濮阳东方医院看男科收费很低濮阳东方看妇科口碑放心很好,濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿口碑很高,濮阳东方男科医院价格低,濮阳东方医院男科很便宜,濮阳东方医院男科看阳痿价格非常低,濮阳东方医院妇科非常好,濮阳东方妇科口碑好很放心

VISTA, Calif. (KGTV) – A group of teenage girls attempted to set a trap for a 32-year-old man who tried to meet one of them for sex, according to San Diego County sheriff’s officials. According to sheriff’s officials, deputies responded to a reported kidnapping at 1385 East Vista Way in Vista around 2:30 p.m. Sunday. A group of juveniles told responding deputies they used a social media app to contact “an older man who was looking for underaged girls to have sex with. The group hoped to expose the male and turn over the information to law enforcement agencies for prosecution.” Sheriff’s officials said the group made contact with Robert Dreyfus on the app and exchanged text messages. A meeting location was established at a shopping center at 1385 East Vista Way. Officials said that “Dreyfus arrived and convinced the 17-year-old victim to get into his vehicle to talk,” but he then drove away with the girl without consent. According to officials, the girl was able to message her friends for help, and they contacted authorities. Deputies made contact with Dreyfus, and he stopped his vehicle near the 2000 block of East Vista Way. The girl got out of his vehicle and was not hurt, officials said. Dreyfus was arrested by responding deputies and booked into Vista jail on suspicion of kidnapping, sending harmful matter to a minor and communication with a minor for specific offenses. Online, hundreds of groups that set up stings, hoping to expose child predators. “This was really dangerous and something that’s best left to professionals in law enforcement,” said criminal defense attorney Jan Ronis. Ronis said the teens’ actions could complicate the criminal case. “Normally, law enforcement runs these operations. The solicitation is recorded. The coversations, the meeting places are surveilled. This is a bunch of kids.” Dreyfus’ bail was set at 5,000, according to the San Diego County Sheriff's Department's inmate information. He’s due to appear in court next week. 1998

VISTA, Calif. (KGTV) - Several North County residents want their money back from a failed Tiny Home community.  Vista resident Greg Dutton said he and a handful of others simply want their ,000 investments back from Janet Ashforth, the brains behind Habitats Tiny Homes, which was planned for a plot of land between Escondido and Poway.“Sounded like a great idea,” said Dutton.  “A whole bunch of tiny homes.  Community garden.  Community clubhouse.”His excitement turned to frustration when he didn’t like the property Ashforth secured.“Really hard to get to.  Hardly any access roads,” he said.Dutton said Ashforth promised to refund his money if he didn’t like the property. However, Dutton requested the refund after Ashforth went into escrow for the property. He showed an email apparently from Ashforth saying he was too late to ask for the refund but she’d return the money anyway.Dutton still hasn’t received his refund. He and several other investors have filed claims at the Courthouse in Vista.10News spoke with Ashforth by phone. She said the project failed “when 30 people didn’t follow through and now they’re expecting their money back.”  She explained none of her investors ordered their tiny homes or took the next steps to keep the project alive.She argued, “The receipt clearly says you can get your deposit back until we open escrow on the property.”  Ashforth said Dutton requested after escrow opened.“I apologize,” she continued. “However, you should take responsibility for the receipt. I don’t have the money to give back because it was invested in the 0,000 property we’re now trying to sell.”Ashforth said she’ll gladly appear in court but admits the money is wrapped up in an empty plot of land. 1826

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired — kill off the Affordable Care Act. That includes its key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans. The justices met a week after the election and remotely in the midst of a pandemic that has closed their majestic courtroom to hear the highest-profile case of the term so far. They took on the latest Republican challenge to the law known as “Obamacare,” with three appointees of President Donald Trump, an avowed foe of the health care law, among them.But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional.“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said.Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said.Tuesday’s arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask.“I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court. 2495

VISTA (CNS) - Murder and child cruelty charges were filed Friday against a man accused of killing his 7-year-old daughter at the family's Oceanside home.Pedro Araujo, 27, is accused in Wednesday's slaying of Mariah Araujo, whose body was found in the home's bathroom.Police have not commented on her cause of death, but the criminal complaint indicates that a knife was used in her killing. In addition to murder, he's also charged with child cruelty in regards to Mariah, as well her 6-year-old sister, Viviana, who was also in the home at the time.RELATED: 7-year-old found dead in Oceanside home, father arrestedAraujo was slated to appear in a Vista courtroom Friday afternoon, but did not appear because he was being held in "enhanced observation housing," though court staff did not elaborate. He's tentatively due to be arraigned Monday afternoon.The child's grandmother made an emergency call shortly after 11 a.m. to report that she had just gone the family's house in the 3500 block of Las Vegas Drive to pick up Mariah and her sister but had been unable to find the older girl, police spokesman Tom Bussey said.The woman reported that her son -- the girls' father -- had been evasive about the whereabouts of his elder daughter and had blood on him, Bussey said.Officers went to the residence near Emerald Isle Golf Course and searched it, finding the victim's body in a bathroom. Detectives questioned Araujo and took him into custody on suspicion of murdering his daughter, Bussey said.Members of the girl's family gathered at the Vista courthouse Friday and told reporters that Araujo was unstable and should not have been anywhere near his daughters.Karina Avina, Mariah's aunt, said Araujo's mother had custody of the children as numerous CPS cases were open and ongoing against him, though the circumstances of those cases was unclear."We want him to pay the max. That's what we want," Avina said. "We don't want a few years. We don't want him to get out. He needs to pay his whole life. He needs to remember and wake up each morning that his baby's gone and he's not going to see her anymore." 2119

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting in lawsuits involving absentee ballot deadlines in three battleground states, the Supreme Court has allowed extensions for ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to remain in place.But it has refused a plea for a relaxed deadline in Wisconsin.In each case, Democrats backed the extensions, and Republicans opposed them.All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.Last week, the Supreme Court tied 4-4 by upholding the ruling from Pennsylvania's Supreme Court that would allow election officials to receive and count ballots until Nov. 6, even if they don't have a clear postmark.On Wednesday, the justices denied the motion to expedite a review of the state's Republican Party's appeal to exclude mail-in absentee ballots after the elections were over."There is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," Justice Samuel Alito said in a statement alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. "That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review."Alito added that state officials informed county election boards to segregate ballots received between 8 p.m. on Election Day and 5 p.m. on Nov. 6.At first blush, the different outcomes at the Supreme Court seem odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country.On Wednesday, the justices said absentee ballots in North Carolina could be received and counted up to nine days after Election Day.On Monday, the justices stated that ballots in Wisconsin must be received by Election Day in order to be counted, the Associated Press reported.But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in consideration of either motion, the justices said. 1877