If there is I haven't seen it in like 5 years.

It's not "allegedly" when he is the one making the claim, is it?

Here's the thing. "Annotated" laws should be entitled to copyright, because the editors select cases and snippets from cases that illustrate the application of the law and even characterize the cases and their meaning in their own "creative" way. It's like Westlaw headnotes.

The thing about this case, however, is that Georgia chose to call the "Annotated" code published by Lexis the "official" code, which is just stupid. You cannot, in Georgia or elsewhere, cite to an "annotation" as binding legal authority (though, of course, you can cite the cases that appear in the annotations, if appropriate).

They likely chose the "annotated" version published by Lexis as "official" because Lexis triple checks that the text of the laws themselves is accurate, publishes hard copy books, and probably doesn't publish a non-annotated version.

I mean I'm sure there is the official text of the US code, and I get the US Code (i.e., federal laws) as part of my Westlaw subscription, but when I need to look up a law or rule of civil procedure, I almost always just google it, which brings up the text from https://www.law.cornell.edu/, which is what I read and cite as appropriate.

Now, I just checked https://www.law.cornell.edu/ for Georgia laws, which leads to https://www.law.cornell.edu/states/georgia, and when one clicks on Georgia statutes it brings you to https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/, which contains Georgia's laws, for free.

So, while there is some stupidity here, I think this article will "fool" much of the public about what's actually going on.

Is your concern the Trump-like misuse of quotes?

Just wait until Trump hears about the semicolon.

No, if I say I have a two plus two account, then it doesn't make sense to say that I allegedly have a two plus two account.

Well that is not allegedly because you're clearly posting on your TwoPlusTwo account for all to see.

But like if I say I have a 12-inch dick, then it's perfectly fair for you to say "ATC allegedly has a huge dick," even though I am the one alleging such a thing about myself, because I haven't proven it to be so.

You know what they say about extraordinary claims, right?

Sincerely no I don't. What?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or something similar.

Meaning, if I make a mundane claim, like that I have a twitter account, it likely doesn't need a lot of proof to believe. But if I claim that, say, my penis is twice the length of the average penis, well, that would require some evidence, but it's still not outside the realm of possibility.

Dick pics or gtfo.

Yeah, but when you're the FBI chief, and you say you have a secret account, there might be some levels involved there where you actually have no account, but you want to see who tries to find you, something like that.

In general, it seems fair to use "allegedly" when anyone says "I have a secret X," and doesn't show you X.

Noted alt-right IP thief Palmer Lucky has left Facebook. No clue if it was a mutual break up or if he got the stank boot for being a thieving fascist.

Edit

It wouldn't be secret if he showed it to people, would it?

Well, this is one funding strategy for universities.

"A federal bankruptcy judge last week awarded $45 million in punitive damages and more than $1 million in actual damages to a Sacramento-area couple whose home was wrongfully foreclosed upon. At the same time, the judge directed the bulk of the punitive damages to go to the five law schools housed at University of California campuses as well as a pair of consumer rights legal organizations."

http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1...607&curindex=2

It would be their secret.

This. Journalism at its crappiest.

Don't you think it would be an incredibly not-manly play to just bet/call with that hand?

Well i'll be honest and say that i didn't even see the straight flush and thought i had the 2nd nuts. On the flop, i figure he has either a flush draw or a pocket pair, both of which raise always, or total air trying to push me off overcards. Smaller chance he's fast-playing a 3 but that's a cool scenario too imo.

When he raises the turn i just figured he hit his flush. At this point there's not that much for me to think about as he obviously likes his hand and isn't bluffing or folding. I'll just bet/raise whenever it's my turn.

The raise on the river told me it was not a flush, and has to be 35, 55, or 33, with a small chance of something dumb like A. Maybe kidd's right and that's a dumb 3-bet. Bet/call feels too weak and i'm not even close to good enough to 3/fold.

That's not really the issue though. Why is the law copyrighted? Should the actual content of the law be freely publishable by anyone who chooses to do so? Lexis/nexis sells hard coded copies of Georgia State Law. So they have a financial agreement with the state.

If you were to cite an entire law here in a post you would be violating copyright. And would potentially face action by Georgia. Which is dumb.

55 either raise/fold or check/folds on the flop, and 35 doesn't even make it to the flop(ditto for 83 and 32). You're right to not fear the straight flush(46s is not part of his range), but you get shown quads at showdown there way more than a worse boat, and an acehigh flush doesn't raise the river on a paired board against the kind of strength you've shown very often. Like Kidd said, you told him on the turn that you either made your flush or aren't scared of the flush, and he told you the same. So start making ranges at that point. 55 and Axh are in there, but every other hand is terrified of you by the river.

I prefer bet/call to 3/fold because of the idiot factor where he could have anything, you aren't getting any better hands to fold, etc., but 3/call is a leak.

55 is a good raise on the flop if you're the button, so he can for sure have that hand. Folding 55 would be pretty bad for one bet because you're ahead a lot. Like seriously you probably have like 25% equity. Getting rid of the blinds is huge for 55 and a big part of hero's range is unpaired big cards. Raising with 55 is much better than raising with Ah4h which really isn't very good. You potentially clean up your ace and four outs but it's pretty nice to have the blinds put in money with random over cards when you have the nut flush draw.

I'm definitely not advocating a 3bet/fold against anyone who does weird stuff sometimes. And you beat one hand that he might actually be raising for value, 55. I don't think it's a dumb 3 bet but I think bet call is what I'd do.

edit: no one raise/folds with 55 on the flop, you're getting close to correct implied odds to spike your five on the turn

edit2: 6h4h is discounted a bit but is for sure part of his range. People get bored playing live poker and you see many many many worse pre flop plays than cold calling 64s on the button for two bets, which is basically not too bad.

But I'm an elite zeroth level player and would have seen the straight flush immediately.

Again, that's not the case here. An annotated statute looks like this:

Civil Code sec. 1125
(a) blah, blah, blah
(b) unless, if blah, blah, then blah, blah
(c) however....

_____
[Begin Annotations]
In Humpty v. Dumpty, (1956) 115 GA.2d 1135, the Georgia Supreme Court found that when 1125(a) applies in insurance coverage matters, then the court looks to the intent of the parties...

(50 more squibs from cases discussing the statute.)
...
[end annotations]

These annotations are the result of legal research and analysis by Lexis employees and, unlike the statute itself, are not citeable to courts as binding authority.

Thing is, Lexis is much better at publishing laws than the State of Georgia, so they go the contract. Lexis makes the text of the laws available for free, but not the annotations. While the "annotated statutes" is the "official" reporter of GA statutes, the freely available text of the laws themselves, sans annotations, would be regarded as just as "official" as the text of the laws found in the "official" not-free Annotated Statutes.

In other words, this is the law (which is free):



And these are a few of the 3,869 annotations referencing decisions that interpret or apply the law (note: this is a highly cited law). These annotations are not free (though they would be available for free at public law libraries).



(Note: as you can see, it's all just "balls and strikes," no interpretation going on by judges, so their personal politics or biases don't matter....)

Jesus Chocolate Christ. Limit poker and legalese. Tweet all this **** to the Trump's America thread asap.

The thinking on the A4 flop raise is that the flop probably missed me so he'll represent a small pair or an 8 and try to push me off my hand. If I end up having an overpair (which my 3-bet says i do) then he still has his (probably 12) outs. He can move me off of a lot of AJ, KQ, or 77 hands. He can also find out if one of the blinds has a 3. If he can get one of the blinds to fold an 8 AND get me to fold AQ on the turn then that's just awesome. He could also take a free card depending on the turn.

People do this brake check crap all the time and it felt good to be able to just floor it.

fwiw I think he should absolutely raise the flop if he has a 3 but almost nobody does.