samefacts.com Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the samefacts.com

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host samefacts.com. Currently, hosted in United States and its service provider is New Dream Network LLC .

dsdaily.org.uk 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. home about botec analysis the art bubble november 18, 2018 by michael o'hare leave a comment a david hockney painting has sold for $90m , and it couldn’t happen* to a nicer guy. actually i have no idea whether hockney is nice, but he’s certainly an endlessly interesting, provocative artist with whose work i never tire of engaging. *in fact it didn’t happen to him: i think he’s doing ok, but this sale was by a speculator/collector and it didn’t put this awesome sum into the artist’s pocket. what, though, does this event mean? philip kennicott reflects on the event in wapo . he explores two questions, one right and interesting (how can a painting be worth so much money?) and the other partly wrong (is it right to spend so much on a painting when there are homeless and all the other real needs?). continue reading… filed under: art , commerce , economics , the arts how low can pot prices go? november 18, 2018 by keith humphreys @keithnhumphreys contrary to what many claim, prohibition raises drug prices enormously. conversely, legalization causes a price collapse, which in addition to increasing drug use also means that ad valorem taxes bring in less money per sale month by month. states that set cannabis taxes as a percent of price are thus not going to get the revenue they expected and indeed could end up subsidizing the marijuana industry out of the public purse. details at my latest washington post wonkblog . filed under: drug policy tagged with: marijuana legalization whitaker authority update (a semi-scoop) november 17, 2018 by stuart levine 4 comments a petition for certiorari is pending in a case captioned michaels v. whitaker . the attorneys for the petitioner, lead by thomas c. goldstein, have filed a motion in the supreme court challenging the authority of matthew whitaker to act as the attorney general. (the motion continues to reference the case as michaels v. sessions , thus not even conceding that, until the motion is granted or denied, whitaker is even the acting attorney general. goldstein is representing the state of maryland and filed maryland’s challenge to whitaker’s authority reported on here .) now, this motion was reported in the washington post at 6:48 p.m. last evening , but not only was there was no link to the motion itself, but the article even omitted the name of the case. thus, based solely on the article, one could not review the motion or even find it easily. i found the name of the case on the cnn website and was thus was able to track down the motion. why do the news media insist on not providing links to court documents that are the subject of stories they are reporting on? in any event, score this as a semi-scoop for the rbc. update mark has reminded me that i n my haste to post and thus make the motion filed in the supreme court widely available, i had failed to make it clear how the motion filed in the supreme court differed from the motion filed by in the maryland litigation . first some background on the underlying dispute and then the procedural importance of the motion filed in the supreme court yesterday. the underlying dispute arises out of two statutes that are in seeming conflict: the attorney general succession act (28 u.s.c. 508) and the more general vacancy act (5 u.s.c. 3347 et seq.) . the attorney general succession act sets forth a line of succession for the office of attorney general as follows: (a) in case of a vacancy in the office of attorney general, or of his absence or disability, the deputy attorney general may exercise all the duties of that office, and for the purpose of section 3345 of title 5 the deputy attorney general is the first assistant to the attorney general. (b) when by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, neither the attorney general nor the deputy attorney general is available to exercise the duties of the office of attorney general, the associate attorney general shall act as attorney general. the attorney general may designate the solicitor general and the assistant attorneys general, in further order of succession, to act as attorney general. all of those officers described in the attorney general succession act are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate. whitaker, at the time of his appointment as acting attorney general, had not been in an office that required the advice and consent of the senate. the vacancy act has no such “advice and consent” limitation on the person who may be appointed. the motions filed in both the maryland litigation and before the supreme court raise the same issue: did rod rosenstein, by virtue of the attorney general succession act, automatically become the acting attorney general or does whitaker’s appointment, by virtue of the succession act, make him the acting attorney general. as the motion filed in the supreme court nicely puts it: under the attorney general succession act, rod rosenstein is the acting attorney general. but under the vacancies act, matthew whitaker is the acting attorney general. only one of those can be true. those officials cannot both serve and not serve at the same time — schrodinger’s acting attorneys general. motion at 13. the procedural difference arises out of the difference between supreme court review and that of a federal district court. why is the question ripe for supreme court review? i think that the motion in the supreme court provides a full and adequate answer: from the outset, movant freely acknowledges that no characteristic of this case distinguishes it from any other in which mr. sessions was a named party. but the fact that the same issue has already arisen in multiple cases and has the potential to arise in thousands more is a feature, not a bug, of this promptly filed motion. there is a significant national interest in avoiding the prospect that every district and immigration judge in the nation could, in relatively short order, be presented with the controversy over which person to substitute as acting attorney general. often, that will not be a ministerial question, as the attorney general has numerous personal responsibilities under federal law. every day, mr. whitaker would presently be expected to take a number of significant official acts, including appointing immigration judges, authorizing national security warrants, determining not to enforce federal statutes on the ground that they are unconstitutional, approving or withdrawing regulations, and overseeing the investigation of special counsel robert mueller. see, e.g. , 28 u.s.c. §§ 510-19; 50 u.s.c. § 1804; 8 c.f.r. §§ 1003.9-1003.10; 28 c.f.r. pt. 600. if this court declines to resolve this question immediately and instead determines several months in the future that mr. whitaker’s appointment was always invalid, then “unwinding” all of those personal orders would be a fraught and disruptive exercise that could embroil the federal courts in innumerable collateral disputes. cf. 5 u.s.c. § 3348(d)(2) (actions of officials not qualified under vacancies act “may not be ratified” later). deciding this motion promptly avoids those significant difficulties. even if this court now determines that the president in fact validly appointed mr. whitaker as acting attorney general, that ruling would equally benefit the administration of justice by removing the cloud of uncertainty over the appointment and by resolving the burgeoning number of challenges to it that are otherwise likely to be filed in the lower courts. motion at 1-2. thus, we have a question that will affect thousands of cases and there’s a real necessity to resolve the issue quickly. as the motion before the supreme court puts it: leaving the question to be decided in the first instance by district courts and the courts of appeals would as a practical matter amount to nothing more than different judges “taking sides” while waiting for the issue to reach this court. motion at 3.

URL analysis for samefacts.com

http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/time-deadline-for-florida-vote-count-extended/#comments
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/the-legality-of-the-appointment-of-matthew-whitaker-dueling-memos/#comments
http://www.samefacts.com/category/art/
http://www.samefacts.com/author/daniel-harvester/
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/whitaker-authority-update-a-semi-scoop/
http://www.samefacts.com/category/economics/
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/cannabis-news-round-up-98/#respond
http://www.samefacts.com/category/everything-else/
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/cannabis-news-round-up-98/
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/certification-of-georgia-election-results-delayed/#comments
http://www.samefacts.com/2018/11/everything-else/certification-of-georgia-election-results-delayed/
http://www.samefacts.com/author/keith-humphreys/
http://www.samefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/marijuana-paint.jpg
http://www.samefacts.com/author/michael-ohare/
http://www.samefacts.com/page/2/

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: SAMEFACTS.COM
Registry Domain ID: 242550229_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2018-11-01T11:58:03Z
Creation Date: 2005-10-31T07:49:39Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-10-31T06:49:39Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 480-624-2505
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS1.DREAMHOST.COM
Name Server: NS2.DREAMHOST.COM
Name Server: NS3.DREAMHOST.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2018-11-23T22:18:18Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR GoDaddy.com, LLC

SERVERS

  SERVER com.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =samefacts.com

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME samefacts.com

  CHANGED 2018-11-01

  CREATED 2005-10-31

STATUS
clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS1.DREAMHOST.COM 64.90.62.230

  NS2.DREAMHOST.COM 208.97.182.10

  NS3.DREAMHOST.COM 66.33.205.230

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .