Dave D

Is the desire by the complaining parties that the offending regulation be declared "unconstitutional" not considered part of the relief that is sought? Is relief only possible for the more tangible aspects: protection against prosecution, damages, etc.?

If this is a two-story unit then your neighbor could hang a min-split condenser unit high enough over the driveway. It's possible to have multiple rooms run off of a single mini-split condenser. Would the "other codes" prohibit such an installation?

I think the OP would only need to file a 1099 if the payment was made on behalf of a trade or business. If the website was not made in support of a trade or business for which the OP is responsible, would a 1099 be required? (irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/…)

There's a helpful page for bicyclists in Oklahoma: okbike.org/…. @A.fm. - I can find no requirement that bicycles keep up with traffic or that bicycles are prohibited from roads where they can't keep up. There are specific rules that must be followed when a bicycle can't keep up but no requirement that they do keep up. Some localities do have restrictions on roads where bikes can be operated but Oklahoma doesn't seem to be one of them. Those places usually have a sign indicating no bikes allowed.

@Breakskater - my point isn't about the arrest but the prosecution. The defense before taking possession of the drugs will be "it was a mistake", "it wasn't me," etc. By waiting to arrest until after the drugs are delivered then the subject is arrested in possession of a controlled substance and it eliminates some of the most common defense strategies. I can tell you in Maryland in the 1970s it was common to wait until the fraudulent prescription was filled and delivered to the subject before making the arrest.

I saw this a lot as a teenager working in a grocery store. The pharmacist would call the cops and they would mill around until the subject took possession of the drugs. I don't think it was done just to increase the sentence. Taking possession took the crime from intent to actual commission and removed the "I changed my mind" defense.

@DavidK-one of the arguments being put forth is that there is a difference between legal and political jurisdiction. Once inside the country a person is subject to the territorial and legal jurisdiction of the geography. However, if the person still has political allegiance to another country (subject to their jurisdiction) then they are not subject to the political jurisdiction of this country. Recent court cases seem to ignore such a distinction. The argument being made is that the 14th amendment applies to political and not legal jurisdiction.