You can’t drink all day
if you don’t start in the morning.
#SignsDrake #NowPlaying

If you go off into a far, far forest
and get very quiet
you’ll come to understand
that you’re connected
with everything.

#AlanWatts

Hui! Thank you for sending me the images of our last excursion. I finally had the opportunity to thoroughly peruse. Always capturing the best sides of me…I tell you!

 

Sometimes I look at these photos and feel like a rare, struggling missile-mouthed reptile being documented by Hui Geographic :). I hear the cameraman whispering… “Can she posthole her way out of Garibaldi before becoming a cougar’s lunch? Stay tuned!”
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to traverse these beautiful lands in your company. You are a treasure, an inspiration, and hope to a future generation of mountaineers.
Here’s to 2018!
All tents! No B&Bs!
Promise. I swear. 🙂
Pre-order Hui’s book now!

There are pulls and pushes
You could swim upstream
Or come down with me.

There are people who say they know you. And then there are people that know you. You know me! Bahahaha! #SecondBestGiftEver Ha! And yes, contrary to popular opinion, God is in the details especially in best results 🙂 I am so pleased with this in every way. I’m genuinely unable to contain my enthusiasm. It will come to great use in the proceeding months. I can assure you. 🙂

Here
in this moment
our two souls collide
as mist and morning dew.

“You were just a fresh face
with an interesting story.”

 

It is because of you that I find beauty in the most unlikely places.
It is because of you that I observe life from as many possible angles as it affords.
It is because of you that I’ve learned to tilt the lens and play with the shutter speed.
Thank you Dad. Thank you for taking the time to teach me that sometimes it requires just a slight shift in my position to see the world in a whole new light.
I love you and I miss you. Everyday.

#TheInfiniteStare #Unprepared #PainfulWithATwist #50WaysToLeaveALawyer

A few answers for next time. Thank you Wikipedia!:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Federal Rules of Evidence

The Daubert Standard: The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses‘ testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury.

In U.S. law, a motion in limine (Latin: “at the start”, literally, “on the threshold”) (Latin pronunciation: [ɪn ˈliːmɪˌne] in LEE-min-ay) is a motion, discussed outside the presence of the jury, to request that certain testimony be excluded. The motion is decided by a judge in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is frequently used at pre-trial hearings or during trial, and it can be used at both the state and federal levels.

An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law in the United States of America may (or in some cases must) apply to refuse to hear a case if hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court. Such doctrines are usually invoked where lawsuits involving the same issues are brought in two different court systems at the same time (such as federal and state courts within a federal system).

Younger abstention, named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is less permissive to the federal courts, barring them from hearing civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim in state court. For example, if an individual who was charged with drug possession under a state law believes that the search was illegal, and in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, that person may have a cause of action to sue the state for illegally searching him. However, a federal court will not hear the case until the person is convicted of the crime. The doctrine has been extended to state civil proceedings in aid of and closely related to state criminal statutes,^[2]administrative proceedings initiated by a State agency,^[3] or situations where the State has jailed a person for contempt of court.^[4] The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet undergone proceedings of substance on the merits of the federal suit.

Pullman abstention was the first “doctrine of abstention” to be announced by the Court, and is named for Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). Concisely, the doctrine holds that “the federal courts should not adjudicate the constitutionality of state enactments fairly open to interpretation until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass on them.”^[1] This doctrine permits a federal court to stay a plaintiff’s claim that a state law violates the United States Constitution until the state’s judiciary has had an opportunity to apply the law to the plaintiff’s particular case. The hope is to avoid a federal constitutional ruling by allowing the state courts to construe the law in a way that eliminates the constitutional problem or to rule it void under the state’s own constitution.