Referral: Fill & Download for Free

Use referral code : soham@688To get lives 100 %working.

Hi Valerie!Dr. Bill V here,First of all, thanks for posting the images to go along with your question!You have shown all of the views which are important for cosmetic dentists to make an assessment.I will do my best to give you an answer and some information, but please understand: it appears that you do have very nice teeth, and that they have been well cared for. Technically, you do not need to “do” anything and you could reasonably smile with confidence.But, there is nothing wrong with wanting to enhance your smile, and ask questions about options for doing so. It pains me to hear when someone is self conscious of their teeth or reluctant to smile, and it’s very rewarding to be able to help with that.In many years of enhancing smiles using orthodontics, porcelain crowns and veneers, and composite bonding materials, I have found that most people are seeking a “bigger, brighter” smile. This means more actual volume or size to the teeth, and a brighter/whiter shade.For you, starting with nice teeth, my advice would be not to do anything invasive like porcelain crowns and veneers. They often require grinding away of your natural tooth structure, and your teeth are way too nice for that.It looks like you may have had orthodontics? I mention that because orthodontics often results in a “standardized” look to the smile, and often impacts the “display” of the teeth both when the lips are at rest, or during a big smile. In your laughing or open smile picture, I do see slight evidence of a “reverse smile line”, where instead of the edges of the smiling teeth following the curve of the lower lip, they are flat, or curve up slightly. In cosmetic dentistry, we always strive for a positive smile line, with the edges of the upper smiling teeth providing support and volume to both the upper and lower lips.I am not criticizing orthodontics; I do a lot of orthodontics in my practice. It’s just that due to the mechanics available with the method, it is often hard to get a particular cosmetic finish. And finally, due to genetics, sometimes the size, shape and color of the individual teeth are just not what we might envision.So, what to do?(Again, and I emphasize, you are a young, attractive person, with healthy teeth, and you technically do not need to do anything:)But if you would like to explore how you might look with a bigger-brighter smile, I would suggest looking into dental bonding to get the job done.For you, the bonding process would be additive, meaning none of your natural tooth structure would need to be ground down or removed. With our process called SmileBOND Life Changing Dental Solutions. you get to choose the color of the bonding, and preview exactly how the smile will look before any work is started.You would go to a SmileBOND dentist, and have impressions of your teeth made, and some more photos taken. The records would be sent to SmileBOND Lab, where we would do a work up, and your before and after models would be sent back to your dentist. You would then be invited back to the dentist to review the models, try on different bonding shades, and maybe even do a trial run of the new forms on your teeth before doing the actual enhancement.We recently trained a dentist in the Raleigh/Durham area, so maybe you could talk with them about your situation or starting records.To give you an idea about what SmileBOND can do, here are some before and after pictures:Kristen:Sunshine:Austin:If you have more questions, or would like a referral to the Raleigh/Durham dentist, please let me know!You can also check out SmileBOND on Facebook and see more photos and videos.Best of luck to you as you explore ways to enhance your smile!Best Regards, and Keep Smiling:)Dr. Bill [email protected]: 833–688–0020

Your question specifically asks about ‘suing.’So, let’s leave all the criminal court stuff aside for a moment.Yes, the Ranger can be sued in a civil court…because a tort has occurred: an action or inaction has brought some form of harm (physical, financial, etc.) to another person or organization with standing to go to civil court.Whether or not the Ranger will be sued, or sued successfully, depends on a great many factors. Many of those factors will be similar if not the same as used to determine guilt or innocence in criminal court, or even whether to file charges or not (at the preliminary investigatory stages, the grand jury stage, or whatever decision process is used in the jurisdiction where the fight/death occurred).The OJ Simpson example, sordid and overworn as it may be is instructive:The Juice was accused of crimes. He was investigated, and based on the information available, a decision was made that criminal charges in State court would be brought. A trial (the Trial of the Century…not the first one in the 21st Century, but oh well) was held, and OJ was acquitted of criminal charges. That did not mean he did not do or have a role in the deaths…it just meant that at the trial, there was insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and convince the jurors “beyond a reasonable doubt” of his guilt on any of the charges. But he walked out a free man, without a conviction, whatever anybody may have thought or still think about it.The Juice was also sued in civil court, with the plaintiffs alleging a tort occurred, to whit: he caused or allowed to happen the deaths of several people. In civil court, because there is no double-jeopardy between criminal and civil courts of jurisdiction, and because the burden of proof is much lower (preponderance of the evidence is the legal term, I believe, which is essentially “more likely than not,” or “50.1%”), OJ was found “liable,” which means he lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay $$$.So, using the OJ example:The Ranger would be investigated by law enforcement officers of at least the local, if not State or Federal (depending on where and when and who, etc., jurisdictional issues), jurisdiction. If the Ranger was on active duty, and being in a leave or liberty status while on active duty is still active duty, then the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) and Uniform Code for Military Justice (UCMJ) both opine that the Ranger’s military commander should have discussions with the local LEO and district attorney/US Attorney/Commonwealth’s attorney/etc., about which system of justice would be more appropriate to continue:Under the UCMJ, any servicemember on active duty is subject to the UCMJ anywhere in the world, at any time, for any offense contained in the UCMJ. And a fight (a “disorder or affray” in UCMJ-speak), and a homicide (causing the death of a person, for any reason, until determined more precisely through legal processes as “justifiable,” “murder (with various degrees in many jurisdictions),” or “manslaughter (also with various degrees in many jurisdictions, or qualifiers such as “involuntary” or “voluntary”), are certainly both covered by the UCMJ.The UCMJ is a Federal criminal system, and it feeds into the military justice system, which is a “court of limited jurisdiction,” or words to that effect, meaning that only those crimes specifically outlined by Congress, in the manner outlined in military law, can be prosecuted, and only upon those individuals who are subject to the UCMJ.The UCMJ and MCM define who is subject to the UCMJ:All active duty servicemembers, anywhere, anytime, for the entire length of their active duty service.Any reserve servicemember who is in an active duty, or inactive duty for training (IDT) (weekend drills, for the most part), status, is subject to UCMJ anywhere, anytime, until their military active duty or IDT status ceases and they return to their reserve status.All retirees of the Active Component remain subject to the UCMJ, anywhere, anytime, for the remainder of their life, because they are still members of the Active Component of the Armed Forces (albeit in a reduced duty and thus reduced pay status while on the Retired List), and can be recalled voluntarily or involuntarily for just about any reason under 10 USC 688 for active service.Any reserve retiree (from the Reserve Component, thus in the Retired Reserve) who is under orders to active duty or inactive duty, OR who is undergoing hospitalization in a military hospital, for the duration of those orders or hospitalization will be subject to the UCMJ. (SIDE BAR: this means that the standard reserve or Guard retiree, 20+ years in the reserve/Guard, is NOT subject to the UCMJ and probably will not be again in their lives, while the Active Component retirees ARE subject to the UCMJ and will be for the rest of their lives…fascinating!)If the fight and death occurred in a normal civilian area of the US, unless there is a compelling reason, the US military tends to allow the local authorities to proceed through the civilian criminal justice system, because the civilian laws have a presumed precedence for crimes committed in their jurisdiction AND civilian courts and the media that tend to go along with it will then be able to handle reassuring the American public that their own military are, in fact, subject to not only due process…but the very same due process that all Americans are subject to when a serious crime like a death is involved. While uncomfortable for the servicemember, and the military in general, it helps to reinforce that in the US, the military is subordinate to civilian controls…even at the local level.If the fight and death occurred in some sort of restricted, or sensitive area, or during a bonafide military operation, then the military is far more likely to either decide to “seize jurisdiction” or may in fact be the only possible jurisdiction: think of a fight and death during a drunken brawl on board a Navy ship, or in a military base in Afghanistan, etc.If the fight and death occurred in a foreign country, and there is a Status of Forces Agreement in effect, then the SOFA will normally (by treaty and agreement of both the US and the host nation), govern the application of justice: whether the US military or the host nation will have jurisdiction over the offense and prosecute.If there is no SOFA in effect, say in Beirut, Lebanon, where the Ranger was visiting family members on a special pass, then the servicemember is most likely going to be processed through the host nation legal system…for better or worse. Sometimes the US will intervene, or attempt to intervene, through diplomatic means, but those often take years to come to fruition (examine the fates of several dual-citizen US-Iranians who have been arrested in Iran…).Since the US has UCMJ jurisdiction over an active duty servicemember anywhere in the world, all the time, if the circumstances call for it, the US military can and does prosecute “disorders and affrays” and “homicides” through the court-martial process. Anything involving a death is almost guaranteed to get the highest level: a General Court-Martial, where the most severe punishment is death (or a life sentence in Leavenworth, which is nearly the same thing). Whether the Ranger would be convicted or not depends on the case.At the bare minimum, a death of a civilian at the hands of an active duty (or probably even a reservist, and possibly even a military retiree), will require an investigation by the military (possibly more than one). A military investigation (commonly called a “JAGMAN” aka “Judge Advocate General Manual” investigation in the Navy and Marines, with other names in the Army, USAF, etc.) is a standard preliminary investigation by a military officer to establish the basic facts in a fairly quick and formalized manner. Those investigations may result in a more thorough investigation(s), referral to a Criminal Investigation Division (CID, NCIS, et al.) criminal investigation, or an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury) where a decision is formally made on the merits of the case whether to proceed to trial in a General Court-Martial, or dispose of the case at a lower level of court-martial, or dispose of the case through administrative means, or pause the entire case while jurisdiction is taken over by a civilian (or foreign) court.Just because the military has “paused” its own case while allowing a civilian criminal case to proceed does NOT mean that the military has “ceded” jurisdiction. Unless that is required by the SOFA, or some operation of law, the military retains jurisdiction over both the individual and the offense even into that individual’s retirement, or incarceration (or freedom, as the case may be), wherever they may be, and whatever the result was, because the US military, as a Federal system, is not bound by the standard concept of “double jeopardy.”The Manual for Courts-Martial and the UCMJ state that while commanders should carefully consider the facts of the case, and when necessary or in the interests of justice and public/international relations discuss jurisdiction and possible venues and means to best handle the case with the local/international authorities, the UCMJ remains available as a means to charge and prosecute crimes, with the exception of a US Federal criminal court conviction.Since almost anyone who is convicted of a crime in a Federal criminal court will either be sent to prison, or have a very large fine handed to them, this exception to the no double-jeopardy rule is not really much of a loophole…The reality here is that almost nobody is subjected to both the UCMJ and a local/State/Federal/foreign criminal court…at the same time.If the military allows another jurisdiction to proceed with a criminal proceeding, it is possible, even likely in some cases, that the servicemember will either be acquitted, or charges will be dropped, or convicted of a crime or lesser offense with minimal (perceived, at least…) punishment.In some cases, rarely, the military CAN swoop back in, reassert the “paused” UCMJ jurisdiction, and run the servicemember back through the military justice system gauntlet. With the exception of the aforementioned US Federal criminal court conviction…which IS double-jeopardy.Given that many capital (involving deaths at the hands of another) cases take years to even get to the trial stage, and then often months to play out in court, with motions, pleadings, procedure, continuances, swapping out defense lawyers, jury selection and sometimes sequestration, expert testimony, finding and keeping and paying for witnesses and various and sundry other issues…the Military often just sits back and awaits the outcome of that trial, and here is partially why:While the servicemember is in pre-trial confinement, whether military or civilian, they are not getting paid, except perhaps some allotments to their family, if any.If justice is done properly through another venue, it saves the military the $$$, time, and effort (and it is ENORMOUS for a GCM on a capital case) to do it themselves.If, for some reason, the military feels that justice is NOT done, say the civilian court totally fouls up the chain of custody for critical evidence, or critical witnesses die or can’t be found or refuse to testify, resulting in a hung jury, mistrial, dropped charges, or even acquittal, then the military can reexamine the case to determine if the UCMJ should be opened back up and used to whack at the servicemember.And, finally, here is the standard result of a full blown capital criminal case being prosecuted to the fullest by a civilian (and often foreign) jurisdiction: the military will swiftly decide to administratively separate the servicemember (using procedures and means other than disciplinary, but with their “pending” charges as the grounds for due process) for “commission of a serious offense,” or perhaps “civilian conviction” once convicted, or another basis (and there are about 50 of them to choose from…one of them ALWAYS fits, even if it’s just “Convenience of the Government”) for administrative separation.Thus, the military can legitimately state, on the record: “Look, this former Ranger, an ex-Soldier, is no longer a member of the US Armed Forces. He was discharged on XXX date, with an Other than Honorable (OTH) characterization of his military service, and has no further connection to the US Armed Forces. While he is presumed innocent in a court of law, and we look forward to seeing him have his day in court, in the best interests of good order and discipline we have determined his services were no longer required. We wish him good luck.”And probably not even that much nice wording…Administrative separations are essentially like being fired by a civilian employer. There are many due process protections built into the system for the servicemember, but at the end of the day, if the Government wants the servicemember to be separated, even at the lowest “non-disciplinary,” i.e., “administrative” characterization of service, which is called Other than Honorable (OTH), as long as the Government follows the process, if the servicemember has indeed been arrested for a felony, even some types of misdemeanors, or committed any of a number of other misdeeds, then the Government is going to “fire” that “employee,” using the administrative separation process.If…for some reason…the individual “beats the rap” in their criminal case in another jurisdiction, they can “reapply” to the military to be reinstated, even provided “backpay” and “backdated date of rank,” as if they had never been separated. This is actually fairly common after a hasty administrative separation, when the military washed their hands of the servicemember, and later, after all the dust settled the former servicemember was acquitted, dropped charges, etc. If the dominoes line up right for that former servicemember, their request, which is actually an appeal to their former Service’s Board for Correction of Records (or a similar named Board), may result in:Reinstatement, with full backdated seniority, promotion as if they had never been away, and back pay to the date of their separation, and a complete expungement of all the adverse materials in their service record. I.e., “made whole” in the sense of labor law and entitlements.Reinstatement, but with only limited, or no backdating of seniority and/or back pay. Some of these decisions are discretionary, some are constrained by court precedents, operation of law, and common sense.An offer of retirement, in lieu of reinstatement, as if they had served continuously.Or, sometimes, the appeal is denied, and that decision itself may be appealed, and it goes on up the military legal system until it may reach the Supreme Court or a final decision is rendered.Example: an Army Ranger, Sergeant First Class, with 18 years of active duty (only 2 years from retirement eligibility), is administratively separated due to Commission of a Serious Offense while he is waiting a civilian trial for the “murder, second class, of a civilian.” 3 years later, he is acquitted of all charges, and walks out a free man. But, he has been denied bail or bond for the entire 3 years, and while incarcerated the military stopped all his pay and allowances, he went bankrupt, everything he owned was repossessed, foreclosed, stolen, or spent on his defense…perhaps his wife divorced him, etc.So, he does what any right-thinking servicemember would do: he appeals to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR), shows his record of trial, the acquittal, and asks for his old job back…The BCMR must consider his appeal, and given the circumstances, has the options as provided above, or some others, and certain combinations. “What to do…hmm…what is the right thing to do to ‘make him whole again’ after he was properly (at the time) administratively separated, his pay stopped, he lost everything…”If he was a righteous Soldier, with a solid or better service record, and in the absence of this past situation would most likely have at least served out his last enlistment, and given the assumption that any servicemember who is beyond a certain number of years of service (which is not in policy or law, but it is a subjective thing for each Service, and each individual, and includes analysis of career patterns, occupational field retention and retirement rates, etc.) would serve to at least the earliest point of retirement (20+ years in most cases), the minimum recommendation to the Secretary of the Army (who would have to approve the appeal) would probably be:(1) Offer him full retirement, with back-pay and seniority as if he had never been discharged, purge his service records of adverse materials connected to this specific case, and immediately upon his acceptance transfer him to the retired list, or,(2) Offer him reinstatement, with back-pay and seniority as if he had never been discharged, purge his service records of adverse materials connected to this specific case, and if he accepts, place him back into the Army on active duty.Obviously, retiring him, even having to pay 3 years of back-pay and allowances, in this scenario, is the most compelling: he is reinstated, gets made whole (at least from the Army’s perspective) financially, adversity in his service records is removed, his “name is cleared,” and he never actually has to put a uniform back on, get back into shape, undergo more than a retirement physical exam, get “retrained” and “re-acclimated” to the military lifestyle, especially at a rather advanced age and years of service, and he gets to go his way with a full, earned military retirement and the Army gets to wash their hands of him, once and for all…If he insists on returning, say he is a hard corps case who lived, and again lives, to breathe the military air of Ft. Benning and Ft. Bragg, the dust of Ft. Irwin, and wants to rejoin the 75th Ranger Regiment…well, it is certainly possible if the SecAr approves it. He is made whole financially, reenlisted for a new term of service (probably a 1 or 2 year contract…just to make sure…), the Army Human Resources Command (HRC) has to make an analysis of “where he would have been had he never been separated,” and then recommend to SecAr what grade he should be reenlisted to, and what seniority in that grade, what type of unit or duty he should be doing now (based on what he “would have done”), etc.Perhaps as a result, he would be reenlisted as a Master Sergeant, with several years of seniority, if he had been a senior SFC and near the point of promotion (and had he been “likely” to be promoted with his peers), and once he underwent a few months of “training” where he at least was allowed to get back into military shape, mentally and physically, surrounded by other Rangers (or at least Soldiers), perhaps he would be reinserted back into the Ranger Regiment.Or, perhaps the decision would be made that he would not have been likely to be promoted, so he is reenlisted at the same grade he was separated at: SFC. But he is granted seniority back to his original date of rank, so he is now probably a very senior SFC. Because he still wears the Ranger tab (and any others he may have earned), he can still do something for the Army. Perhaps a Headquarters tour as a career counselor. Or he is detailed as the Battalion Substance Abuse Control Officer (SACO) in a Corps Headquarters (where more senior NCOs can keep an eye on him…). At the minimum, he gets to continue to serve, gets more chances at promotion, and he is already (over 20 years active duty) eligible for full retirement benefits…so he just needs to serve out his enlistment and request retirement.I can foresee two other likely options in such a scenario:(1) Even for a hard corps shooter, a Ranger, the adjustment back to being a full time Soldier, with responsibilities, learning new tactics and equipment that came about while he was in jail, might be overwhelming. So although he signed, say, a 2 year enlistment as part of the deal to come back into the Army, he may say after a few months, I really don’t want to do this: “with my restored seniority, I’m over 20 years for retirement…I’ll just send a request back up to SecAr and ask to be retired under special authority.” More likely than not, I would estimate he would be approved…wash their hands, he gets to move on…(2) He may find that getting back into Army shape, or Ranger shape, both physically and mentally, is too hard. Maybe he has PTSD from before he was in jail for most of 3 years, wondering whether he would be convicted of murder, watching financial ruin, his career ended in disgrace…and he then goes into the Army’s Disability Evaluation System (DES) for a medical board to determine if he can still perform the duties of the office to which appointed, i.e., his reenlistment at whatever grade he is at. Perhaps the Med Board finds him fit for duty, or more likely he is found unfit, and since he would have over 20 years of active duty, and probably more than 30% disability rating anyway from the combination of various ailments bothering him mentally and physically after a career of Rangering…and a 3 year interlude of hell waiting and undergoing trial for murder…So he would be medically retired and transferred to the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) of the Army.PDRL retirees are still on the rolls of their Service, they are indeed retirees just like a regular retiree for longevity (20+ years), they receive retired pay calculated on the higher of two formulas:(1) Their normal longevity calculation: number of years and months times .025 per year, prorated for full months. So a 22 year/1 month longevity retiree would have 22.083 retired pay multiplier, times .025 per year = 55.21% of his basic pay for a longevity retirement.(2) Their disability calculation: the final combined VA/military DES percentage assigned at the conclusion of the DES medical board. Say he is assigned a combined total of 90% disability (actually, not unreasonable given the life and career of a Ranger, and the circumstances already presented) by the DES. Disability retired pay is limited by law to 75% of basic pay at retirement…so instead of 55.21% of his basic pay, he would be entitled to 75% of his basic pay…much more with a medical/disability retirement.A PDRL medical retirement provides ALL the benefits of a longevity retirement, but adds the possibility (as in this case) of more retired pay based on a rating of disability higher than the rating of longevity, and it GREATLY simplifies the process of receiving VA disability compensation, health care, and other benefits (because the VA is included in the DES rating…so the combined VA/military DES rating is already the bonafide VA rating, not just the military disability…And, a conclusion at last for anyone who has read this far!Although he may or may not be charged with any crime for the death of the civilian, there WILL be consequences up to and including administrative separation, thus ending a career prematurely. Other, lesser, administrative actions likely to occur will be:investigation(s),adverse performance evaluations,adverse real-world perceptions by peers, seniors, subordinates about the Ranger,unknown effects upon the Ranger’s mental and physical abilities to perform their duties,lost promotions,$$$ lost for any day spent in jail (military withholds all pay while in jail),time lost in jail must be “made up” at the end of the current enlistment (effectively extending, involuntarily, their current enlistment by the number of days spent in jail “in hands of civilian authorities”),transfer to another possibly less desirable duty station to remove the Soldier from the local “perceptions” and the “perceptions” of their current Command/unit/fellow Soldiers…gives them a chance to make new impressions without as much baggage.And, the military may still choose to administratively separate the Soldier for the “commission of a serious offense,” among other bases for separation, because the “COS” basis for separation doesn’t actually require a conviction, only that the action occurred, and the Commander has good evidence that it occurred. I.e., not hard to prove.Which brings us to my final words on this dissertation, the final, final answer to the original question: yes, even after all of this, I reiterate that the Ranger can be sued for the tort(s) that occurred…by the family of the civilian…by others who may have standing to do so. And this is completely outside the military administrative and legal systems. A finding by a grand jury that the fight and death of the civilian was a “justifiable homicide” will most likely clear the Ranger from all pending criminal charges…in that civilian jurisdiction, since the UCMJ may still decide to press charges…but even a “justifiable homicide” was still a tort, and there was harm done, so the OJ defense of “but I was acquitted at trial…” still won’t work.If found “liable” in a civil court after a lawsuit for a tort of the death of the civilian, will that affect the Ranger’s military career? Actually, I suspect not so much…because by the time that the lawsuit is completed and either a settlement or a finding of liable (or not) is done, the military will have long before decided what to do about the original incident, the use of force against the civilian…My best professional guess: the Ranger, if the courts find “justifiable homicide,” will not be charged by any civilian jurisdiction, and the military is relatively unlikely to take him to court-martial. However, there is quite likely going to be a lawsuit, quite likely he will be found “liable” and have to pay a large sum to the plaintiffs, and quite likely there will be career and administrative fall-out for the Ranger, unless it was so absolutely clear-cut that even a blind man could see the self-defense!