Horse DNA has been found in some beef burgers being sold in UK and Irish supermarkets, the Republic of Ireland’s food safety authority (FSAI) has said.
The FSAI said the meat came from two processing plants in Ireland, Liffey Meats and Silvercrest Foods, and the Dalepak Hambleton plant in Yorkshire.
A total of 27 products were analysed, with 10 of them containing horse DNA and 23 containing pig DNA.
Thing is, there’s probably worse things in the burgers than a little bit of horse, of course. And no one can tell if it’s horse, of course.
“Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion,” Drago told Frieman. “And so I’m finding you guilty.”
Frieman plans to appeal the ruling.
Monday morning the government filed one last motion in United States of America v. Aaron Swartz.
“Pursuant to FRCP [Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] 48(a), the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, hereby dismisses the case presently pending against Defendant Aaron Swartz. In support of this dismissal, the government states that Mr. Swartz died on January 11, 2013.”
The Aaron Swartz JSTOR liberator is a tiny bit of civil disobedience, presented to you in clicktivism form. By running this bookmarklet (which you should not do if you are not comfortable potentially violating terms of service), you will visit JSTOR, a keeper of academic articles, be presented with a random paper, and will download a single paper from the site. You will have to click a terms of service agreement agreeing to not share the document you are reading, yet you will then download it and uploaded to another server. It will also ask for a message of memorial about Aaron. We will be gathering your messages of memorial and rememberance of Aaron to put up soon.
Via SCOTUSBlog we learn that, “The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide a major case on the right to remain silent — a case testing whether that right exists for an individual who has not been arrested but is interviewed by police, and was not given Miranda warnings, when that silence was used to help prove guilt at a trial. That case — Salinas v. Texas (docket 12-246) — was one of six new cases accepted for review.” Here’s a link (pdf) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision being challenged.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged that, “The Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination is violated if the State is allowed to impeach the defendant’s testimony by using his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence.” But in Salinas they ruled that pre-arrest silence could be used for impeachment purposes.
The rationale of the decision below would allow for an even higher level of coercion. Suppose the officer continues, “Joe, you don’t have to answer my questions, but if you don’t, then that’s going to be used as evidence that you’re guilty. The prosecutor is going to stand in front of that jury and tell them that an innocent man would answer my questions. So you don’t need to talk to your lawyer, you need to answer my questions right now.”