![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:25 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
GT3RS?
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:15 |
|
Ahh, the extremely rare Carjackme Red!
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:19 |
|
Aaaaaaah!!!! I’m hyperventilating! I would be giddy if I were in your place.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:22 |
|
Why is there a park bench on the trunk?
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:22 |
|
That it is.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:24 |
|
The RS stands for “Really Sexy”
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:29 |
|
It’s table, get it right
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:31 |
|
Fancy Porsches parked in the streets
White people using the sidewalks
High walls on the fancy houses with outside surveillance
Are you in...
FancyColonia,AnycountryLatinAmerica
Las Lomas?
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:33 |
|
It includes the “left on bricks” easy off rims too!
![]() 02/26/2018 at 10:34 |
|
The Porsche is fancier, probably one of those power adjustable types, like an ergonomic workstation.
Nice pic, reminds me of little kids in shopping carts, which might not be far off the demographic for the winged set.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 11:30 |
|
Knowing how rare this is over here makes me much more excited.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:27 |
|
Yes, this is in fact, fancy european neighborhood in the middle of a poor latin american country! My building is just around the corner, this particular area is famous for New Age Homeopathic Schools for special children with funny names like Valentina Adrea Von Osterreich the III.
Hey, can you help me with something?
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:28 |
|
em, depends what it is...
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:32 |
|
See I met this Nigerian Prince, and he needs a bit of money....
Nah, can you help me understand something in spanish?
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:34 |
|
Sure... Just keep in mind Mexican slang is quite different to some Spanish slangs in South America (you’d be surprised what Venezuelans think “marica” means compare to what we think)
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:35 |
|
That’s so you can nap on the shade Porsche will throw at you if you sell it.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:35 |
|
Also, not armored, that was a surprise.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:39 |
|
Marica here in Brazil is kinda of a derogatory term, like “Pussy” in english or “Sissy” for a Cowardly individual.
It’s more of a technical translation, I have a client meeting about the environmental responsability of financers and banks. A great part of it is this new decision from Argentina, but I can’t understand it that well. Think you could help? I just want a general idea of what it’s about.
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:50 |
|
I mean, I will help to the best ofmy abilites... It’s okay!
However, being a law case, I think if would be adequate to forward the documents to an official translator too. I know they cost a fortune and it’s a pain in the ass, but in the eyes of the judge it could make a difference.
At least here in Mexico any foreign documents presented to the government are “triplicados y traducción profesional, por favor!”
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:54 |
|
To the Venezuelans its like saying “dude”
![]() 02/26/2018 at 17:57 |
|
Ah sure, the firm would probably cover that on all official matters and cases, this is just a breakfast with potential clients (paper industry, plastic, etc and bankers) to inform them that of current news and stuff. Simple stuff, not gonna write anything, just talk to them.
But here ya go: http://www.scba.gov.ar/falloscompl/SCBA/Inter/2013/12-11/Q71817.doc
![]() 02/26/2018 at 19:33 |
|
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL... AND I COULD BE WILDLY WRONG!
This case was a certiorari from a lower court decision in which, in a 4-1 ruling, they agree to overturn the lower court decision on the argument that the case against the paper factory wasn’t argued correctly or well founded. I honestly can’t tell alright what they’re arguing about if it is the actual charging of the company as guilty or if it’s more about the fines being uncommonly high.
However, the only dissenter explains that the supreme court shouldn’t be reviewing this in the first place, despite agreeing on their overturning.
My legalese is kind of rusty, but this case seems to be an inappropriate basis for an investigation because it doesn’t have the original study by the National University attached to it or the arguments used by the plaintiff to their full extent (only mentioned once) and that dissent looks more like a stab at limiting language than an honest dissent. Whenever judges want to use limiting language it’s because they don’t want a case to end up turning into precedent, meaning that it might end up having some nefarious purposes.
I smell shit here... but I don’t want to get too excited about possible collusion between judges and the company without access to the original lower court ruling and the study itself.
The case is very hard to read because it is devoid of context and it’s mostly them saying “We agree with provision X despite the provision Y”
![]() 02/27/2018 at 15:22 |
|
Huh, not sure that is such a great example to use than. But thanks! You kept me from making a fool of myself in front of potential clients.