as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

Hee!! Go Pack!!

On the bright side, I really don't think Tice will be back next year.

New Jersey has basketball and hockey, but that's all.

Sorry, I have to mock as a Vikings fan, and as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

I'm a Vikings fan too, and I'm treading pretty lightly on the mock front these days, considering how horrible our team is when the other team shows up.

ETA:

On the bright side, I really don't think Tice will be back next year.

I don't blame the coach, and he did just get his contract renewed. The O-line needs to be able to run block, and the linebacking corps needs, uh, replaced. Then we'll be respectable.

In the A's and Raiders you have two teams who (a) are proud to be in Oakland and (b) have won multiple world championships.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, you mean.

New Jersey has basketball and hockey, but that's all.

And apparently the Nets are moving to Brooklyn.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles, you mean.

Yep. And frankly I wish they'd stayed, because they totally fucked up the Oakland Coliseum when they came back. It was never a great place to watch baseball, but now that it's enclosed it really sucks.

Huh. I thought spousal privilege meant that you weren't forced to testify against your spouse, not that you weren't allowed to.

Maryland makes a distinction between marital communications privilege and spousal privilege. This is the way I understand it:

Marital communications privilege means if one spouse tells the other something in confidence during their marriage the "hearing" spouse is prohibited from testifying about the contents of the conversation even if the parties are no longer married. This privilege is held by the "speaking" spouse - and the theory is - he or she had an expectation of privacy when he or she communicated said information to his/her spouse. Similar to the expectation one has when communicated with one's attorney and similary it is the client who holds the privilege. The "hearing" spouse may testify about activities (that were not communications) or conversations that were not private.

Spousal privilege means that a spouse cannot be forced to testify about his/her spouse - both conversations and activities. The theory is - the government shouldn't intrude on the relationship. This privilege is held by the spouse being called to testify and he/she may choose to waive it at his/her discretion. This privilege does not apply if the couple is no longer married so ex-husbands/ex-wives can be forced to testify against their exes (with the exception of private marital communications for which the privilege is held by the ex.)

Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.

Except for the years where the Raiders moved to Los Angeles

They did? Now I don't feel like such a doof for having LA Raiders in my head as a team name.

They have already re-signed Tice, he will be back.

I just love how next weekend will either compound my season pain in gut-wrenching fashion (by losing to the Packers AGAIN) or possibly make all the pain go away entirely by kicking the Packers out of the post season triumphantly. I don't care what else happens in the post season if they acheive that.

But I'm not confident, to say the least.

Sorry, I have to mock as a Vikings fan, and as a Vikings fan, I don’t have a lot else to be happy about.

I understand. You have Randy "He Who Leaves the Game Early" Moss playing for the Minnesota "We Back INTO the Playoffs" Vikings. You are suffering.

Narrator, where is the line around spousal privilege? In other words, although Jackson's ex-wife might not be able to testify against him in court, can police listen to what she has to say, and act on any tips she can provide? If they do, and come up with evidence because of that, would the evidence be admissible in court, even if the tip from her wasn't?

It should be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and thus not admissible. Basically, if the police got information from the wife about communications MJ had with her during the marriage, then they can't use it. For example, if MJ told her where he hid child porn of the boys who visited Neverland, she can't disclose that. If she does and the police find the pictures, they pictures are not admissible againt MJ. UNLESS (in many jurisdictions) if the police can prove that they would have found the pictures independently of that tainted information. If the hiding place was MJ's computer, they would have found them anyway. If the hiding place was somewhere buried on the grounds, maybe not.