My mistake, the original article suggested Christie could not take control:
But a big reason that Christie hit Camden's police unions so hard was simply that he could. He'd wanted to go after New Jersey urban schools...But a series of state Supreme Court rulings...
A judge can overrule your right to free speech? By limiting that reference to free speech? Hmmm.... For amendments to constitution I think the closest workaround they get is...
Circumventing the 5th amendment by granting immunity then imposing contempt of court.
The judge can rule that freedom of speech is not at issue. There are many well-settled instances in American case law where one's right to freedom of speech may be constrained (usually because it conflicts with the rights of others).
E.g. in this case the accusation is that Olson vandalized BoA for 6 months, causing the bank to have to continually pay to have the chalk cleaned off and risking further property damage.
Olson has a free speech right to protest, but that does not mean that he can unilaterally choose means that infringe on the rights of others.
You are right that foreclosing the issue may make great grounds for an appeal though, it's possible an appeal court could rule that the First Amendment is relevant and cause the case to be re-tried.
His right to free speech does not change whether or not he committed the crime according to the law (unless the law specifically refers to the right to free speech), so it is a separate issue from what is argued at the initial trial.
If his right to free speech is indeed being violated by applying the law, then modern legal practice does not consider this to be an issue for the jury itself to consider (it is considered in a separate manner, by the judge and by appeal).
Without taking a stance on this particular case, it is worth noting that a court room during a trial is a very unusual place with regard to 'free speech'. An abolutist view of free speech rights would render a courtroom uncontrollable and so there are rules and procedures that are very specific to the circumstances of a trial. A similar observation could be made with respect to legislative assemblies, for example.
In both circumstances, participants must follow the speaking rules or be subject to penalties of various sorts (contempt of court, censure, etc).
Attempting to utilize 1st amendment rights in order to bypass those procedures seems like the wrong approach. A more logical avenue might be appeal based on the 6th Amendment right to a fair trial and/or due process arguments.
(I'll assume you're asking about my business) I don't really know what you mean with warehouse shipping, but i don't really have a Store, only a little showroom, if that's what you're asking for. I'll be shipping everything from my own warehouse once i enter the products to Chile.
Anyways, i don't think Internet can be the core of my business (because of client profiles and the type of products). I still think most of my time will go to direct sales, but it would be nice to get a little edge using Internet.
Administrative overhead and float are 2 off the top of my head.
Automation makes the first one easier, but unless it's all automated it may still be a headache. Having to send out disbursements once a month is a lot less overhead.
In my business float is the big one - we pay our contractors at completion of work, which means if our clients pay us when they receive the goods, we’ve got to come up with the money to pay the workers before we’d gotten paid. This can get quite painful quickly, and meant in the early days we’d have to turn down large orders because we didn’t have enough float to pay the workers.
