data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4b51/e4b51d106fb9bb8cd79060155a195063f345403e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cfd2a/cfd2a1dbdaa2a4665edc5da6ca698927da8c09c6" alt=""
That could still change, a number of the victims might still die from their wounds unfortunately
That could still change, a number of the victims might still die from their wounds unfortunately
Well apparently your spelling was perfectly fine, and neither of us were aware both spelling were acceptable, so we both learned something
I didn’t realize! I thought in this context lede was the only correct spelling, I suppose I should thank Cunningham’s Law for learning something
(just fyi, it’s “buried the lede”)
I’m not a lawyer (nor married), so my understanding is limited, but if both spouses agree to divorce (with or without agreeing on the exact conditions e.g. childcare), then that would constitute a no fault divorce. It seems to get messier if one spouse doesn’t want to consent to the divorce, then the notion of fault starts appearing. And that’s where my incomplete knowledge stops, both on the letter of the law and how it is applied in practice. The judge seems to have a lot of latitude as to whether the fault, if any, leads to consequences (financial reparations are a possibility).
Authorities are investigating a possible link to drug trafficking, terrorism implies some sort of political revendication/objective which so far has not been the case