) and reporting to a wider audience was not allowed into the courthouse, with COVID / Omicron and social distancing being cited as the reason (according to the individual). While Inner City Press continues to inquire into this seeking to confirm or disprove it, it highlights the need for a public call-in line, to ensure a public trial.
Also on transparency, while again requesting the unsealing / unredaction in the flight logs of all but victims' / survivors' names (there is a flight in the Rodgers log from Wilmington, Delaware to New Jersey, involving non-victims, in which Inner City Press is particularly interested), this is also a request that all court exhibits, including jury notes, by docketed on PACER on the same-day basis the US Attorney's Office was supposed to operated on USAfx (but at times did not).
While appreciating that the Court docketed before denying Inner City Press' November 12 request for a call-in line, Dkt. 451, since then travel restrictions to New York have been imposed on entire countries, including some visited by Jeffrey Epstein's plane, with defendant Maxwell aboard, in their tour of Africa with former President Clinton and others. Restrictions and cases are growing in New York, but still no call-in line. By contrast, on December 17 Judge Richard J. Sullivan provided a call-in line for an in-person criminal proceeding. And yesterday EDNY had a criminal proceeding with a call-in line" -- see here.
Full Inner City Press Dec. 28 filing here.
On Sunday December 19, Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey wrote in jointly with Maxwell and her legal team stating that with regard to the closing arguments, "the public interest in viewing the parties’ presentations is marginal." Inner City Press immediately filed opposition to Judge Nathan, calling this inaccurate and insulting, and asking for unsealing (and a public call-in line). Inner City Press letter here and here.
On the morning of December 20 AUSA Alison Moe gave the government's closing argument. Inner City Press live tweeted here, podcast here, 8:30 am live stream here
Then, the defense rebuttal, live tweeted here, podcast here
On December 21, a full day of jury deliberations with requests for information, and for scheduling. Inner City Press live tweeted here, 9 am live stream here, podcast here
On December 22, a full day of deliberation with nothing from the jury until nearly 4 pm, when they asked for the testimony for Kate and Juan Alessi, and said they could not deliberate again until December 27. Inner City Press live tweeted it here, 9 am live stream here, podcast here
On December 27 mid-morning the jury returned and sent out a note, asking for office supplies, "Matt's" testimony and a definition of enticement. Inner City Press live tweeted it here, 9 am live stream here, podcast here.
On December 27 near 3 pm, the jury sent out a note asking for the testimony of Epstein pilot David Rogers. Judge Nathan told the parties she is considering telling or encouraging the jurors to deliberate longer hours and "complete the task." Inner City Press live tweeted here, 2d podcast here.
On December 27 nearing 5 pm, there was a question from the jury, and an instruction by Judge Nathan. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
Dated December 27 but docketed on December 28, Maxwell's lawyers have contested the response Judge Nathan gave to the jury. Full letter with proposed additional instruction here.
Inner City Press view: The jury question that Judge Nathan called incomprehensible was, If we find that the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight from NM, but not her flight TO NM... can we find her guilty of the 2d element of Count 4?
Since the juror had, earlier on Monday, asked to get all of pilot Dave Rodgers' testimony, it might seem they're drilling into specific flights, to and from NM, and how the law applies to each of them. But why did the SDNY prosecutors leave the case so narrow?
As my title implies, I've played around a bit while learning the ins & outs of basic retirement investing. While I feel that I have learned a lot, I also think that I've left a bit of a wake of messiness and inefficiencies.
I'm 29/M, graduate student (with funding), own a duplex which I rent out half of, as well as a rented room in my unit to subsidize my mortgage. My living situation pays for 87% of the mortgage (which includes escrowed insurance/taxes/PMI) and that's at a reduced rental rate because my first tenants are friends that continue to put up with me slowly fixing the place up. Right now I'm putting a bit more money into the building than I probably should be, as I'm more than off-setting my "income" from it, but that's a whole other thread.
Over the years I've played around with retirement savings, starting with ING direct as a 19 year old. At that point I was simply dividing my contributions into a Traditional IRA account, and a ROTH IRA and messing around with CDs and their fantastic interest rates on just regular savings accounts (at the time).
I wanted to learn a bit more about investing a few years later, so I transferred my Trad. & ROTH IRAs to USAA which I was just starting to use for checking/insurance. (Another reason to thank grandpa for his military service) At this point I was also realizing that my first foray into investing with a USAA brokerage account was foolish as I wasn't even fully funding my IRA savings (I did learn how quickly things can rise and fall however!).
Over the years I made some stupid decisions, and some good decisions. One of the better decisions (with my lower income) was to put money towards my ROTH and stop funding the Traditional.
I'm hoping that folks can give me some constructive advice, and that this may serve as a good example of things to do and not to do for those just starting.
Anyway, enough talk - here are my numbers currently: USAA ROTH IRA
USAA Trad. IRA
- Stocks: $3,350 (overall gain of $830) 6 different companies, most of whom I'm happy to gamble with (with an eye to the longer term future) - slight emotional attachment to solar companies and tesla. One very dumb purchase of some JC Penney shares because I read some stupid investing blog one day - a very good learning experience about trying to time the market that now shows a loss of about $350.
- Mutual Funds: $7,850 (overall gain of $460) this includes about $4k in VFINX my most recent investing, and $1.3k in URFFX, USAA's 2050 retirement fund
Vangaurd SIMPLE IRA
- Stock: $840 (just some shares of GE with a gain of $240)
- Mutual Funds: $1,400 (gain of $300) USEMX and USMIX. I was just kind of wildly stabbing at what I thought was a good idea at the time.
which I contributed to through a former employer (2012-2013)
- Entirety of $1,840 in VFIFX (Vanguard's 2050 retirement fund) with a gain of about $540
So my current understanding is that I should probably transfer my IRAs to corresponding IRA accounts at Vanguard, so that I can lower my expense ratios. I think
to do this I would need to sell through USAA, setup a new account with Vanguard (which I hope is easy since I already have a SIMPLE IRA with them) and then transfer over. At that point, it seems like it would be good for me to stop "diversifying" so goddamn much, because I don't currently have a good handle on my allocation, and I seem to be overlapping asset classes from different purchases with target date funds that are automatically doing their own allocations. I'm thinking I should consolidate in the direction of VFINX as I won't be retiring anytime soon and am comfortable with some risk.
My current USAA IRA accounts fall into this allocation: http://imgur.com/kioQjfF
While a total unrealized gain of over 10% looks good, I know that it was just because I actively contributed throughout the recession, and the market came back. I think that if I had gone with a more Boglehead approach at that time I would have seen a much greater return. Wasn't the rebound something like a 30% gain?
Anyhow, I know I've made mistakes in the past (USAFX precious metals & minerals fund, I'm looking at you), but I think I'm headed in the right direction.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Future lessons to avoid learning this way?