First comes the discovery phase where both sides exchange evidence and the court settles any evidentiary questions. This phase can frequently take longer than the trial itself.
charonn0
joined 1 year ago
This is a civil case.
My headcanon is that the ban on genetic engineering is mostly an Earth law, rather than a Federation law. Which makes sense if the reason for the law is Earth's experience with augments, as Phlox points out that other species have used it without the same dire consequences. This jives with the fact that only humans living on Earth are ever depicted as being bound by the law. It's not a perfect theory, but it does explain why Bashir's father was imprisoned but the Darwin station researchers were not.
I took the ASVAB way back in the 90's. IIRC it was mandatory then too.
From his war memoir Crusade in Europe:
The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.
I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that 'the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.'
Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.
Welfare and Institutions Code 8255.
But it's beside the point if the problem is with getting them to accept services in the first place.
Housing First has been the policy in San Francisco since 2008, and state-wide since 2016.
Most shelters do in fact allow people to bring their belongings with them (within reason). Some even provide storage space, and the city provides a free self-storage facility.
Prop F addresses CAAP (cash welfare), not housing. You don't have to be receiving CAAP to qualify for housing assistance, and you don't have to be homeless to qualify for CAAP.
SF has been struggling with a chronic homelessness problem for decades. Offering voluntary services does not work. To put in in Trek terms, the problem isn't the gimmes, it's the ghosts and dims. Gimmes are easy to help because they can act on their own behalf and in their own best interests. They accept services and don't end up being chronically homeless. The ghosts and the dims, on the other hand, are a different story.
Is sweeping their encampments an ideal solution? No, far from it. But what else is there for us to do? Let them languish on the streets? Honestly, what would you have us do?
I can't think of any.
Certification of homeless status from the city (already acquired if they were referred to us) and proof of income (if any).
No it's not. There's no bail, for example, and no plea bargaining in civil cases; jail time isn't on the table, the district attorney isn't involved, the standard of evidence is lower, and the rules of procedure are different.