| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2006/4/5 [Reference/Law/Court, Recreation/Dating] UID:42691 Activity:nil |
4/5 http://csua.org/u/ffx (azcentral.com, AP "sodomy" link replaced) |
| 11/23 |
| 2006/3/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:42509 Activity:high 79%like:42498 |
3/28 http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.212651~-118.660726&style=o&lvl=1&scene=3064367 Is this an example of how suburbs grow? First they carve out the road and then they build houses on top of it? shares is 1,000,000. All 1,000,000 shares are issued, and employees are granted 10% of that, and the founder grants himself 90%. What's to prevent the founder from voting to double the number of authorized shares to 2,000,000 and screwing the employees with 2x dilution? Other than all the employees getting pissed and leaving. \_ The board can do anything. If you're a staffer and want to sue, you're welcome to but good luck on that. You'll spend way more on lawyers than whatever you might have regained in a lawsuit and probably won't win anyway. \_ Word of advice, if the chair/founder/whatever is Ari Zilka, leave. He'll take most of the money and leave you suckers with almost nothing. \_ Nothing. But, generally this is why small corporations have boards, and, if memory serves, the board must be at least 3 people, and, once a corporation gets to a certain number of employees, the board gets bigger. -dans \_ What if two of the three positions on the board of directors are occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the founder will always get the majority vote? \_ Welcome to the wonderful world of business. \- Is the founder's name RIGAS? --psb \_ Merely issuing more shares would not directly screw the employees. If he did something like say grant himself 1,000,000 new shares that could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit but good luck. \_ What about doubling the number of authorized shares? \_ We just started covering this in my bus org/corp law class. The way I understand it majority controlling shareholders have a fiduciary duty wrt to the minority shareholders. In the scenario you describe the maj shareholder has effectively reduced the voting power of the min shareholders by 1/2 (assuming that each of the new shares has one vote and the voting power of the old stock did not increase). By acting this way the maj shareholder has breached his fiduciary duty and the min shareholders can sue him for this breach. [ I might have this wrong, so I'll ask my bus org prof on thurs ] \_ Can the dude with 90% also pay himself a big salary, and thus take away all the profits of the company? |
| 2006/3/28-31 [Reference/Law/Court, Industry/Startup] UID:42498 Activity:moderate 79%like:42509 |
3/28 Hi, let's say there's a small corporation. The number of authorized
shares is 1,000,000. All 1,000,000 shares are issued, and employees
are granted 10% of that, and the founder grants himself 90%. What's
to prevent the founder from voting to double the number of
authorized shares to 2,000,000 and screwing the employees with 2x
dilution? Other than all the employees getting pissed and leaving.
\_ The board can do anything. If you're a staffer and want to sue,
you're welcome to but good luck on that. You'll spend way more
on lawyers than whatever you might have regained in a lawsuit and
probably won't win anyway.
\_ Word of advice, if the chair/founder/whatever is Ari Zilka, leave.
He'll take most of the money and leave you suckers with
almost nothing.
\_ Please tell me more of the Ari Zilka story (I've heard rumors)
\_ If I tell you the story my identity will be exposed.
Let's just say that he's born with special privileges in a
well connected family and feels entitled to do whatever he
pleases without regard to the well beings of the people
who works for him. Back then he and the VCs had deep inner
connections and they knew how to get around "the system"
very well. They knew how to make up rules and and before
you know it, checkmate. You no longer have any legal
protection and you're of no use to them. Ari is one
fine example of why the rich get richer.
\_ Nothing. But, generally this is why small corporations have
boards, and, if memory serves, the board must be at least 3 people,
and, once a corporation gets to a certain number of employees, the
board gets bigger. -dans
\_ What if two of the three positions on the board of directors
is occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the
are occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the
founder will always get the majority vote?
\_ Welcome to the wonderful world of business.
\- Is the founder's name RIGAS? --psb
\_ Then you're fucked. Not sure, but there *may* be laws
against this because of conflicts of interest. -dans
\_ Merely issuing more shares would not directly screw the employees.
If he did something like say grant himself 1,000,000 new shares
that could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit but good luck.
\_ What about doubling the number of authorized shares?
\_ That's basically the same as issuing treasury stock... it
only matters when it actually changes hands.
\_ We just started covering this in my bus org/corp law class. The
way I understand it majority controlling shareholders have a
fiduciary duty wrt to the minority shareholders. In the scenario
you describe the maj shareholder has effectively reduced the
voting power of the min shareholders by 1/2 (assuming that each
of the new shares has one vote and the voting power of the old
stock did not increase). By acting this way the maj shareholder
has breached his fiduciary duty and the min shareholders can sue
him for this breach.
[ I might have this wrong, so I'll ask my bus org prof on thurs ]
\_ Can the dude with 90% also pay himself a big salary, and thus
take away all the profits of the company?
\_ Yes, but the minority shareholders could almost certainly sue
him because he is not working in the best interests of the
shareholders. -dans
\_ Who is Ari Zilka? -dans
\_ ari@csua
\_ what goes around, comes around. hopefully he'll get
his just due.
\_ He paid his dues when he married chris@soda.
\_ I don't think there is anything realistic stopping this behavior.
However, most (not every) leaders realize that by sharing the
wealth the company has much better chances of success, as everyone's
interests then align for the good of the corporation. It's better
to own 25% of a billion dollar corporation than to own 90% of a
$10 million dollar corporation.
\_ Yes, but it's relatively much easier to create a $10M company
than a $1B company. Taking the chance of success into account,
and also taking into account (to use the numbers from your
example) most people would value $9M more than 9/250 of $250M,
maybe it's a better strategy to shoot for the 90% of $10M.
\_ Except a lot of leaders of companies already HAVE that
much money. I'm pretty sure my founding CEO was.
much money. I'm pretty sure my founding CEO did. |
| 2006/3/17-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:42286 Activity:nil |
3/17 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188181,00.html On headline news, Jacko closes his Neverland Ranch permanently and is not coming back to the US!!! Oh my god!!! \_ Dept. of Labor closed it, not Jacko. \_ Yeah, Jacko just stopped paying them. \_ Yeah, but they were still working without pay, until DOL ordered them to stop. \_ Keep working, I have your children! |
| 2006/3/3-6 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:42091 Activity:nil |
3/3 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palomares3mar03,0,7560875.story "While this story sounds like a script from 'The Shield' or 'Training Day,' it actually happened." \_ What's a "civilian custodial officer"? |
| 2006/2/21-23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41945 Activity:low |
2/21 Michael Morales, convicted of brutally murdering a 17-year-old
A-student who had sung in church choir and who was working part-time to
earn money for college, has had his execution indefinitely postponed.
FYI, his sentencing judge formally recommended commutation from death
to life-in-prison w/o parole last month, after it was found that the
prosecution's star witness had lied about a Morales making a
confession.
\_ Uhm, yeahhh.....
http://tinyurl.com/l2yua (reuters)
\_ "Killer's Execution is Postponed Indefinitely"
http://csua.org/u/f1l (latimes.com)
Original post implied it was postponed because of the trial
judge recommendation. This was incorrect. Delay is for
review of execution procedures, hearing scheduled May 1. -op
\_"The sworn statements of six jurors supporting the clemency bid
and another statement from a prosecution witness recanting her
testimony were proved to be forgeries by the prosecuting team."
Dude, Ken Starr is fucking tool.
\_ Yeah, but even so, the trial judge supports commutation
to life w/o possibility of parole because of the star witness
to life w/o possibility of parole because the star witness
lied.
\_ But didn't he also claim to have "turned his life around" and
"sought forgiveness"? Doesn't that imply he, at least after his
initial trial, was admitting guilt?
\_ I think there is no doubt he did it, but I also think that there
is a question whether the jury would have went with death w/o
the star witness. I think that's why the trial judge said
what he said. |
| 2006/2/18-23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41922 Activity:high |
2/18 Now here's an excellent reason to put a child in the SF public
school system.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/19/SPED.TMP
\_ I'm going to make a prediction. I predict that the GOP is planning
a frontal attack on public education within the next year, and that
talking points are being distributed through their usual channels
in anticipation of that attack. You can jump up and down and flame
me, and say that's crazy now, but I'll just repost this whole thread
in a year, when we're hearing a new proposal to phase out free
public k-12 education in America.
\_ So, are you anti-vouchers? If so, what's your reasoning?
Or, do you really believe the GOP wants to completely phase
out free public education? Also, if you're so sure about
your prediction, why not sign your name? -jrleek
\_ I am 100% pro-vouchers, and yes, I believe that the long-term
goal of those at the top in the GOP is the destruction of
all social services.
\_ Well, I'm with you on vouchers, but I think your fear
of associating your name with your prediction shows
that you know the prediction is BS and your belief
really only amounts to paranoid delusion. -jrleek
\_ I believe in a totally anymous motd. Part of the
reason for that is that I think anonymity helps remove
ego from discussions. I find claims by people like you
that the only reason people don't sign is cowardice
to be childish and stupid. If you really care, I'll
just email you. Do you care?
\_ I didn't say the only reason people don't sign
is cowardice. I often don't sign myself, and I
would appreciate a completely anonymous motd, so
people wouldn't get "outted" by lamers. But
in this case you not only made a specific
prediction, but bragged that you'd come back and
rub it in any flamer's faces when it came true.
This suggests that you want the "benifit" of
being right, but don't want to pay the "price"
of being wrong. That actually does sound like
cowardice to me. I don't really care who you
are, I just suggest that if you're going to
"call people out" you should have the guts to
sign your name. That said, I'm sure not going
to remember this in a year. -jrleek
\_ okay, if i was a poor person and my children flunked out
of highschool i would start sueing schools for them not
having provided special education and ruining my childs life.
I would start sueing every school and get poor people to sue
school after school. it's the only way for the poor to make
money.
\_ I want to go kill the fucking parents, piece of shit.
\_ Yeah, me too. Evil manipulative fuckers.
\_ Um, when did Woodside become part of San Francisco?
\_ 1. SFUSD is a recent favorite motd target. 2. SFUSD is
probably an easier mark with deeper pockets.
\_ Hey, I was a frustrated youth too! I should sue for a million
dollars as well.
\_ The State of California is required to provide education to
all children. Unsurprisingly, special needs kids are not often
catered to. It's not uncommon for those parents to sue to get
the education their child needs. Maybe these parents took
advantage of that or maybe not. It's not clear the what extent of
services their child may need.
\_ How would you ever legally decide whether a child actually
"needs" a service? Horseback lessons? It's patently obvious
that while all children could benefit from that, no child
actually requires it. Same goes for a private schooling
across the country. The school they chose had no special
services, it was just away from home and small.
\_ Things like that can make a big difference. With children
who have special needs, class size is a huge factor,
for instance. As someone else said below, an army of
therapists, doctors, teachers, and so on must all be
involved in deciding that a child has special needs. I
am surprised at the callous and uninformed responses in
this thread. It's possible this couple manipulated the
system. However, what evidence do we have of that?
\_ I am a bit confused. You say "an army of therapists, etc."
are involved in deciding a child has special needs? An
army? 11% of all students 6 to 13 receive some special
ed (http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/research/rb2txt.htm And
an army is required to certify each child? I fail to see
how that army scales to 11% of the student population.
Ref please.
\_ Don't take the word 'army' literally. The point is
that parents can't just make this stuff up. There
are a lot of people involved in the process. My
nephew is 9 and autistic. Each year he gets evaluated
by at least 3-4 different people in addition to
his own doctors and teachers. He has probably been
seen by 30-40 different professionals by now. It's
not like his parents can just make stuff up. In fact,
in my experience they tend to score him as more
functioning than he really is, probably for a
combination of financial and practical reasons.
(It's easy for him to fake being 'normal' for an
hour session, but it's quite eye-opening to spend the
weekend with him.) One social worker can handle a
lot of cases, for instance, so don't worry about
the numbers game. Just rest assured that the government
(including school districts) doesn't easily cough up
wads of cash to any dipshit parents who claim their kid
has issues. From what I see, for the most part kids
who should be receiving services are not and not
the other way around.
\_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole. Now have
you read the sfgate article? There, the Woodside
parents are doing "'unilateral placement--enrolling
a child in a private school, then billing the
district for tuition". IOW, they bypassed that
\_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole, and you
extrapolated from your experience with one nephew.
Now have you read the sfgate article? There, the
Woodside parents are doing "'unilateral placement--
enrolling a child in a private school, then billing
the district for tuition". IOW, they bypassed that
"army" and hired their own special ed expert to find
a prep school, and then the Woodside parents hired
a lawyer to sue the school district so the district
would pay for tuition and family travel cost to
visit the child in Maine.
a prep school in Maine. Then the Woodside parents
hired a lawyer to sue the school district so the
district would pay for tuition and family travel
cost to visit the child in Maine. In fact, according
to the artcle, of 3763 special ed kids who filed
complaints last year, the distrcits had secret
settlements with 90% of them.
cost to visit the child in Maine. Nor does it seem
that the Woodside child was all that disabled.
Even the mother said "He's a model child". His
problem? "[H]is frustration and anxiety were so
high that [he could] turn to drugs...".
\_ Actually, I am not using just one data point.
I met a psychology professor whose specialty
is 'special education' and he referred me to
a private practice attorney who deals with
filing suits against school districts. The
way it works is that the district drags its
feet until confronted with parents who are
willing to do something about them. Then they
pay up because it's actually cheaper to pay
the parents than to solve the initial
problem. They don't do so until there has
been a mountain of evidence amassed against
them (i.e. they feel they will lose the
case). This is where the expert testimony and
evaluations come in. I don't know if these
parents were full of shit or not, but I am
appalled at the responses nonetheless.
\_ Did you read the article? It's obvious
they are full of shit. If you don't know
then you're an idiot.
\_ Why are you appalled? Did you read the
article? It's obvious that things like
horseback riding aren't needed. And in
this case of the small school across
the country, that's complete bull also.
From the article, the parents put the
kid there WITHOUT having any specific
reason, just the mother's whim basically.
If you think that's fair to the taxpayers
then you can fuck yourself.
\_ Now, 90% of complaints are settled by the
school districts. It seems difficult to
settle 90% of the time and at the same time
require "a mountain of evidence amassed
against them". In fact, the only way I think
90% settlement can be explained is if the
school district bends over like a cheap whore
on speed.
\_ If you don't know anything about the
process then just say so.
\_ Given a choice between anonymous motd
assurances from someone with a vested
interest in the system or sfgate,
interested in the system or sfgate,
I'll run with sfgate.
\_ Thanks for posting this. What a ridiculous ass story. I bet
that kid doesn't have a single thing wrong with him, except
that he has a psychotic bitch of a greedy mother. No wonder
he has "anxiety".
\_ I know who this family is. Is anybody prepared to terrorize
them if I provide the name?
\_ Do you mind if I ask how you know it's them?
\_ I don't have the time, money, or personal bandwidth to do it,
but I think it would be poetic justice to bring civil suit
against them for extortion/theft of public services or the
like. -dans
\_ It doesn't even matter. Technically speaking you don't have
standing to sue anyway.
\_ Gee, isn't this vigilantism?
\_ Yup. -dans
\_ No vigilantism would be if you firebombed their
house. This is using the legal system to bring
about justice.
\_ It's vigilante use of the courts. Of course, I
don't really mind this since I'm not opposed to
all vigilante acts (eg the Billboard LIberation
Front is non-violent, usually thought-provoking,
and makes good art). Using the courts for
vigilante justice is much safer than the street
variety since the formal bureaucratic procedures
of the courts provide some level of check against
the chance of `bad' or unjust acts being
successfully completed. Then again, there's
always the possibility for abuse. Many
organizations (eg the RIAA) use the legal system
the way a corner street thug uses a gun or
baseball bat. -dans
\_ So is their kid really a 'tard or just a typical
underachieving teen?
\_ So how do children get certified as needing special ed?
\_ doctor's evaluations, state and/or private, administrators,
teachers, etc., etc.
\_ In addition to the above, the process also hinges on an
advocate willing to badger and harrass. This is true both
for legitimate and illegitimate cases.
\_ It would be interesting to see what percentage of special
ed application is rejected.
\_ Probably not as many as you would think. More likely is
that an application without an active advocate will
simply be set aside.
\_ It's easy to get approved for 'special ed' (usually
just a diagnosis). It's hard to get approved for
special ed outside of the district and/or to get
money from the district to pay for additional
services. Also, as someone above said, without a
strong advocate your case will languish for years.
Many parents cannot afford such a person/people
(usually a social worker, a doctor, and an attorney).
Districts will otherwise practice a policy of
appeasement, giving in here and there over time to
avoid actually doing everything they should be.
Note that there are some good districts. I am
referring to the bad ones, which are most of them in
California.
\- You know I think one of the "right' outcomes
would be for the reporters in cases like this to
give the names of the parties involved. Journalists
makes sometimes make wild claims based on the
"public's right to know" but often they or their
editors filter it through a bit of an agenda.
For example in union strike coverage they often
dont list the salaries involved. The recent
muscisian strike was an interesting exception.
\_ Now, this is what confuses me. At first the poster
above says "an army of therapists, doctors, teachers,
and so on must all be involved in deciding that a
child has special needs." Now you tell me it's
easy to get approved. OK, so you say certification
as needing special ed is easy, it's getting approved
for outside resources that's hard. But isn't the
original articl all about parents skipping the
outside special ed process altogether, and then
sueing afterwards for the expenses? If the system
is set up so that certification to be eligible for
special ed is easy (your claim), and then sueing for
outside services rendererd is easy (sfgate's claim),
isn't that just asking for trouble?
\_ OK, so you say certification as needing special ed
is easy, it's getting approved for outside resources
that's hard. But isn't the original articl all
about parents skipping the outside special ed
process altogether, and then sueing afterwards for
process altogether, and then suing afterwards for
the expenses? If the system is set up so that
certification to be eligible for special ed is
easy (your claim), and then sueing for outside
non-preapproved services rendererd is easy (sfgate's
easy (your claim), and then suing for outside
non-preapproved services is easy (sfgate's
claim), isn't that just asking for trouble?
\_ You will only win a suit if there is evidence
supporting your case. You can send your kid
to boarding school in Switzerland and bill
the district for it, but you will lose unless
you have built a good case. Therefore, suing
for outside services (preapproved or not)
is not easy unless your case might win. It is,
however, easier than actually getting the school
district to provide those services themselves.
This is what the professor told me in so many
words. Keep asking the district for what you
need and let them tell you 'no'. It works out
better for everyone that way. If they say
'yes' and then half-ass it it becomes much
more difficult to prove that the program is
substandard and the school pays as much or
more money in the end anyway while your kid
fritters away in useless classes for 2-3-4-5
years of valuable time while the case goes
through the legal process. This is why many school
districts would rather pay kids who genuinely
need special help to go where they can
receive it. It's better for the kids and
cheaper/easier for the district. |
| 2006/2/17-19 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:41911 Activity:nil |
2/17 Here's what REALLY happened. After watching Bareback Mountains
Cheney and the attorney dude decided to go get some loving in
the woods. The attorney dude started fondling another man and
that got Cheney jealous, who fired towards them but not directly
at them. Cheney totally forgot that he was using a shotgun instead
of a rifle and a few pellets hit the dude. The above is the
actual event and everything else we see on media is just
peppered up by Carl Rove.
\- is that a cheep sweedish knock off of Karl Rove? |
| 2006/2/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:41826 Activity:kinda low |
2/13 On http://www.bbb.com it lists Capital One and LexisNexis as its sponsors. Doesn't accepting sponsors cast doubt on its fairness? \_ BBB is fucking bullshit. \_ Yes. http://csua.com/?entry=39518 No. http://csua.com/?entry=11856 I am the op for both of these posts. \_ Maybe, but complaining to the BBB is a great way to get unscrupulous merchants to remove charges. \_ How does this work? What power do they have over a random unscrupulous business? \_ PR. Good businesses don't want a bad BBB record. Bad ones don't care. So before any large purchases check with the BBB. Bad record? They suck. Go elsewhere. If they're that bad someone will eventually sue them and the BBB record will work against them in court. True fly by night criminals don't care at all of course, buyer beware. \_ I honestly don't know, but twice rental car companies have tried to rip me off and charge me for a full tank of gas when I returned the car full and both times the BBB got the charges removed. The first time I tried all kinds of things before hitting on them, the second time I just went straight to them. Someone told me that the BBB has the power to fine its members, but I don't know if that is true or not. \_ Which rental car companies by the way? |
| 2006/2/8-10 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court] UID:41770 Activity:low |
2/8 I just got a traffic ticket and I intend to fight it all the way.
Step 1-- I just activated my one time extension from Feb to April.
To plead not guilty I need to write them a check and on top write
NOT GUILTY, then a new court date will be assigned. Should I write
a check now, or wait until it's closer to April? I've been told
that the longer I wait, the less likely the cop will show up.
Any other advice? Thanks.
\_ Be sure to do your legal research. I suggest starting with
Marbury v. Madison.
\_ There's a social engineering way to find out what days the cop
who gave you the tickey has off.
\_ I went to fight a ticket and I'll be damned if the cop didn't
show up. Surprised the hell out of me, since it was LAPD and
not some hick police force. However, I won anyway. Woo hoo!
\_ So you thought he was gonna stay at the donut shop? Cops get
paid extra $200-300 a day for showing up at the courthouse,
as it is one of the biggest revenue sources at the CHP.
\_ I thought LAPD would have bigger problems than my stupid
ticket, which I won anyway. |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41743 Activity:nil |
2/7 Who gave this guy a nano?
http://tinyurl.com/b525g - danh
\_ That looks like a cell phone to me
\_ Is this an in-jail pic? 'Cos that looks like a knife handle to me.
\_ It would be funny if we have a picture of Bin Laden listening
on the iPod.
\_ without a blade ... http://csua.org/u/ex6 (yahoo.com)
\_ Good eye. Thanks |
| 2006/1/21-24 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41469 Activity:nil |
1/21 Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342
\_ that's sad. I think a majority of Oklahomans would support
Beaumont. I'd like to think a majority would even if he didn't
have the will, but I'm not sure, esp. with the constiutional
amendment.
\_ The cousins are trying to sue him for past due rent!? That's just
fucked up. BTW, I assume where it says the ranch is worth $100,000,
they meant $1,000,000.
\_ No, this is Oklahoma, $100,000 for 50 acres is about right.
\_ But the guy said he put $200k into it... |
| 2006/1/9-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41306 Activity:nil |
1/9 "The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's
request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or
sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40976 Activity:low |
12/12 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/WILLIAMS.TMP "The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses 'whose credibility was highly suspect,' U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in 1998." ... while upholding the jury's verdict, because the jury >> appeals judges, unless you find a technical problem in the trial, new evidence, or persuasive evidence the jury was on crack, etc. \_ And? \_ "Four years later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiced similar qualms, saying the prosecution had relied on witnesses with 'less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie' to win lenient treatment for their own crimes." (also upholding the conviction) \_ And he loves animals and writes children's books, found Jesus on death row and is a 5 time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee! Free Tookie! \_ And at 12:01 he'll meet Jesus. \_ strawman \_ it isn't a strawman. it is mockery. and i fart in your general direction as well! \_ strawman + mockery \_ a strawman is a lame debate method. i'm not debating or attempting to score points by saying you said those things and then knocking them down. i am mocking you. mock, mock, mock! we are the knights who say mock! mock! what a great word! mock! say mock! 10 times, fast. \_ whatever you say ... \_ here's an example of a different yet equally lame debate method. \_ no, it is not a debate method. i am mocking your attempt at mockery. \_ you're attempting but failing. go look up "mock". perhaps if you knew what mockery is you'd be able to do it. thanks for joining us today. \_ It must be strange to take so much joy in the death of another human being. One that did not even do anything to you personally. \_ No it mustn't. Justice is good. \_ Last I checked, eye for an eye is a crappy basis for justice. \_ I can understand a sort of grim satisfaction, but so much overwhelming joy. \_ Well I'm a different poster and I wouldn't call it joy. I think the pp's mocking doesn't necessarily == joy either, he just doesn't care about it enough to not joke. Personally I know very little about this guy but he doesn't seem worth caring about. Their strategy was to turn his case into a political hurdle for the Gov. \_ In fact he loves animals so much that he called the three victims he killed "three oriental pigs". \_ You know, in an abstract way I am opposed to executions, but I don't think there's any reason to get especially incensed about this execution. Becoming a cause celebre should not get you special treatment under the law. \_ I agree. I am not especially incensed, but I am generally pissed off whenever someone is executed and there is some doubt that the guy did it or not. \_ What doubt was that in this case? Have you read anything that doesn't have an agenda? The SF Comical is definitely agenda territory. \_ The idea that the SF Chronicle is a left-wing paper is so completely out of touch with reality and history that there's really no way to respond to it. -tom \_ SF Comical on Tookie: http://csua.org/u/ea4 Not everything in the world fits into your little boxes. \_ I read the DA's summary of events, and I read Ah-nold's 3-5 page statement. 3-5 page statement. I'll give 12 jurors thought it enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to me there remains doubts. |
| 2005/12/9-11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40943 Activity:moderate |
12/9 Hey, I'm looking at Tookie's case right now, and it really looks like
he's being convicted of circumstantial evidence -- and where there are
witnesses who said he did it, they're all bad people as well and/or who
are in a position to get something out of testifying against Tookie.
Tookie had been a thug at the very least, but like I said: on the
murder convictions, circumstantial, and questionable witnesses.
I know that's the way Americans like it -- you can be convicted and
executed based on circumstantial evidence if a jury makes the
conclusion that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The crimes themselves are heinous: Shotgun blasts to a guy lying face-
down on the floor, and one- and two-shot blasts to two defenseless
elderly folks and their daughter.
\_ but he wrote children's books and found jesus on death row! Free
\_ Which no one has read!
\_ You wouldn't read Tookie's books to
your kids (assuming you had any)?
Why do you hate Tookie? Free Tookie!
tookie! tookie for the nobel peace prize! nominated 5 times
already, maybe this is his year!
\_ that doesn't matter. this American thinks it's fine to lock him
up forever no matter how much good he does, but it's not fine to
execute him if it's a circumstantial case.
\_ what good has he done?
\_ some people say he's a different person and he writes kids
books, but I think that hardly is enough for letting him go
free based on the evidence provided. like I said, lock him
up forever.
\_ some people? you forget he found jesus on death row and
writes children's books and is a 5 time nobel peace
prize nominee! free tookie!
\_ "Tookie is a very bad man" sounds like you're admonishing your cat.
"No you can't have my chicken pot pie! That'a bad Mr. Tookie!"
\_ MEOW!
\_ post updated.
\_ It's very frequent that there is no direct physical evidence, but
circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming.
\_ I've seen CSI! If the glove don't.. oh wait... nevermind.
\_ I'd by happier if it was "death = no doubt", and "life
imprisonment = beyond a reasonable doubt". yeah, this means I
think you can be executed based on circumstantial, as long as
there is "no doubt" he did it all -- yeah, you leave it up to the
jurors to decide what "no doubt" means (but you're already
leaving it up to them to decide what "reasonable doubt" means,
which is a tougher concept)
\_ overwhelming enough to make one certain! ... but not as "a matter
of fact". anyway, that's the system, and people like it that
way.
\_ the standard isn't "certain". it is "beyond a reasonable"
doubt. feel free to change the entire justice system to one
of "certainty" if you'd like. it'll suck to be a civilian
but at least the jails won't be full anymore.
\_ http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/anthrax/8482.html
\- what i think is sad is that people like aldridge ames,
robert hanssen, eric rudolf etc have managed to cook up
deals to avoid the death penalty. the lesson we learn from
the eric rudolf case is "hide a bunch of explosive in the
hills before you go on your killing spree so you have
something to tradeto have the death penalty taken off the
table." i think arguably that is a reasonable use of
torture. --psb
\_ sorry guys, I was being stupid. I deleted this post but
someone restored it for some reason. New one below:
\_ sorry guys, but that post was flawed. stop responding to
\_ sorry guys, but this post is flawed. stop responding to
\_ sorry guys, I was being stupid. stop responding to
it. I deleted it and someone restored the post for some
reason. New one below (which I wrote before noticing any
of the responses):
reason. New one below:
\_ I'd by happier if it was "death = no doubt", and "life
imprisonment = beyond a reasonable doubt". yeah, this means I
think you can be executed based on circumstantial, as long as
there is "no doubt" he did it all -- yeah, you leave it up to the
jurors to decide what "no doubt" means (but you're already
leaving it up to them to decide what "reasonable doubt" means,
which is a tougher concept)
Also, to address what another person wrote, I support "beyond
a reasonable doubt" on convictions, but "no doubt" on capital
punishment. The only thing you change is the sentencing part
for capital crimes, not "the entire justice system"; you are
still convicted on "beyond a reasonable doubt".
\_ how could you execute a man with such soft lips?
\_ MEOW! FREE TOOKIE! |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court] UID:40890 Activity:nil |
12/6 Law's Quandary Reviewed by Antonin Scalia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535100/posts |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40803 Activity:nil |
12/1 The lies about "Tookie".
http://csua.org/u/e4y (Debra J. Saunders) |
| 2005/11/18-19 [Reference/Law/Court, Recreation/Media] UID:40643 Activity:kinda low |
11/18 "Tom cruise won't come out of the closet!"
\_ How long before Scientoligy takes Trey and Matt to court?
\_ WWXD?
\_ Don't you mean WWLRHD?
\_ I work for the loyal opposition.
\_ The end credits were great.
\_ Link?
\_ ???
\_ http://cnn.com has a 3 minute video blurb about this weeks episode.
\_ episode of what?
\_ South park, duh. Sadly probably the best political/social
commentary on TV today.
\_ My DVR cut out the end. What happened in the last two minutes
of that episode?
\_ Basically kyle or stan or whoever it was said scientology was
a big scam then all the scientologists said they were gonna
sue stan or kyle or whichever one it was for bad mouthing
scientology then the credits ran and everyone in the credits
were jan smith or john smith.
\_ thanks. it might be john smith - Mormons. Did the
three celebreties get out of the closet?
\_ It was John and Jane Smith as a joke, so the scientologists
don't know who to sue.
\_ Um, the LDS founder was Joseph Smith, not John Smith.
-emarkp
\_ Was the whole part about "This is what Scientologists actually
believe" really what they believe?
\_ Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology |
| 2005/11/11-13 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40546 Activity:kinda low |
11/11 Make sure not to get caught in the subway train doors (work safe)
http://csua.org/u/dzm (latimes.com)
\_ something similar happened to a friend in nyc. her bag got
caught in the door w/ her arm in it. she got her arm out
but the bag kept going. some nice person at the next station
grabbed it and waited for her. someone told MTA authority
about it and "they did an investigation". dont think anything
ever came of it ... she didnt bother to try and sue.
definitely conductor negligence though
\_ Gee. I'll make sure I pick up my son from the stroller first when
we board a train next time.
\_ That woman in dark dress was a hero. And she's fast too.
\_ In America this would be instant lawsuit.
\_ In Hong Kong this would be lawsuit too, since it's not equipment
failure but train operator negligence. The operation is supposed
to look at the CCTV outside the train to make sure nobody gets
caught by the doors before he starts the train. Don't know about
in Korea.
\_ something similar happened to a friend in nyc. her bag got
caught in the door w/ her arm in it. she got her arm out
but the bag kept going. some nice person at the next station
grabbed it and waited for her. someone told MTA authority
about it and "they did an investigation". dont think anything
ever came of it ... she didnt bother to try and sue.
definitely conductor negligence though
\_ Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the mother would
just let the kid drop on the floor while trying to wrestle the
stroller off the train door?
\_ watch the video again
\_ I think the audio said she was caught by the stroller.
\_ Thanks :) No sound card on my work PC. |
| 2005/10/26-28 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40282 Activity:high |
10/26 Grand jury composition:
"Like the jury's forewoman, the majority are African American women
who appear to be middle-age or older. The jury includes at least two
black men, two older white women and three white men. One trim,
agile retiree with white hair often entered the grand jury room with
his bicycle helmet in hand."
ROVE, LIBBY == FUCKED
\_ Why do you think the jury composition completely determines outcome?
-emarkp
\- well teh grand jury is not the same as a jury in a criminal
trial, but for the latter, havent you heard of the
Twinkie Defense ... do you know the history behind it?
\_ The Twinkie Defense is an urban legend.
\_ How so? I might call the term "Twinkie Defense" an
exaggeration but the testimony is public record, I
would think. -- ulysses
\_ http://www.snopes.com
\_ Thanks. That was a good read. I basically have
no problem with it except one thing - do juries
necessarily ignore parenthetical remarks?
\- ok fair point. my point was really jury
consultants are used in high $ high profile
cases for a reason. "old school" jury
selection was sort of bogus [people who
cross their arms are stern, pro-prosecution
types] but "scientific" jury selection
really can help you tailor your challeges
to get a pool that will more much more
inclined to buy various claims a "random
selection" or peers would not. the dan white
case was one of the cases that put jury
consultancy on the map. and more generally
there is certainly forum shopping both for
legal rules but also jury composition.
consultancy on the map.
\_ FYI, the "twinkie defense" would not be possible
today b/c ca has abolished both diminished capacity
and the ability of experts witnesses to testify re
the mental state of a defendant at the time he com-
mitted the crime (Cal. Penal Code Sec 29).
\_ because they're guilty as fuck, so they'd only have a chance with
Texas republican rednecks. -tom
\_ The grand jury is utilized only for indictments. Just because you
are indicted doesn't mean you are guilty. |
| 2005/9/29-10/3 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39925 Activity:nil |
9/29 I was rearended by someone, his insurance company admitted guilt
and is going to pay, but now he wants to sue me in small claims.
What can I do to make him go away?
\_ Show up in court and ask for a directed verdict because the
OP doesn't have a prima facia case.
\_ Tell him you'll countersue for your lost wages, emotional
distress, court fees, and the wear and tear on your vcr because
you had to tape a few shows because you were wasting time on his
nonsense. If you're in school tell him you're suing for lost
future potential because you lost study time.
\_ countersue
\_ For malicious prosecution?
\_ for the pain in your back and neck..
\_ inform your insurance company.
\_ they know, and said they can't go with me to small claims.
\_ AAA?
\_ Nope USAA. I think the reason why is that I'm supposed
to represent myself in small claims. Don't know though.
\_ This happened to me as well (also a USAA customer).
If he takes you to small claims court, you must
represent yourself, but USAA will help you prepare
your case. In my case, he threatened small claims but
never went through with it. When he called me at home,
I informed him that all communication must occur through
USAA (as instructed by my agent); never heard from him
again. As noted below, a police report with his guilt
is invaluable. Email me if you have any further qs.
--erikred
\_ Sue you for what?
\_ too hot and too sexy, he was asking for a rear-ender
\_ I think most of the answer is that he is a retired attorney
with problems controlling his temper, but officially for
his insurance deductible, and the increased cost of insurance.
\_ Uh, what? How does that work? That's like suing the person
you robbed for lost wages for the time you spend in prison.
\_ Maybe the other driver is betting that the OP doesn't show
up, which means the other driver wins the claim by default.
If the OP shows up, the other driver has nothing to lose,
I think.
\_ Can't the op sue for "you wasted my time, jerk."
\_ Tell him you will see him in court.
\_ Get a copy of the police report. Ask your insurance people for
a copy of the paperwork from rearender's insurance admitting guilt.
\- i think you need to decide if you would like for this to go away
or go to court and win and then potentially smack him down for
the frivolous proceeding. however the second plan does open up
some risk of get a crazy judge/mediator who decides to split
teh difference for some reason ... also it is probably a stress-
ful process. but it will proably generate more hassle for him.
after you win, send him a thank you note and antagonize him more. |
| 2005/9/16-17 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39716 Activity:moderate |
9/16 Hmong hunter convicted after 3 hours of deliberations by all-white jury
http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_22619727.shtml
\_ It's Wisconsin. Of course it's an all-white jury.
\_ Saying your victims deserved to die won't earn you any sympathy.
And he basically admitted shooting an unarmed girl for inscrutable
reasons.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/5616664.html
\_ Well I applaud Vang. I have this secret wish that someone
like Vang the hero would kill off all fucking whitie KKK bigots
in the midwest. I support Vang for killing Crotteau, I hope he
rotts in hell. However I feel bad for the 2 other innocent
whities.
\- does anybody have a Vang Barrel?
\_ bad troll! no cookie!
\_ You mean, "Admitted mass murderer convicted after telling jury his
unarmed victims deserved to die for making him feel bad after he
trespassed on their land carrying a firearm". |
| 2005/9/8-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39567 Activity:low |
9/8 http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5260715,00.html I would have real trouble being an objective juror in this case. Would you be able to be a good juror? --PeterM \- YMWT read about "jury nullification". \_ I can't say that I'll be more bothered by this than any other murder case. The murder victoms had served their sentences. I don't think there is any suspicion that they've become criminals again, and, even then, that should be dealt with by the police and not some vigilante. There are other, more correct solutions if the child molesters' original sentences were too short or if law enforcement were too slow to respond to their current crimes. \_ Actually, both offenders were so-called "Level 3" sex offenders, characterized as 'those most likely to commit more crimes'. Yes, they had served their sentences, but according to the penal system, these guys were likely to do it again, and weren't 'rehabilitated'. There's a very good chance that this vigilante saved a couple of kids from being raped and/or murdered. --PM \_ You think it's appropriate for some random guy to look up convicted criminals in crimes that had no relation to him, show up at their door and shoot them? Including a 68-year-old guy whose offenses were 15 years ago? -tom \_ Appropriate? No. This vigilante is obviously guilty of something. I think I'd have a hard time convicting him of full 1st degree premeditated murder, however. --PM \_ What else would looking up a stranger's name in a database, going to their house with a gun and shooting them constitute? -tom \_ either he did it or he didn't. Maybe the circumstances may come into play during sentencing, but if he did it, he did it. \_ Why, do you know there's no Minority Report? \_ That you are likely to do something does not mean that you will do something. We punish people for what they do, not what they will likely do. And even if the child molesters were guilty of some new crime, it would be the court system's place to determine guilt and punishment, not the killer's. I would likely be open to the argument that child molesters' original sentences should have been longer and that they should not have been released from prison. But once they are released, they not be punished further for their old crimes, and they have done nothing to warrant being killed. \_ Exceptions to this are conspiracy charges and DUI. Both assume you will do something, but you have yet to actually do it. |
| 2005/9/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39518 Activity:nil |
9/6 I filed a small claims, and upon receiving the small claims, the
asshole^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDefendant decided to give me a full refund
today. However my court date is next Monday. How do I cancel my
small claims? Thanks.
\_ Make sure the check/payment clears. If there is doubt, call the
court and ask to have your case postponed (reason: possible
settlement). If it does clear and everything is okay, call the
court and let them know you settled out of court.
\- if you have incurred significant extra costs, you can
ask for those too. if you have done all your prep and you
can get him on the phone, you might say "you need to pay me
$X extra in costs otherwise see you on monday" ... if he doesnt
show up you should get a judgment against him. at his point
detail matters ... is it a business or somebody judgment proof,
are we talking $20 or $500 etc.
\_ Hello, I'm the op. If you want more info, here:
http://csua.com/?entry=33294 2004-09-02
http://csua.com/?entry=39006 2005-08-04
I wrote several letters and even complained on BBB but nothing
worked. The manager was a dick, and kept saying "refund denied."
Then when I filed for Small Claims they did a 180. They had some
other guy giving me a lengthy apology apologizing. They gave me
a full refund with 2 free nights at Holiday Inn Express. I learned
my lesson: talking and complaining is a waste of time. Just sue
the SOB.
\_ Two letters and two phone calls should be the base. I find SCC
better as a last resort. Postpone your court date, make sure
the check clears, then call the court up to say they settled.
Congrats. Victory is yours!
\- i dont think your "lesson" is correct for two reasons:
1. i think many many cases can be resolved by a complaint
letter. you might have to make some compromises but it
will take a lot less of your time and you can "move on"
without it hanging over your head. in fact there is some
chance if it is a company that has long/repeat customer
relationships, they will throw yo a bone. obviously you have
to normally keep sane and cant ask for the person who pissed
you off to be asked to lick your ball or somesuch.
2. if it goes to court, IT WILL LOOK BAD if you didnt attempt
to settle. a big part of the court system are practical
issues designed to bring trials to an end and a specific
conclusion and not to end up in jardyce v. jarndyce land.
3. certainly a case against a sole proprietor who is being
unreasoanble and who has already lost your business is a
different matter than a large corporation where there is
an appeal chain.
\- BTW, i suspect what is useless is the BBB
\_ The BBB has gotten me action in three cases
where complaint letters did not. -ausman |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39307 Activity:nil |
8/27 How's this for a frivilous lawsuit?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/ap_on_re_us/creationism_lawsuit
\_ i still want credit for the 5 on my AP Christianity test |
| 2005/8/18-19 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/RealEstate] UID:39172 Activity:low |
8/18 A refrigerator box under the bridge: The
Kelo Seven prepares for the worst
http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
\_ It's not chutzpah, but it's a definite case of sore winners. |
| 2005/8/4-6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39006 Activity:nil |
8/4 http://csua.com/?entry=33294 Hello I'm the guy who tried everything to get my money back from Holiday Inn where they charged me $140 even though I returned the cardkey within an hour. I filed small claims 2 months ago and the court date is 9-12-2005. Today, I just got a call from Holiday Inn asking me to call them back. The guy told me he needs more information. Should I bother? \_ Is your time worthless? Hell yeah call them back. If they give you your $140 (or more) you've saved yourself a lot of trouble. One thing they always ask you in court is if you tried to settle out of court first. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38703 Activity:high |
7/19 Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
\_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
tonight at 9pm EDT!
\_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
sensitive and confidential.
\_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
be fired? Look! Over there! A supreme court nomination!
\_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
(was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
should be fired"?
\_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
\_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
wife the CIA agent" to him.
\_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
\_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
investigating this.
\_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
\_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
believe R. Kelly is guilty.
\_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
legally guilty. I am a fan of fairness and
logic, and I try to point out claims that are
unsupported by fact. -pp
\_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
would you accept that?
\_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180? What is
he hiding?
\_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
\_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
\_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
"a plausible theory".
I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
collect on any bets.
\_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
but really isn't.
\_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
probably shouldn't be disclosed to
unauthorized individuals".
\_ If you mean "classified", which has a
clear legal definition, use that. It
sounds like you're trying to carve out
a category of information that occupies
the space between legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Actually, I'm just using the words
in the article. I'd be hesitant
to bet on "classified" though.
To a layperson, "sensitive and
probably shouldn't be disclosed
to unauthorized individuals" has a
very clear meaning -- and I could
bet on that.
\_ Bush I probably thought the fact
that he didn't like brocoli was
"sensitive" and shouldn't be
disclosed to the public. And I
will repeat my claim that you are
trying to carve out a space between
what is legal and illegal to
disclose.
\_ Yes I am carving out a space
between what is legal and
illegal, but what is my
purpose in doing that?
It is what I would be willing
to "bet" on, rather than
legal criteria for putting
him in jail.
\_ I think it's because you
suspect Rove won't be found
legally guilty but you're
not willing to let him off
the hook, so you're trying
to invent a standard whereby
he is guilty even when he
is not.
\_ /Everyone/ suspects that
Rove won't be found
legally guilty.
Listen, all I wrote was
that I would put money on
the fact that Rove and
Libby knew Plame's
identity was sensitive and
probably shouldn't be
disclosed to unauthorized
individuals. I also
acknowledge that Rove
probably won't be
convicted. I also
acknowledge that the terms
I would bet on probably
don't meet the legal
requirements for
conviction.
So what's the big whoop?
\_ Nothing at all. But I
am encouraged to see
you admit that Rove's
action "probably don't
meet the legal
requirements for
conviction."
\_ "Admit" is not the
right word.
I always had the
distinction between
what I wrote and
legal requirements
in mind, and I
don't see how
I implied I wasn't
aware of the
distinction.
For legal purposes, "classified" has
a very clear meaning as you pointed
out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
Libby knowing it was "classified".
I'm definitely not betting on whether
Rove will be convicted or not, but
the smart money of course would be
on no conviction.
\_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
ultimately exonerates Rove, would
you accept that?
\_ If by exonerate you mean "not
convicted of breaking the law",
I'm not sure I would be happy.
If by exonerate you mean
convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, then I would
accept that.
But what I said above is all
very obvious, I think.
\_ Does "not sure I would be
happy" mean that you do not
accept Rove was innocent,
despite Fitzgerald to the
contrary?
\_ Look, O.J. was found "not
guilty" / "innocent" of
killing his wife.
Do you accept that?
\_ BTW, I take it that
you will not accept
Fitzgerald's conclusion
if it is counter to
your position. Who has
the closed mind here?
\_ How do you translate
"I may not be
happy" to I "will
not accept F.'s
conclusion if it
is counter to [my]
position"?
\_ I asked the
question, and I
took your silence
as acquiescence.
Mea culpa. Will
you accept Rove's
exoneration?
\_ See oddly
shaped
post [below].
\_ Nope. But then I am
not trying to invent
a standard by which
OJ could be punished
despite his legal
innocence.
\_ Where did I EVER
say Rove should
be punished under
my criteria?
\_ So if Rove were
exonerated, you
would not clamor
for his removal?
/--------------------------------------------/
If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
behaved ethically, I would accept that.
\_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald? So you're still
saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
want to see him removed? And that is not "punished despit
his legal innocence" in what sense?
\_ What does convicingly mean when used without
qualifiers? It means convincing to an informed observer
who can be persuaded both ways.
This thread has deviated way off course.
You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
as being factually true (but probably never practically
verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
my political beliefs.
Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
UNENDINGLY.
\_ I think your politics are abundantly clear. The
question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
if he is found legally innocent?
\_ It depends on who you ask.
I'm too tired to answer myself.
\_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again? If
you've made up your mind, admit that. Being
intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
having a closed mind.
\_ Oh god, I've been trolled. Fuck you troller.
If you were an innocent motd poster, I
apologize.
\_ Hardly. You have been shown to be a
charlatan though.
\_ <roll eyes>
Who are you dude?
I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
\_ But apparently you're not willing
to answer the question whether Rove
should be punished depite his legal
innocence, but that might cause you
to contradict yourself again.
\_ I would like to know that I am
not being trolled. Please
identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
\_ Heh. Show a little
intellectual honesty. It's
not like we'd be surprised by
your answer.
\_ Okay, anonymous dude:
You see contradictions
where I do not.
You see intellectual
dishonesty where I do not.
Your jump to these two
claims are indicative of a
troll, though not proof.
You've been called out, and
you have not come out to
back up what you've
written. -jctwu
\_ Re "sensitive": carve
out space between legal
and illegal? "Actually,
I am just using the
words in the article".
Well, later, "I am
carving out a space"
after all.
\_ Both facts are
true at the same time
\_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
\_ same to you,
buddy
Will you accept F's
judgement? "How do you
translate [not happy] to
[will not accept]?"
As it turns out, you
want Rove to be
convincingly ethical.
To whom? F? Well, not
F after all, but an
informed observer. So
you don't accept F's
judgement. How about
\_ This is a jump in
logic
punishing Rove? "Where
did I EVER say Rove
should be punished
under my criteria?" So
would clamor for his
removal? Or are you
going to contradict
yourself again?
\_ Non-sophisticated:
What are you talking about?
Faux sophistication / aloofness:
"Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
meaning but for some reason really isn't
here.
\_ troll! or coward!
one or both may
be true. |
| 2005/7/7-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38473 Activity:nil |
7/7 Can someone with some more legal experience clue me in to why
Berkeley theatres aren't open to anti-trust violations? They
actively try not to compete. This is in my mind today because
I intended to go see "Fantastic Four" tommorow, but it is not playing
in any of the 6(?) local theatres. The closest is like 20 blocks
north. -mrauser
\_ Oh no, you might have to go all the way to OAKLAND
\_ I like this quote from a "positive" review: "It's not great but it's
not utter crap either." Which leaves room for being mostly crap.
People should be more selective and not support shitty films.
\_ I appreciate the extent to which you both have not answered
my question at all. And as for it being crap, I'm not supporting
a shitty film, but a hot actress. I still think there is
\_ Mr. & Mrs Smith! -John
\_ Ug. Miss Worm lips really turns
me off.
something very wrong about how berkeley theatres decide to show
or not show movies. -mrauser
\- the answer to your question is indeed "drive to oakland".
you dont understand the basis of anti-trust. i dont think
"the motd" needs to give you a lecture on the framework.
years ago a roll of kodak film was $8.50 at the top of
the empire state bldg. the vendor there indeed had a
local monopoly. but clearly there was no public policy
reason to bring anti-trust action agaisnt him. a more
interesting challege might be to the "no bringing in your
own food" for ballparks [?] and movie theaters.
the FF movie might not have been offered to one of the
ass theaters in berkeley. --psb
\_ Why don't you get the city to flex their ED might to put in
a 30 screen multiplex? Seriously, just take the BART to
Eville.
\_ Anti-trust has been gutted by 2 decades of neglect.
\_ Dear vladimir, dear comrade, why do you hate Capitalism? |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Reference/Law/Court, Transportation/Car] UID:38272 Activity:nil |
6/23 Thought you won 100 grand but got a Nestle 100 Grand Bar instead?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candy_bar_lawsuit
I wonder if she is related to the women who filed the Toyota
Toy Yoda lawsuit:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/072801/State/Dream_car_is_a__toy_Y.shtml
\_ So who is right in the eye of the court? The radio station that
deceived the woman, or the woman too stupid and gullible? |
| 2005/6/21-23 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38227 Activity:nil |
6/21 Regarding the Killen trial. He was tried in the 60s and the jury
deadlocked (11 for and 1 against conviction). How come we can
try him again? Is it because there are new evidence?
\_ Was it declared a mistrial for the hung jury? If so, there's no
statute of limitation on murder. The plaintiff can refile. IANAL |
| 2005/6/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38174 Activity:nil |
6/17 Okay, wait, lemme see if I got this straight. A lesbian couple in
Vermont gets a civil union. Later, they get a divorce. An entirely
unrelated heterosexual married couple in Iowa then SUES the couple for
harming their marriage? HUH? Have we entered BIZARRO-WORLD?!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_re_us/lesbian_divorce
\_ I read this and didn't see a single mention of vermont. Granted,
it's still a retarded case and thus a funny article.
\_ "[...] The two were joined in March 2002 in Bolton, Vt.,
according to Brown's divorce petition."
\_ Welcome to the country of lawsuits. |
| 2005/6/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38109 Activity:nil |
6/13 So MJ is not guilty on all counts. Pedophiles rejoice!
\_ Idiot. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was not proved. The
verdict was correct. This is how the justice system works in
this country, if you can afford a decent lawyer that is.
\_ Hey, just remember if you're going to get kids drunk and yank
their wang, be sure to make sure there aren't any (well, very
many) witnesses!
\_ And if you're a witness, remember to go to the police instead
of the tabloids! Oh wait, they all went to the tabloids
first.
\_ Um, no they went to the police first.
\_ Actually I think they all sued him first for various
bogus reasons.
\_ No, that was the particularly interesting thing.
They DIDN'T try to sue him first.
\_ Wrong, almost every witness against him is
/was involved in some lawsuit, unrelated
to molestation (pay dispute, etc.) against
MJ.
\_ More so if you can afford a decent laywer *and* you're black,
like OJ Simpson. (Doesn't apply if you only are black but
can't afford a decent laywer.)
\_ Yeah, Black people get off way too easy in this
country.
\_ No. Rich black people get off too easy by using poor
black people's misfortne in this country.
\_ Wow. +5 Idiot/troll.
\_ I think a more accurate statement would be that
"Rich people get off too easy", regardless of
creed.
\_ An entirely different way to look at it is that
our justice system is just broken for poor people.
\_ Gee just like everything else in life!
\_ MJ is white, you moron.
\_ This just goes to show that white women always get off
easy.
\_ I thought they are lucky to get off at all.
\_ Hooray for Cal grads http://www.cmrylaw.com/frame_Yu.html
</troll> |
| 2005/6/11-13 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/Companies/Ebay] UID:38088 Activity:nil |
6/10 For the fellow who bought the bad ram a week or two ago and was
bitching or moaning about how it had an "as is" disclaimer
on it buried somewhere on the product description on ebay,
you can still take the guy to court on the basis that the
disclaimer was not conspicious.
\_ Just contact EBay complaint resolution service. Much cheaper
than a lawsuit and just as likely to get you satisfaction. |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37979 Activity:nil |
6/6 Looks like you can't refuse a feeding tube if you want to.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297397_fast03m.html
\_ The article describes it as a "hunger strike," but that isn't
how I would describe it. Usually you would have to be
striking for something to call it a strike, not just staving
yourself because you feel guilty.
\_ You know the sep between church & state is alive and
well when the judge has "the sanctity of life" in his
ruling. Why don't they just provide cyanide capsules
to prisoners -- think of the cost savings! |
| 2005/6/3 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37952 Activity:nil |
6/2 Don't know enough about watergate... why Mark Felt didn't
go to Grand Jury instead? What is the risk of going through
the grand jury?
\_ When your boss is involved in the incident...
\_ Why be known as the whistleblower when reporters can do all the
dirty work, get some credit as well, and it won't look like he
did it just to screw Nixon.
\- Do you know what the "saturday night massacre" refers to
w.r.t. to watergate? also see united states v nixon. ok tnx.
[btw, the two legacies of the SNM are BORK and STARR] |
| 2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37695 Activity:kinda low |
5/15 Interview with Intelligent Design leader Phillip Johnson: Attended
Harvard one year early, graduated first in class at Chicago law, and
a Boalt professor emeritus - http://csua.org/u/c2t (Post)
\_ Gee, I always get my biological science from lawyers. -tom
\_ Indeed, those do seem to be odd qualifications. -emarkp
\_ Lawyers should stay out of science, scientists have always
voluntarily stayed out of law.
\_ munson@csua graduated cum laude in astrophysics, went to law
school, worked as an attorney, and is going back to get his
astrophysics doctorate. So much for that theory :-) -John
\_ Lawyers and empirical scientists are both interested in
causation (the former to determine responsibility, the latter
to determine laws of nature). The business of law and science
is not that different. -- ilyas
\_ Lawyers are interested in winning, regardless of the
truth. Scientists are interested in winning too, but
at least the data has to stand up to empirical truth
\_ Some lawyers. Just like there are some good politicans.
\_ You are thinking about litigators, most lawyers
don't litigate. So far what I've learnt is that
being a lawyer is a lot like being an engineer,
you try to design solutions that will keep your
clients out of trouble and make thier lives
easier.
\_ I think it's a matter of knowledge not principles. |
| 2005/5/5 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37530 Activity:high |
5/5 Missed this one. Canadian court says you don't have religious
freedom:
http://csua.org/u/byr
\_ Hey whoever edited this: reply, don't mangle my words.
\_ It's just part of Canada's culture of life! |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37462 Activity:nil |
5/3 Is the blond lawyer on the right wearing flip-flops?
http://tinyurl.com/b997c
(news.yahoo.com)
\_ How should I know? I can only see her head.
\_ What the hell are you talking about? I went through all the
pictures and didn't see anything related.
\_ What's it too you? The law says there shall be no blond lawyer? |
| 2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:37249 Activity:high |
4/18 Defender of Earth, Destroyer of Big Fat Ugly Hummer, sentenced to 8
years. It's a sad sad day.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut
\_ 8 years? He should have gotten more! Get real. Destroying
SUV does NOTHING to save the earth. Neutering people will,
starting with people like you and him.
\_ Yes sir! Damn the Yankee Rebels who threw our pretious tea
into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her Majesty
into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her
Majesty
\_ This stupid fool is on par w/ the patriots of the
Boston Tea Party? WOW. After years of being deprived
of their fundamental rights w/o representation the
patriots took to violent protest. This guy chose
violent protest as a FIRST resort. Show me how the
sovereign (ie US gov) has deprived this man of any
rights w/o representation.
\_ Do we get to vote out the Saudi prince, the sheik and the
ben ladens, who walks all over us?
\_ This has something to do w/ Hummers how? I hope
you realize that most of the crude does not end
up in the belly of a hummer.
\_ I'm sure he'll become real familiar with Hummers while in jail.
\_ I disagree with his message and certainly don't condone his method,
but I am bothered by the hypocrisy behind it. Years ago it caused
an outrage when Singapore gave a mere 15 symbolic caning to an
American playboy who damaged private cars for thrills and then let
him walk. Now a political act in the American tradition of Boston
tea lands one in Sodom for 8+ years. What's wrong with America?
\_ Gee, spray painting is a different crime than arson; how
hypocritical! Moron. -tom
\_ 2 seditious aliens who fled did the arson; at least the
prosecution did not (bother to) prove otherwise. Where does
your notion of justice go? And how is arson better than
shipjacking and destruction of 45 tons of public property?
As for the insult, you are what you are.
\_ I think you need to do a little research about how any
sane or reasonable court system works. It's not the
prosecution's job to prove the innocence of the guy
they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The
\- not all countries use the adversarial system
used in the US. e.g. the german system is very
different. practically nobody else uses juries
any more. --psb
\_ True, but this divergence rather misses my
point.
\- in the case of some systems the judge
is not passive but actively participates
in establishing the "truth of the matter"
including the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. while that doesnt make it
the prosecutions job, the state does
play a role on his behalf. i'm just
suggesting the "a reasonable ct system"
is not code for "the us style adversarial
system". BTW, martin shapiro's book
courts is pretty interesting. well done
"scientific study" in the social sceinces.
they have in custody...that's the defense's job. The
prosecution's job is to put a malicious arsonist behind
bars. *Of course* the defense is going to make the
claim that 'it was someone else that did it, my client
was innocent, blah blah etc'. A jury didn't agree or
he chose to plea bargain. I have very little sympathy
for an idiot that chooses to attack the property of his
fellow citizens because of an obscure and noncritical
political point (which, if you're really an educated
reader, should show up *at least* two major differences
from the Boston Tea Party).
\_ The accused is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution
should prove beyond reasonable doubt that he took part
in the arson or has full knowledge in advance. He is
guilty of spray-paint, but that doesn't mean he is
guilty of arson because he is a fool and cannot afford
a lawyer who can "prove" one's innocence. Is your
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by a
lawyer for a hefty fee?
guilty of spray-paint, but convict him of arson just
because he is a fool and cannot afford a lawyer who can
"prove" one's innocence? Is your freedom guaranteed by
the Constitution or provided by an expensive lawyer?
\_ What you've basically just said here is "I don't
agree with the verdict, so the whole justice system
must therefore be broken". Uhm, yeah. This
conversation has no future.
\_ A person need not be charged w/ commission of the
substantive crime in order to be found guilty of
it. Ex. the dude could have been charged w/
conspiracy to destroy property, which means the
people only have to show that he agreed to this
conspiracy and that someone else who agreed to
it committed the arson. Alt. he could be found
guilty on accomplice liability theories also.
The motivation for this type of liability is
obvious, society has an incentive to deter
these type of crimes to ensure everyone's safety
and welfare.
This is not about needing a "expensive lawyer",
this is about not being STUPID and committing
crimes.
Perhaps you forget, but every man who signed
the declaration (and many of those who dumped
tea into Boston Harbor) was a traitor to his
majesty and would have been hanged if caught.
Most lost their homes, businesses, assets, &c.
\_ the american boy in spore only got 3 strokes of the cane.
originally it was 6, but they reduced it to 3 after
bill clinton pleaded for the boy. He was 18 years old
at that time.
\-he was more of a bratty kid than "playboy" as suggested above
but there are a number of interesting details ... in a new
yorker kind of way ... to the story not mentioned here (like
one of the cars painted belonged to a judge). YMWTGF "michael
fay". an interesting double standard is women are not subject
to caning in SIN. --psb, pro-beating
\_ Yeah, I'll bet you're pro-beating.
\_ I think I'd rather be caned 3 times than be raped and get
HIV in jail.
\_ Well, of course. But comparing the Singaporian incident
and the corresponding sentence to the SUV guy...man,
it's comparing apples to oranges -- just in terms of
property damage *alone*.
\- a better comparison is to vandalizing protestors
like anti-nuke people, animal rights freaks etc.--psb |
| 2005/4/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/Rants] UID:37114 Activity:moderate |
4/7 Yay outsourcing! Indian call center employees use customer banking
information to steal $350,000.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1070986,curpg-1.cms
\_ I'm sure that would never happen in the U.S. -tom
\_ Yeah, but the money would be easier to recover.
\_ In the Bay Area there was recently a couple of people who
worked for BofA who embezzled millions over the years.
They're going to jail, but $5 million is still unaccounted
for, and very little of the money was recovered.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/15/BAG73BPFIJ1.DTL
http://tinyurl.com/69dq9 (sfgate.com)
-tom
\_ Any theft that goes 5 years undetected will be hard to
recover. If they were busted after a month like the
Indians I bet most of the money would be found.
\_ Maybe if we'd outsourced to India they would have been
caught faster. -tom
\_ are you actually pro-outsourcing or just poking
holes in her arguments?
\_ I am neutral on outsourcing; I think blaming
embezzlement on outsourcing is ridiculous. -tom
\_ Not necessarily. Trusting sensitive data to
a 3rd world country is a problematic concept
\- apparetly it is also problematic to
trust ucb.
in itself. The above data point does not prove
it either way, nor does your counterpoint,
but your assertion is plainly just dumb.
\_ There was a previous case where a local
hospital outsourced their medical
transcription to some company, who
outsourced it to another company, who
outsourced it to India, and then stopped
paying their employees, who threatened the
hospital with publicizing medical records
unless she got paid. While that could
still happen in the US, there's *way* less
recourse when the person is in another
country with a different set of laws.
\- two words: "union carbide"
\_ While that's a local downside of
outsourcing, they got to run the
plant cheaply and with lax safety
procedures, and then ended up paying
way less in damages than if they
had killed Americans.
\- well ok more than two words:
how do you think some indians
feel about foreigners being
outside the law. anybody have
relatives in canada? what do
they think about congressmen
saying "we cant trust crazy
unsafe canadian pharmaceuticals".
\_ *cough*BEXTRA*cough* |
| 2005/3/29-31 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:36949 Activity:nil |
3/29 http://csua.org/u/bim (cnn.com) For some reason I think the Supreme Court would have let the decision from the appeals court stand, since the law on this is so obvious -- but the Court is just hearing the case to help them research the latest iPods they could buy for themselves or something similarly stupid. \_ anyone have a Rio Karma? Recommended? \_ "There's never the intent to break the law when the guy is in the garage inventing the iPod," added Justice David Souter. Haha, that's funny, I don't think the ipod was invented in the garage, hahahaha. \_ The law is not obvious. It is not clear that Sony directly applies to this case for several reasons: (1) Sony dealt w/ an actual product that could be used to violate copyrights, but could not be used for distribution, (2) Sony's revenue did not depend mostly on copyright infringment, while arguably Grokster's revenue does (they get there money from ads in the pgm), (3) Sony did not intend that the VCR be mostly used for infringing uses as Grokster arguably did, (4) the "substantial non-infrining uses" was borrowed from patent law by the Sony decision (which actually was the dissent after the 1st argument, and became the opinion after re-argument) and there isn't any clear direction from the USSC re this standard (given that only about 90% of Grokster's users use it for infringing uses, is it enough that 10% of the users are legit?) My understanding is that most of the questioning today was about aiding and abetting copyright infringing which would take this completely out of Sony territory. |
| 2005/3/19 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36764 Activity:nil |
3/18 How chaotic can Florida's (or America's) court system be? One
\- Florida is a little different. See e.g.:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
court rules to keep the feeding tube in, and 10 minutes later
another rules to remove it. Isn't there a hierarchy? It's already
gone to the State Supreme Court; how can little florida courts
keep overturning their decision?
\_ The Senate Health Committee has subpoenaed her and her husband. She
can't do that if she's starving to death.
\_ That is what I mean. This entire situation is quite chaotic.
Which ridiculous congressman is subpoena'ing a woman in
a persistent vegetative state? Is he trying to be symbolic?
\_ Short answer, yes. I'm sick of hearing about this case. If
she told her husband that she wouldn't want extreme measures
to keep her alive, she probably also told her parents. If
they're not respecting her wishes, it's out of selfishness.
I think left to their own devices they could have worked
it out. But since we've apparently got nothing else for
Congress to do than steroids and this, it's ended up center
stage.
\_ Congress is going to do steroids and remove a feeding tube?
Awesome!
\_ Congress loves shit like this. Keeps them from having to
deal with real problems. I bet they'd have Michael Jackson
hearings too, if they thought that they could get away with
it. |
| 2005/3/18-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36754 Activity:nil |
x3/18 Can small claims be used to get judicial orders. I mean, say some
company has some information that I believe I am legally entitled to
but will not give me that information, can I sue them in small claims
for it. If not there, the what is my recourse? It seems that small
claims court is geared more towards "this person ows me money".
\_ Original jurisdiction of small claims courts is usually limited
to rewarding monetary damages. However, theoretically they could
order this. Check with your local jurisdiction on the matter.
If you really want to do this cheaply, I suppose what you can
do is sue the company for something related to that information
and then issue a subpoena for it. You can issue a subpoena
after the OP has been served. What kind of information is
it?
\_ You can also request a Subpoena Duces Tecum through the Court
Clerk. However, the OP may move to quash it and you have
to show a valid reason for the Subpoena. If OP claims the
information is priviliged and has no bearing on your case
then it may be quashed. If the information falls under
the statutory jurisdiction of a freedom of information act
within your state or under federal law then the OP is
compelled to produce the documents. If they fail to do so
OP is in contempt and will be sanctioned as such.
A SDC requires the following:
1. shows good cause for the production of the records
described in the subpoena
2. specifies the exact records to be produced
3. fully details the relevance of the records requested to the
issues involved in the case
4. States that the witness has the desired records in his/her
possession or under his/her control
OP can squash under 3 if it challenges your prima facia case.
\_ I thought that you could only get a Subpoena Duces Tecum
once the judge approves your discovery plan (haven't covered
this yet in civ pro) |
| 2005/3/18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36749 Activity:moderate |
3/18 How chaotic can Florida's (or America's) court system be? One
court rules to keep the feeding tube in, and 10 minutes later
another rules to remove it. Isn't there a hierarchy? It's already
gone to the State Supreme Court; how can little florida courts
keep overturning their decision?
\_ The Senate Health Committee has subpoenaed her and her husband. She
can't do that if she's starving to death.
\_ That is what I mean. This entire situation is quite chaotic.
Which ridiculous congressman is subpoena'ing a woman in
a persistent vegetative state? Is he trying to be symbolic?
\_ Short answer, yes. I'm sick of hearing about this case. If
she told her husband that she wouldn't want extreme measures
to keep her alive, she probably also told her parents. If
they're not respecting her wishes, it's out of selfishness.
I think left to their own devices they could have worked
it out. But since we've apparently got nothing else for
Congress to do than steroids and this, it's ended up center
stage.
\_ Congress is going to do steroids and remove a feeding tube?
Awesome!
\_ Congress loves shit like this. Keeps them from having to
deal with real problems. I bet they'd have Michael Jackson
hearings too, if they thought that they could get away with
it. |
| 2005/3/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36734 Activity:kinda low |
3/17 Is Peterson that stupid? Why doesn't he show some emotion to get
the jury's sympathy? Is there a good reason for not showing
any emotion?
\_ And why is his lawyer also so stupid as not to tell him to fake some
emotion? I thought his laywer is a high-profile one.
\_ Maybe he his lawyer knew he was guilty and wanted him to
fucking get the death penalty so he could represent him through
15 appeals. --PM
\_ But I thought that lawyer of his is more into fame than money.
And losing Peterson's initial trail brings no fame even though
all the appeals will bring lots of lawyer's fees.
\_ 1. A different lawyer will handle the appeals.
2. His attorney *is* famous just by handling the case,
win or lose.
\_ Over a long period of time, nearly everyone can spot faked
emotions. As for Peterson, who knows? |
| 2005/3/12 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:36657 Activity:high |
3/12 So when are they going to catch this guy? From how it sounds, he took
the Grand Theft Auto strategy and won't be killing himself; he sounds
determined and focused, and wants to survive.
Jury foreman: "He seemed like a pretty logical, intelligent, articulate
person."
Neighbor: "He walked around with no T-shirt, and didn't come off as a
9-to-5 guy. Some of the women liked him, but I didn't trust him at all."
http://CNN.com: He was accused of binding his ex-girlfriend -- an executive
at a Fortune 500 company -- with duct tape and assaulting her over a
three-day period last fall. ... Nichols had claimed the sex was
consensual. His first trial began two weeks ago, but ended in a
hung jury. ... Nichols' last known job was as a computer technician
for a subsidiary of UPS.
Prosecutor: "I really believe that this was a random situation. This is
not a defendant who has demonstrated violence in the past. The violence
in his past was specific to his victim."
\_ Already have:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050312/2005-03-12T165131Z_01_N12307752_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-SHOOTING-ATLANTA-DC.html
http://tinyurl.com/5zd3k (reuters.myway.com)
\_ Yeah, I thought he would go to a friend's house. He would have
needed to have surfaced to buy food if he really slept in his
car. Guess he gave up. |
| 2005/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36615 Activity:high |
3/10 Hey ilyas, take your philosopher kings and blow 'em out your nose
with a rubber hose!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050310.shtml
\_ Intelligently written, but horseshit. Imagine a world where
legislation is so thorough as to leave absolutely no gray areas?
The fact that lawyers can exploit this is not a failure of the
way our legal system works, but a failure of the way lawyers work.
No matter how clever a restriction you put into place, you'll
always find some smartass who'll take advantage of it. -John
\_ Then legislators can correct the problem. That's not the role of
a judge.
\_ interpreting the law is exactly the role of the judicial
system. -tom
\_ There is a huge difference btwn interpreting the law
and making it. No one objects to interpretations of
the law, but when judges base their decisions on the
current prevailing views (as Kennedy recently did)
the foundation upon which the law is based becomes
quite unstable.
The whole idea of separation of powers comes into
question if you allow judges to "interpret" the
legislative schemes to fit into their notion of how
the scheme should work (look at the reluctance of
the USSC to allow judges to fashion soln to the
asbestos mess)
WRT to the posted article the comparison of fixed
speed limits to no undue speed is a poor analogy.
In many cases the law needs to be flexible so that
various factual situations can be handled. Things
"undue" and "prudent" are not just arbitrary, they
have specific meanings that judges and lawyers
know and adhere to.
In many ways the flexibility of modern law is a
reaction to the common law writ system which had
specific (but arbitrary) requirements on what a
person must plead, &c. which forced people to
distort their facts to fit into one writ or the
the other.
\_ Nowhere did I say "correct". The law is deliberately
ambiguous in a lot of areas. The EU has a famous statute
governing the curvature of bananas, as well as one about
the positioning of light fixtures--something like 600,000
pages of random shit that their legislators use to try and
regulate things they have no business with, which is what
legislators do given the opportunity. This breeds a culture,
all too pervasive in a lot of countries, that everything not
explicitly permitted is forbidden--innovation and personal
accountability are stifled. I am arguing against the
extremes that the approach taken by Sowell's article would
create implicitly. That said, striking down laws judged to
violate the constitution (created by legislation) is a form
of "correction", no? Would you ban that? -John
\_ In our system a lawyer has a duty to represent the best
interests of his client. If the clients interests means
that he has to be creative in his interpretation, then
it is not really his fault, he is doing what is required
of him. |
| 2005/2/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36379 Activity:high |
2/23 So, the Supreme court is going to examine the Oregon euthanasia laws.
170 people have used since it became legal in 1997 to end their lives
prematurely, mostly cancer patients, who I assume were in horrendous
pain or discomfort. I can sympathize with the arguments of the
prolifer, even if I don't agree. I am totally baffled by the Bush
administration's meddling with the Oregon law -- I thought Republicans
were for states rights (or is that states rights only if we agree
with those rights?). This law is not being abused (20/year?),
doctors are not "killing off their patients" -- Is the Bush
administration in favor of suffering? Or is their religious zeal
clouding their judgement?
\_ The latter. Suicide is a sin and this law opens the door to stuff
like late-term abortions of severely abnormal fetuses.
\_ "opens the door"? Abortion is a legal choice (thankfully) for
women with severely abnormal or terminally ill fetuses. At least
for now. In my eyes, legally forcing someone and their loved ones
to endure a painful illness that can only end in death is about
as un-loving as you can get.
\_ Bush and company want to live in a black-and-white world
with clear delineation of good and evil, no gray areas,
no exceptions, (and also little room for thought,
compassion, and mercy).
\_ The bottom line is that doctors will help patients end their
lives no matter what the law says. Doctors have always helped
their patients with this and they always will. |
| 2005/2/10-11 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:36131 Activity:kinda low |
2/10 Lokitorrent is dead. Long live lokitorrent!
\_ Do you have more info about the outcome of the lawsuit? Did the
court force them to put up the index.html page they now have at
http://www.lokitorrent.com ?
\_ I wonder when they'll go after bittorrent downloaders instead of
sites.
\_ http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=661 |
| 2005/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36005 Activity:high |
1/31 I got called for jury duty today. If I'm a student, what can I
do to delay this summons? Thanks.
\_ Most jury summons by mail will allow you to postpone your duty due
to student obligations (school, etc). Just set your postpone date
to something after school is out for the semester and check the
"student" box in the postponement section. They even accepted a
late postponement request from me (postmarked after the deadline)
due to school obligations (they wanted me during finals).
- jvarga
\_ From what I understand you're not excused, but they'll take into
account the fact that you're a student by assigning you a short
(1-2 day) case if selected. I'm not sure whether you can pick
another day to show up. The Orange and L.A. County web sites say
full-time students can postpone jury duty to "school breaks".
\_ As a teacher once told me. Write them and tell them that you
can't come in during the stated times, but that you can make
it up during a school break. Whatever happens, don't show up in
person because once you do "they gotcha" (i.e., you may have to
serve on a jury). Usually they are pretty reasonable with this
kinda thing, they certainly don't want to arrest ppl for not
showing up unless you are really trying to evade your civic
duty.
\_ Did you get the letter in the mail or were you notified that
you would have to be available this week and were selected?
If the former, you can get a letter from the dept saying
that you are a full time student until may, which will get
you out of service till summer. If the latter, you will
have to show up and tell them that you a full time student
and would like to have your service postponed b/c of a mix
up re dates for winter break.
\_ or you can do what I do and just ignore it.
\_ I don't mind postponing it, but the problem is that
they amazingly picked the first day of my spring break.
I'd like to postpone it until summer. Should I just
lie and say I'm in school that day, or would they
actually check up on my school's schedule?
\_ Don't lie, just tell them that b/c you only have
a week off, you probably won't be able to serve,
and you would rather do it during summer when
you can server.
\_ In Alameda County, you can take care of all of this online, and
you get two postponements per Jury Duty notice no questions asked.
Read your notice carefully.
\- tell them you are a law student
\_ ObJoke: "I believe I'd make an excellent juror. I can tell if
someone is guilty just by looking at them." |
| 2005/1/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35823 Activity:nil |
1/20 dump truck = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144951,00.html \_ "At the time, a band spokesman said that Wohl had said he was not involved with the incident." What Wohl said, "Dude, I was smoking out behind 7-11, and some bum came up and stole the bus! He came back 10 minutes later and the tank was empty. Seriously, I have no idea duuuude." |
| 2005/1/14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35726 Activity:nil |
1/14 http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html Ok, now when he wins the Presidency (as if an atheist could), he can kick out the holy man. (I'm an atheist but even I found this ridiculous) |
| 2005/1/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35607 Activity:very high |
1/7 Before you people start mouthing off about the law, i.e.
PSB, I suggest you pick up a copy of "American Courts" by
Daniel John Meador. It's put out by West Group, probably the
same people behind Westlaw. It's required reading at some
law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
\_ FYI, West Group is the same people behind Westlaw.
\_ FYI, West Group are the same people behind Westlaw.
law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
\- it's amazing what PDFs you can find via google...
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/tmp/Texts1.jpg
Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
\- You know for the legal topics that interest me, I think I
have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the vocational
practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack about civil procedure
but I do know a little about Constitutional Law, Law and Economics,
Antitrust Law [but I have more background in Econ ... but I have
read a reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you do,
unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It would also
be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... face your accuser
and all that. I think it is poor form to talk about background in
a public forum but would be happy to do so by email. --psb
have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the
vocational practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack
about civil procedure but I do know a little about
Constitutional Law, Law and Economics, Antitrust Law [but I
have more background in Econ ... but I have read a
reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you
do, unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It
would also be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... with
these anonymous conversation you never know if you are
speaking to the same person as before ... and then there is
facing your accuser and all that :-). I think it is poor
form to talk about background in a public forum but would
be happy to do so by email. Somewhat ironically, my entire
legal educatation, for what it is, esentially predates google.--psb
\-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book
mentioned above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was
surprised to see that for what I assume is a classic,
there was only one review ... allthought a 5star one. So
then I looked up a number of famous law books [Martin
Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo: Nature of the Jud. Process,
Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol Proc, Posner: Econ
Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously, HLA
Hart: Concept of Law] and not a single one had more than
10 reviews ... it sure seems like law people spend a lot
less time writing reviews than say math people ... (Baby)
Rudin has 73 reviews. A lot of the std math/phyiscs
textbooks have 20-40 reviews. Oh Rawls: Theory of Justice
has 46 reviews.
\_ I was in a law class with PSB. For the Mock Trial he was the
best attorney by far. His only problem was he was a bit
impatient with a dumb judge during oral arguments. That hurt
his case when we voted. He would probably be a better law
professor than lawyer.
\-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book mentioned
above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was surprised to see
that for what I assume is a classic, there was only one
review ... allthough a 5star one. So then I looked up a
number of famous law books [Martin Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo:
Nature of the Jud. Process, Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol
Proc, Posner: Econ Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights
Seriously, HLA Hart: Concept of Law, Bickle: Least Dangerous
Branch] and not a single one had more than 10 reviews ... it
sure seems like law people spend a lot less time writing
reviews than say math people ... (Baby) Rudin has 73 reviews.
A lot of the std math/phyiscs textbooks have 20-40 reviews.
Oh, Rawls: Theory of Justice has 46 reviews.
\_ psb, why do you specifically single out yale in your
response? out of curiosity, where did you learn all
your legal knowledge?
\- in political science, philosophy, and econ
departments. the one law class i took in
the business school was the worst class i
ever took at berkeley. it was taught by a
visiting prof who was i believe a second
rate practicing attorney who didnt know the
subject well from an academic perspective
and was just dull (e.g. he didnt know and
could not understand anything about "the
economic analysis of law" ... "i dont want
to consider the availabilty of insurance"
"what do you mean about the evolutionary
efficiency of the common law"). has anybody
else had really bad experieinces with a
visiting prof? it was my theory that he
wanted "taught at berkeley" on his resume
and learned on some friend here to get him
a job for the term. when i talked to prof
muir with a number of specific example of
what was wrong with him [like his scantron
exam], muir sighed and i believe indirectly
hinted he'd seen a lot of problems with
visiting people.
\_ Funny. I've been at Yale for the last five years and
know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy. I guess
the osmosis theory of learning doesn't work after all.
I'm pretty sure the engineering undergrads I've TA'd all
also know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy; this
comment is mystifying.
\_ not really. i think he's talking about, say, the
people in the law school. yale's law program has a
reputation for a relatively high focus on theory.
\_ Well, that's even stupider. So if someone is
in law school at some other top-tier school,
they must automatically bow the might of the PSB?
Of course given the near infinite idiocy of the
op's pompous rant, I guess it all cancels out.
\- sigh, it was sort of a jokey-reference to
yale law schools reputation for abstractness.
there is a joke that goes something like:
3 law student friends are waiting to take the
bar exam in boston. the harvard student asks
the umass student "what is the MA law on torts?"
and the yale law student asks the HLS student
"what is a tort?" only after i started meeting
people who went to or were in law school i
learned how "vocational" even good law programs
were. you spend a lot of time on "how to be a
lawyer" rather than thinking about "The Law
and Justice". i.e you dont read a lot of Plato
and Kant. --psb
\_ Why shouldn't it be vocational? I'm
not going to pay someone three
hundred bucks an hour to talk about
Kant.
\- that was not a criticism. it was an
observation. i mean to get at something
like if you start up a conversation
about something like "what do we owe
each other" or what is a rationale for
progressive taxation, a lawyer may little
more to say than say an english major
who has relfected some on a classist
society upon reading Dickens.
\_ If all our lawyers talk about Plato and Kant
from now on there would be no frivilous
lawsuits and our health insurance cost
would come down. Everyone except the
lawyers would be better off.
\-SPARTAN LAWYER!
O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede
keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi
(Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here obedient to their laws we lie.)
--Simonides in honor of the
Spartans who fell at Thermopylae
\_ I think "theory" is just a code word
for leftist.
\- That applies maybe to something like
"Critical Legal Studies" but a big area
is Law and Economics [sort of the
Chicago approach] so that is not really
true. Plenty of this philosophy is
libertarian in flavor [contract and all
that]. I think Plato is sort of like
Lincoln ... everyone wants a piece of
him. Well except maybe whackos like
racialists.
racialists. --psb |
| 2005/1/8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35602 Activity:moderate |
1/7 psb are you a lawyer or trying to be?
\- no, i want to be a judge. a hanging judge.
\_ Yeah! Chief Justice Partha! - #1 psb fan
\- motion to kiss my ass.
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Kiss_my_Ass.txt |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35584 Activity:high |
1/7 Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
through small claim court? How can the court order the defendant
to appear in this case?
\_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
over the case.
\- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
"dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
Satan and His Staff. --psb
\_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
\- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
"jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
that is required is that the court feels that it has original
jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
the place of business, and if the business was conducted
in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
\-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
option, but whether it is worth the money is not
fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
http://csua.org/u/amm
\_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
"original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
in certain types of cases. There also isn't
really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
which is a fiction also. However, since it's
unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
that it can be considered as such.
Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
\_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
\- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
issue.
\_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
writing about jx...
writing about jx on the motd...
subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
"original jx" in the context of fed cts.
In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
or laws of the fed gov.
In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
"across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
(1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
okay.
Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
If the case is related to some specific action of the
defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
state, then lots of contacts are need.
There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
and (5) shared interests of many states.
I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
ct you will probably not have any basis for being
in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
compeling the corp to appear. However, you may be
able to get a judgment by default and then via
Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
property in its home state. Then you can show up
at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
\_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
\_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
substantive law instead of merely googling for
stuff you'd understand what
"original jurisdiction":
really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
you know shit about the law.
\- are you the person whose orginal contribution
[sic] was the tautology above?
\_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
about law you'd realize that it is filled
with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
An example of this include the following:
the description of cause-in-fact or
actual cause
the description of proximate cause
the concept of what a reasonable person is
the concept of what negligence is
the definition of intent
the definition of voluntary
Take a 1L course in substantive law,
see if you can pass it. Then come back
and we'll talk.
\_ First time poster, long time listener
here. The description of 'actual cause'
is not as simple and tautological as you
may think. Email me for technical
details. -- ilyas
\- the law may be filled with tautologies
but your first respose was totally
useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
1. you may be able to reach out to
someone in another state 2. and you can
do so if the court decides you can.
while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
"legal realist" answer [the law is what
courts say it is ... as opposed to some
metaphysical body of a priori principles
of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
if you are an attorney and gave me
advice like that, i'd not only think the
"law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
some tautolgies ... or "analytic
statements" are trivial, some are
merely uninteresting and some are
useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
so all of these are "tautologies across
the equal sign", but only one is a
valuable observation.
\_ Thanks. I am doing this for someone. I have sent two
emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
debtor by phone. Small claim court is the next logical
step?
\-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
or cert mail or whatever it is called.
\_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
\_ Not neccesarily true, certain
districts allow you to sue up to
$5000. It depends on the district
and the state.
decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
of Full Faith and Credit).
Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
property in the state in which you sue. As part of
your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
the property to satisfy your judgment.
\- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction. |
| 2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35475 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/29/hunters.shot.ap/index.html Hmong hunter to use the insanity defense. I guess they didn't want to use the "Damn 4 eyed chink can't see and can't shoot, therefore you must acquit" defense as suggested by O'Reiley. |
| 2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35470 Activity:nil |
12/29 Jerry Orbach RIP:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/29/obit.orbach/index.html
\_ That man singlehandedly made Law&Order fun to watch. |
| 2004/12/14 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/RealEstate] UID:35277 Activity:very high |
12/13 When I moved recently, the manager inspected my apartment and told
me that I cleaned it well enough so that I do not have to pay for
cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. However, 2 weeks later I received
a letter from the company owning the property that I owe $85 cleaning
fee in addition to the carpet cleaning that I knew I should pay.
I also found that on the move-out checklist that the manager and I
both initialed she checked neither the clean nor the not-clean column.
I am away and traveling and cannot (afford to) fight them in small
court even if I have ground to win. What can I do?
\_ Send them a copy of the checklist and demand the $85. Ask your
former manager for help.
\_ whoa, the exact same thing happened to me earlier this year.
Basically verbal agreements mean... nothing. Did you record the
conversation? If you did, you'd have a case. Otherwise, :(
I learned my lesson, I hope you do too.
\_ Recorded conversations are not admissible as evidence w/o the
consent of those being recorded. What you need is statements in
writing.
\_ Why is that? So we recorded the terriorists conversation but
cannot use against them because we don't have their consent?
If we cannot apply the same kind of laws to our so called
enemy, then the law we think is so great, isn't so.
\_ Just so you're aware, there's a little leap from damage
charges on a rental to fighting int'l terrorism.
\_ That's a provision of civil law, not criminal. For
wiretaps occuring in this country, you need a warrant, but
outside of this country, I don't think so.
\_ But why do we need their consent? If you overhead Simpson
said, "Yeah, I killed that bitch", but you can't use it
because obviously you don't have his permission? What about
all those movies where the agents are wearing a tap?
It sounds silly if the otherside knows that you are
recording, what the fuck do you expect to get?
\_ Re-read what I just wrote. In criminal law, you need
a warrant, not permission from the other party. In
civil law, it's meant as a reasonable safeguard of
privacy and free speach. Otherwise you could just go
privacy and free speech. Otherwise you could just go
around recording everyone all the time.
\_ Further clarification: You CAN go around recording
everyone all the time. Some people do. You cannot
submit any of it as evidence unless you have the
consent of those being recorded, though, acc to,
as pp above says, civil law.
\_ Actually in some cases (phones for one)
recording someone without telling them
is illegal.
\_ Not in New York! (but in CA, illegal, yes)
\_ Call the manager, recall the conversation, and ask her to contact
the company owning the property on your behalf. While this may get
you nothing, and everyone may be out to screw you, it's equally
possible that this charge is something they hit everyone with
reflexively; they may not even realize they've mistakenly hit you
with it.
\_ I once lived in a shitty apt. in the ghetto which got bought by
some evil corporate real estate speculating fucks. I spent months
calling them every other day or so to try to just get a fucking
lease to no avail. It was literally impossible to talk to a
real, competent human at this company, so with no lease, we just
moved out(after giving them written notice a month in advance).
I then spent weeks again trying to get them to give me the
security deposit, again getting blown off, trying to call people
who have pager numbers only and never call back. After weeks
and weeks of that, a check showed up for exactly twice what it
should have been. Fuck 'em. If it had been a real human landlord
I would have given them half the money back in a second, but
I just kept the money, and i'm positive that they'll never know.
I think they actually lost all the paperwork, and ended up just
guessing an amount for the check. Sometimes what looks like
malice is in fact just stupidity. In other words, I agree with
you. |
| 2004/12/13 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35273 Activity:nil |
12/13 Whoa, I just heard the interview with the 3 jurors in the Peterson
case. Unlike the "dude man you gotta acquit OJ" jurors in the OJ
case, the Peterson jurors actually seem coherent and semi-intelligent. |
| 2004/12/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35265 Activity:high |
12/13 REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- A jury today recommended that 32-year-old
Scott Peterson should be executed for the murder of his wife when she
was eight months pregnant with their first child.
\_ obTurnOffFoxNews
\_ So does anyone thing he actually didn't do it? I don't care if you
think he should have been acquited.
\_ He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He didn't testify, with
everything that happened.
\_ I think it would be a bad idea to testify. Having had the
affair and all the stupid shit he did after Laci disappeared,
the prosecution could have made him look very bad on the stand
\_ Not to disagree with you, but do you remember him ever
having stood up and said, "I had an affair but I didn't,
honest to God, kill Laci".
\_ No, but he wouldn't have to testify in court to say that
\_ Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on circumstantial
evidence? Look, I think he did it, too, but the trial's
been a horrible miscarriage of proper judicial procedure.
The lesson for you would-be murderers out there: don't be so
damn public about it all.
\_ A lot of murder cases are circumstantial. It's actually
rare thet you have an eyewitness or incontravertable
physical evidence. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just
that: That any doubts in the case are unreasonable. The
defence theory was that some strangers would kidnap a woman
walking a golden retriever in broad daylight, and then go
to the trouble of driving her body 100 miles away to frame
the husband, yet also attempt to keep the body sunken.
That strikes me as not very reasonable.
\_ The burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the
defense. Given that the prosecution's case seemed to
be, well, he could have done it, there seem to be plenty
of reasonable doubts.
\_ Certainly the defense does not have to prove their
case, but they must offer an alternative explanation
for the evidence that is at least plausible. I saw
no plausible explanation for the evidence other than
the one the jury believed.
\_ Ah, I've been thinking that it might be framining, until
you mentioned the "yet also attempt to keep the body
sunken" part.
\_ Kidnappings of strangers are rare.
Kidnappings in broad daylight are rare.
Kidnappings of someone with a large dog are rare.
Framings are rare.
\_ Married men killing their expectant wives are
rare. What's your point here?
\_ Even if he didn't do it, his actions after his wife's death
were so stupid that he probably deserves to die.
\_ Scott should have tried to relocate to Los Angeles with the
mostly sympathetic and uneducated jury. "Dear homies, senors, y
senoras, que fish baits don't hook, you must acquit!!!"
\_ help also if Peterson were a famous/heroic football
legend who won the Heisenfuck award.
\_ Or if he's African American.
\_ racist!!!
\_ I'm still looking for the Real Killer with every round
of golf I play!
\_ Yeah, clearly the problem with the criminal justice system
in this country is that blacks have it too easy.
\_ For cases under the media spotlight, it seems so.
\_ That's why I don't agree with the Jury system. In this country
we leave the jobs to the professionals. But like everything that's
set in stone, it's hard to change.
\_ the problem is not the Jury system, but the African
Americans in the Jury system.
\_ If you're going to say something blatantly racist, why
use politically correct language to do it?
\_ Most Napoleonic/continental European justice systems rely
on cases handled exclusively by professionals (i.e. judicial
panels--the more serious the case, the more judges.) It works
more often than not, leading to fairly common-sense verdicts,
but has resulted in some pretty horrendous travesties. Does
this sound familiar at all? -John
\_ Has anyone done a comparison between these systems?
I am sure you can find bad examples in each, but I would
trust professionals more than a bunch of idiots. Yeah,
sure, a stupid guy smoking with cancer deserves some
billions of dollars, give me a break.
\_ These are the idiot examples of US justice. Someone did
a study a while ago comparing US handling of, say,
corporate responsibility vs. European--their findings
were that the Euros do a nanny act up front, with tons
of regulations, while the Americans rely on the threat
of lawsuits after the fact to keep companies in line.
The upshot? While it's possible for an cretin to
disavow personal responsibility in the US and go for an
insane payout, the average Joe also tends to have far
easier access to the law. I'm not claming either system
is better, but it's something to think about before
completely discounting common/English law as a
defective system. -John
\_ You forget that there are now multiple efforts
underway to reduce or remove people's ability to
sue companies. -tom
\_ The biggest problem IMO is the large number of CSI-style
programs that people watch and the increasing legalese invading
normal culture.
\_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga! |
| 2004/11/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35051 Activity:very high |
11/23 How do you prove who shot the gun first, and if you can't prove it,
how do you convince an all white jury to believe Vang? My guess is
that this is going to be a he-says-she-says court and Vang is going
to lose, easy as that.
\_ http://latimes.com now has a good article. Vang speaks excellent English
and waived his right to a lawyer in making his http://twincities.com
remarks. I believe it will become clear who fired first, but ALL
the shootings will still be at least 2nd degree or manslaughter.
Vang never said he felt in danger for his life; he was probably
pissed as hell. The legal reaction would have been to not do
anything in response to the guy trying to scare you by firing a
bullet near you, and file a complaint which would be subsequently
ignored.
anything in response to the guy trying to put the fear of God into
you by firing a bullet near you, and file a complaint which would be
subsequently ignored.
\_ Uhm, no. If you get shot at, you have a right to fire back.
In fact, you don't even have to be shot at to have a have
a justification to shoot first if your life is in danger.
Vang's problem is that he shot and killed half a dozen people.
I don't know if anybody can reconcile that with reasonable
force. The best he can hope for is manslaughter, as he may
be able to prove he lacked the mens rea for first degree and
he was provoked to such an extent that he had a reasonable
heat of passion response. If he lacks mens rea and cannot
reasonably prove heat of passion killing then he'll get
2nd degree. 2nd degree is like 25 years, so he'll be in
prison a long, long, long time.
\_ We are arguing about the guy he shot first, right, because
it sounds like you are repeating my position for everything
else. Anyways, the jury will be talking about
how Vang had the time, after he was shot at, to take the
scope off his rifle, aim, and shoot. I do not see him
talking about how he felt his life was in danger at all
in the http://twincities.com statement; actually, I think the jury
will think he was pissed as hell with his first shot and
subsequent ones. C'mon, Vang was talking about how
one guy was calling him "gook, chink, fucking Asian", not
how he was in mortal fear. He even managed a taunt of,
"You're not dead yet?" to one guy and shot at him again.
\_ I bet most of the white men are more surprised that a slanty
four eye Oriental chink can actually see and shoot his targets
more so than the fact that 6 men got killed.
\_ look, it's just like the OJ case. Most of the Mid-west
white ppl think Vang is guilty regardless of evidence, and
most of the Asians think he may or may not be guilty,
regardless of evidence. It is as easy as that.
\_ I think Bernhard Goetz is the better comparison here.
I'm interested to see how various pundits (read partisan hacks)
handle this and compare with the Subway Vigilante.
\_ I have to say Vang reminds me of tpc. The guy has quite a gun
collection and is not the most mentally stable guy I know
-guy who knew tpc when he was still kind of sane |
| 2004/11/16-18 [Academia/StanfUrd, Reference/Law/Court] UID:34929 Activity:high |
11/16 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/16/abercrombie.lawsuit.ap/index.html "The lawsuit was filed last June in San Francisco by Hispanic and Asian groups charging that Abercrombie & Fitch, known for its "classic casual American" clothing styles, hires a disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in less-visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in its catalogues and elsewhere" I don't get this. A&F (or any company) doesn't isn't obligated to use minority models and faces in its catalogues. Can't they do whatever they want in their catalogues? \_ hispanics already have shitty clothes.. - hispanic \_ What's the point of this, from a business standpoint? Aren't they just losing money by not catering to non-white buyers? It seems that they are screwing their shareholders as well as their workers (as usual with shitty companies.) \_ "The original lawsuit was brought on behalf of nine young minorities, including students and graduates of Stanford University and the University of California, who were denied jobs or fired based on their race." -tom \_ If you went to Stanford or Cal and you are working at A&F instead of shopping there, there is something seriously wrong with you. \_ why do you say that? Like all major companies, A&F has programmers, business managers, board members, etc. It doesn't say anything about the jobs being in retail. -tom \_ I'm sure they worked there while still in school. \_ They can. The point is that the all white image filtered down to the sales force, which is illegal. \_ so who gets the settlement money? hispanics or the fake hispanics w/ fake concern? \_ Trick question. It goes to the lawyers. \_ don't forget the asians and fake asians w/ fake concerns. \_ What is a fake asian? Or a fake hispanic? \_ It's located in OH, a fucking red neck state with a lot of white supremacists and racists. \_ It's located in OH, a fucking red neck state who put an idiot back into the White House. \_ Why blame OH and not the other 30 states that voted for him? \_ um, yeah. I just searched their web site for about 8 min, could not find a single minority looking person in the catalog. HEIL AYRIAN RACE!!! KKK R3WLS! HEIL! \_ ? I didn't even say anything... -John \_ Does Ayran include Indian and Iranian? \_ Does Aryan include Indian and Iranian? \_ depending on your caste. |
| 2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:34812 Activity:kinda low |
11/10 I think that Scott Peterson is guilty, but I am disturbed that
the judge can just replace jurors who seem to be holdouts. What's
up with that? The person was just too smart with a law and
medical degree and so they get booted for a 'hang 'em high' type?
I didn't realize our justice system provided for a trial by 'your
peers, except for that guy and that guy'.
\_ So you're surprised for some reason to find out we have shitty
judges in CA?
\_ When you're a shit salesman, your peers do not hold advanced degrees
\_ my friend works at the same bank as the pink haired tattooed
jurist. - danh
\_ Radio said she has 7 tats. How do they know?
\_ maybe they asked the 90 people she works with? - danh
\_ Sigh. I was hoping for a more titilating answer.
\_ yeah i know you were but sometimes there is a really
easy explanation - danh
\_ Juries are supposed to deliberate. The judge is allowed to remove
jurors if they are preventing that from happening. For example, if
a juror declares they are voting guity/not guilty, but declines to
participate in discussions to persuade others or if one juror is
preventing others from discussing elements of the case. Think
debate vs. pundits yelling at each other. |
| 2004/11/9-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:34785 Activity:low |
11/9 What's wrong for a Juror to do a little research on her own?
I don't see what the big fuss is about.
\_ check out http://www.fija.org The judge can tell you wheever they want
\_ check out http://www.fija.org The judge can tell you whatever they want
but it's pefectly legal for a juror to base their decision on
anything. Its a dirtly little secret they dont want you to know.
\_ Yeah, but jurors can't conduct independent research. You will
get kicked off the jury, every time.
\_ What's wrong with independent research? Can you call your
family member when you are a juror?
\_ Sure, but you can't talk about the case.
\_ Technically, the point is that the jurors are required to examine
and weigh only that evidence which is brought into play by one of
the two sides. Otherwise, a perp may not be guaranteed a fair
trial. In reality, jurors rely on their own personal knowledge
all the time; however, since this is an inherent feature/bug of
the system, it can't truly be corrected. Independent research and
experimentation, however, can be prevented and usually are.
\_ I'd say it's also a flaw that jurors can't ask the attorneys
questions.
\_ I agree there.
\_ Well, the judge is always there to say "You can't present that
evidence", or "Objection overruled!", or "Objection sustained."
If jurors conduct independent investigations, there's no judge
to tell them you can't consider some evidence, the attorneys aren't
there to tell you exactly why you're being stupid. |
| 2004/10/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33910 Activity:nil |
10/4 I have 'proof of residence' in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Can I continuously duck jury duty by requesting disqualification from
each county by claiming to live in the other county? -- bad citizen
\_ sure, and vote democrat a couple of times in each
while you are at it. |
| 2004/9/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33725 Activity:insanely high |
9/23 Dear motd law God, earlier this summer I finally collected the
money that this school bus driver owes me from the lawsuit we said. He
was pretty pissed and said he would retaliate, and I've since
then moved twice to avoid him. However, lately I've been getting
a lot of fax/prank calls, with caller ID that says 'bus services',
which I presume come from his work place. Is there any basis
for me to sue him again, and is it a good idea?
\_ Make him an offer he can't refuse.
\_ You deserve each other. You really, really do. What did you
expect was going to happen when you pursued this vendetta to the
lengths you did against this asshole?
\_ Did you follow the original saga? The guy was uninsured, gave
false contact info and basically tried to duck responsibility
every step of the way. He lost any chance for sympathy as
"poor guy in a bad situation" and became "jerk who's trying to
screw me" Suing him and garnishing his wages was really the only
reasonable option aside from taking the whole thing as a loss.
Really, put your self in the OP's situation. What would you do?
\_ I wouldn't sue - especially not after hearing about the
crap he's gone through. I hope the money was worth it.
Frankly, he's lucky he even got any money from the suit.
\_ Document averything, and ask for a restraining order. When he
violates it, document that. Consider suing again in small claims
for intentional inflinction of emotional distress or somesuch.
Also, if he's using his work resources to harass you, you can
complain to his employer.
-!lawgod
\_ Yes, document. Get a lawyer. File complaints with the police.
Also, start making some mob friends.
\_ I'd also like to add that if you get him fired, he suddenly
has a lot more time and motive to harass you. If you get
another judgement or get him arrested, he has less time to
harass you and it cost him money.
\_ Is this really worth it to you? I am reminded of an
acquaintance whose Bentley got rear-ended by 4 illegal
immigrants with no insurance. It cost $10K to fix. The guys
gave him $200 cash and he took it no problem. You can't squeeze
blood from a turnip.
\_ If I read it correcly, OPs goal is more to stop the harassment,
and is considering suing as one way to do that.
\_ It's why he got harrassed to begin with. Karma, baby. You
can't sue these problems away. You just create more.
\_ If the jerk has a wife and kids, getting arrested or sued
again because of harassment might induce the wife to get
him to stop "for the good of the kids"
\_ His solution to problems created by a lawsuit is to file
another one? You might not be a lawyer, would you be....?
\_ I hope you don't have wife or kids to worry about. Good luck. BTW
if you move again, you can ask SBC to not list your address or phone
number in phonebooks. And don't use USPS's mail forwarding service,
because they'll release your new address to anyone who knows your
old address.
\_ Buy a gun.
\_ Use this as a reason to approach you county sheriff to request a
concealed carry weapons license. Believe me, it's very hard to
get in California if you live in Bay Area/LA counties.
\_ Right, so next time he calls you can shoot that noisy little
fucker into oblivion! Take that, PacBell!
\_ Down, Bronco, he's mine!!!
\_ Are you a Jew or a Chinese?
\_ Why do you hate Chinese Jews?
\_ Because if he's part of a minority, he could pass this
off as a hate crime. As it is, the guy is just a jerk.
\_ Only if he can prove that the hatred is racially motivated.
But in this case it's hard, since it's apparent that the
hatred is financially motivated.
\_ this is like trying to exterminate the terrorists by killing
all suspected terrorists. There may be peace for a while but
when the fatherless children grow up, they'll want nothing but
bloody revenge (suicide bombers). The concept of "an eye for
an eye" just does'nt work. Hate begets even more hate.
Peace. -philosopher
\_ So make sure you sue his kids too. And his children's children.
Get 'em all. But be prepared to defend yourself, frontier-style
\_ Ok, I'll just wait here for them to attack again.
\_ No, just abandon all you believe in and fuck over your allies
and give them everything they want and some of them will stop
attacking you in exchange for even more others who will
continue and make newer even greater demands.
\_ No, just go and shoot him. When they arrest you, say that
you were acting under the Bush doctrine of preemption. You
might want to accuse him of harboring WMD and terrorists to
strengthen your case.
\_ Oh I like this one the best. Claim he's an terriorist!!
\_ "Your Honor, the deceased was terrorizing my client." |
| 2004/9/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33281 Activity:very high |
9/1 Kobe's statement to the court: "I want to apologize to her for my
behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the
past year. ... Although I truly believe this encounter between us
was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view
this incident the same way I did."
\_ GUILTY!!
\_ those fans of Kobe's who think what happened in court means
he's innocent are fooling themselves -- have you read about
the blood evidence?
\_ More URL now! ty.
\_ The case was dismissed b/c the woman didn't want to
participate right?
Anyway, based on what I've read Kobe would have been
found guilty of rape since his conduct satisfied all
four criteria for rape.
\_ He's accused of rape right? Rape is a general intent crime
in CA, so some mens rea must be shown. Claiming that you
believed that there was consent is an effective defense.
\_ her mouth said no, but her body said YES!
\_ was there an actual refusal on her part?
\_ They say she said no twice. Read the very end:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Sports/ap20040901_2585.html
\_ ic. Kobe would have lost if that last
paragraph is true.
\_ In the preliminary hearings, the investigating
detective who interviewed her said under oath
that she told him she never at any point said
no.
\_ Hearsay. There should be an official record and
transcript with recordings of what she said. |
| 2004/8/19 [Health, Reference/Law/Court] UID:33006 Activity:very high |
8/18 More evidence US healthcare system is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/business/19care.html?hp
"Rising Cost of Health Benefits Cited as Factor in Slump of Jobs"
\_ login: csuatroll
pw: csuasucks
\_ Can someone please fix csuamotd's password?
\_ I recently saw some additional evidence that California's
educational system is broken and that the earth is round.
Is anyone arguing these points? -phuqm
\_ Yep. Trail lawyers destroyed it, and now people want to elect
one to fix it. THAT makes sense...
\_ It's been shown that rising HMO and drug company profits (and
marketing expenditures) have a lot more to do with it than rising
malpractice insurance. Also, FWIW, malpractice premiums are
rising faster than the volume of jury awards. Perhaps you should
be blaming greedy corporations in stead.
\_ The malpractice insurance market wouldn't be able to bear
the rising cost if not for the trail lawyers. The fact
that someone with a false claim and an evil lawyer can,
with little cost to themselves, potentially destroy a
doctor's whole life, tends to make doctors a bit nervous.
Hence the rising rates. Would you like some nice
stories about doctor's getting screwed?
\_ I'm saying the insurance companies are raising rates more
than they have to to reap extra profits. Would you like
some nice stories about patients getting screwed?
\_ Ummm.. duh. Ever hear of economics? Charge what
the market will bear? That's a fact of business.
I'm saying that we've created a legal enviornment
that breeds legalized extortion, which results in
a legalized protection racket. Making laws to
fight the symptoms isn't going to fix the problem.
It's not good for doctors OR patients.
\_ Surely you realize the necessity of the possibility
of large court judgements to curtail the rate of
doctor error. If court judgments are not large
enough to make a lawyer want to take the case,
there's not much incentive for a doctor to do a
competant job.
\_ I was concentrating on the "little cost to
themselves" problem. What does it cost
someone to make false accusations? What
is the cost of losing to the accusor? And
are you arguing that the lawyer fees in these
cases AREN'T excessive?
\_ The lawyer fee comes out of the judgement and
is between the lawyer and their client. If
they bring a clearly meritless claim, the
doctor (or their insurance company) can sue for
*their* lawyer fees. The patient has no
disincentive to bring a possibly-meritorius
case, but they still have to convince a lawyer
that is has some chance of winning.
Answer this question: What would the ideal
legal system be for this case. You have an
indigent patient who had an unsatisfactory
outcome to their treatment. They think their
doctor screwed up, but it is a matter of
debate. What would they have to do before they
can sue? If they win, should they recieve just
compensatory damages, or enough to make it
worthwhile for their lawyer. If they lose,
who should have to pay either party's legal
fees?
\_ I'm not sure what you mean by this:
If they win, should they recieve just
compensatory damages, or enough to make it
worthwhile for their lawyer.
\_ Say, $5,000 for being out of work a few
months (which is not enough damages to make
a lawyer interested), or $50,000 for pain
and suffering or punitive damages, which
is enough that the case can procede.
\_ Can't the plantiff sue for Medical
damages, being out of work, and
legal fees?
\_ Well the question is what kind of
damages *should* we let people sue for
should there be a cap, and should
there be another disincentive to sue
too readily.
\_ Ok, niether. All legal fees must be
predifined. Loser automatically pays
legal fees for both parties. Plantiffs
and Defendants must have this
explained to them before any fees are
charged to the "case account." For that
party.
\_ Alright, that might be a sane system, if
contingency lawyers start agree to cover
the fees in the event of a loss. The
current proposed solutions "make it very
hard to sue" and "make the damages small"
ignore the side effect that doctors
would be able to get away with being
major fuckups.
\_ I certainly agree with you there.
\_ Malpractice insurance costs are rising rapidly. My
neighbor is doctor. His insurance went up 5% last year
and just about every year. He can't charge his patients
more, because he has a contracted rate with the HMO/PPO
plan he is a member of. What does he do? See more
patients? Take a 5% cut in salary every year?
\_ Some people blame the lawyers. I think they're a necessary
evil and blame the malpractice insurers and the HMOs.
If we went to a NHS system we wouldn't have malpractice
insurers because the 'defendant' would be the NHS, and we'd
still have buearocrats (sp?) making decsions about levels
of care, but at least they wouldn't be motivated by a
profit motive.
\_ "A centerpiece of Mr. Kerry's plan would be to reduce health
insurance premiums by having the federal government pick up 75
percent of the cost of catastrophic medical care. That would
reduce the cost to employers and employees about 10 percent,
or $1,000 a year, according to campaign officials."
How the heck does this make any sense at all? Where do people
think government money comes from? Money Mines? It's freakin'
taxes! The Employees and Employers will still be paying for
the care, it will just get a percentage taken off by some
bearucrats first! And we all know bearucrats make things
cheaper, right?
\_ And he has said already where he would get that tax revenue
from, and unless you're considerably better off than me, you
won't be touched.
\_ Soak the rich! Oh wait, Kerry IS the rich. Something's
fishy...
\_ Except when I lose my job because Kerry took my venture
capitalist's money.
\_ But what if your venture capitalist is no longer paying
out the ass for HMOs for employees at the companies
he invests in?
\_ Ummm, whatever. You've never been close to venture
funding, have you? |
| 2004/8/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Law/Court] UID:32735 Activity:very high |
8/6 My dad just got biten by a neighbor's dog (maybe some kind of German
Shepherd) that was not on a leash when my dad went outside to our
driveway. It was unprovoked. The paramedics and police arrived.
We've a police report. Is there anything that we can do? Would
lawyers take up such small cases? Can we at least get the owner to
cover for all of the medical expenses incurred?
\_ just say put the dog down or i put you down
\_ Most likely the owner will volunteer to pay for the medical expenses
for fear of further legal action. And unless your dad sustained
some serious or permanent injuries, don't bother suing them; it's
just not worth it.
\_ Call John Edwards.
\_ Can you believe that shyster might actually help someone get
money for their medical expenses! Has he no sense of decency?
\_ <Replying to myself> And to the inevitable "channeling a
dead girl" reply: Yes, he was manipulative. That's what good
lawyers do: manipulate the jury to get a favorable verdict
for their client.
\_ Tucker Carlson characterized a teenage girl having her
intestines sucked out by a faulty pump as a "Jacuzzi case".
\_ That reminds me of the clip someone posted a while ago
where a crab gets sucked into a hole much smaller than
its body, and exploded instantly.
\_ You mean?: /csua/tmp/crabvspipe1.mpg
\_ Yup. Disturbing.
_/
For those looking for context here (like me):
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/27/tucker/?source=RSS
\_ You should contact animal control.
\_ Judge Judy awarded someone with $3000. He was bitten by an
unleashed dog in a park and sustained some relatively minor
injuries - scratches and bite marks on the side of his body
and hands. So: you can take your neighbor to small court.
It would be helpful if you had a witness who is not family.
\_ Nice to see the motd has no morals. Go motd!
\_ Hey, he asked about lawyers, which implies he's already
interested in suing.
\_ No morals? are you f'ing serious? If your unleashed mangy mutt
*attacks* and injures me, damn right you deserve to pay
compensation for your negligence.
\_ Small claims court is made for this kinda stuff. But make sure to
try and get a settlement from the guy before taking him to court.
\_ Before you think about suing and lawyers and so on, why don't
you talk to your neighbor and work something out. It is much
better to be on good terms with your neighbor than to get a
few hundred dollars out of him/her. On the otherhand, if your
neighbor is a jerk, maybe you need to sue.
\_ His insurace may cover it, which is probably better than a lawsuit. |
| 2004/7/21 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:32404 Activity:very high |
7/21 Has any sodan had a stint in prison? Is it really as bad as the
stories say, that rape is rampant and if you are not in a gang you
are totally doomed?
\_ this is your butthole: o
this is your butthole in prison: O
any question?
\_ my butthole looks more like this: *
\_ so, not just stuck in jail for holding, but actuall convicted
\_ so, not just stuck in jail for holding, but actually convicted
of something and incarcerated?
from /etc/mail/aliases:
jail: blojo,dougo,seidl,oj,jwang,sky
\_ According to some movies, even holding can be risky.
\_ According to some movies, computers need 9-track tape drives.
\_ Not to mention that about half of all prisoners have HepC. Don't
know the statistics for HIV but I'm sure its bad.
\_ Why is it that no prisons have been held liable for the abuse that
goes on in prisons? Prisoner safety is obviously the jail's
responsibility, it would seem obvious that raped inmates could sue
the prison for megabucks.
\_ Primarily because convicts have little or no credibility, and
because, in general, the spirit of anti-authoritarianism is so
strong, you'd have a bitch of a time getting anyone to testify.
I mean, seriously, who's going to want to bring down the wrath
of a fellow inmate that's willing to rape another man? An it's
more than just the rapist's wrath -- it's the entire community's
code of silence that you'd be up against...and the entire
community's reprisals.
\_ Because nobody cares about prisoners, and nobody cares about
rehabilitation. The overwhelming public attitude is "prisons
as punishment only" and "lock em up and throw away the key."
Pretty much all the lessons of Attica and others have been
forgotten.
\_ what's Attica?
\_ what's google?
\_ Sigh. http://www.talkinghistory.org/attica
\_ Dang. I thought you meant GATTACA
\_ I have not been in prison, but a family member has been in LA
County. Anything can happen in prison, but nothing is
guaranteed to happen. The uncertainty is scary. What happens
to any given individual depends on who they are, how tough they
are, and what their personality is like. I'm sure luck plays
a part, too.
\_ So if you're a short Asian guy with smooth skin in LA County,
what's the best personality to have to avoid trouble?
\_ sucky sucky $5!
\_ I think they like those with milky white cheeks
better though.
\_ Why can't they just put a fucking bullet into the rapist's head?
Oh that's right, prisoners have rights too. Right my ass. You make
trouble, a bullet awaits you. It'll end the rape.
\_ It'll end a lot of things in Oakland and SF too.
\_ RACSIST!
\_ Are you kidding? It may be easy to smuggle certain things into
a prison, but gun is not one of them. And if it is smuggled,
guess who is more likely to get it? Prisoners have no right,
and the law of the jungle applies there. The strongest gets
access to every thing, including the ass of their fellow imates.
\_ I think he was talking about the justice system putting a
bullet, not other inmates doing it.
\_ Why would it be in the interest of the justice system
to do that? If the situation is really that bad, the
system probably prefers it that way.
\_ Bullets are cheap and you can send the bill to the
family anyway.
\_ Hey, kill the ruined humanity that rape people in prison
and you don't have to feed them anymore. And they're
definitely out of society.
\_ I thought the purpose of prision rape is deterence.
Like the joke about the size of asshole before and
after, people would have to think twice before doing
anything that could possibly lead them to jail. The
ruined humanity is actually employee of the state.
\_ just learn from my country Singapore and use caning. Very
effective! Hardcore criminals also scared to death. Would
rather go to prison then get caned. Criminals become tame
like pussy cats when you show them the cane.
\_ I wish the system here is as practical.
\_ mitch igusa was my cs250 ta back in the day. no horror stories
from him.
\_ Who is igusa? And why would he tell?
\_ there's this thing called google...
\_ Which explains who he is but not why he would tell.
\_ I have not, but I have a step-brother who has been in. I can
ask him if you like. I understand that it really depends on
where you end up. If you are in a Federal prison, you are
basically safe unless you piss off the guards. If you are in
a state prison, you are safe if you are in a rehab or CRC
unit, not safe at all in maximum security. As for county jail,
it depends on the county. If you piss off the guards in any
prison, they will "set you up" for rape, so you have to walk
a fine line between avoiding the wrath of the guards and
not looking like a snitch or kissup, in which case you
will get beaten up at the least.
As for prisoners suing, well they have tried. This is the
worst case I know of, and the jury let the prison guards off:
http://www.spr.org/en/pressreleases/2003/1022.html
http://www.spr.org/en/news/2003/0923-1.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/23/prisons |
| 2004/7/15-16 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court, Reference/Military] UID:32304 Activity:low |
7/15 Help, I just bought an 8 year old Cherokee Archer and now AOPA
wouldn't stop spamming me (snail mail and email) unless I joined their
organization. I called them up to get it stopped but it's not
working. What should I do?
\_ Autoforward all their email back to one of their own addresses
with a rewritten header telling them to stop sending this stuff to
you. Whether or not they stop won't matter since you won't see the
email. Snail mail you burn. It's free firewood.
\_ Send a certified letter demanding they cease all postal and email
contact or you will sue for harassment.
\_ Does that work? Under what conditions can you sue for harassment
based on annoying letter and email spam? How hard is it to
actually win something like this?
\_ While it would be a PITA to sue them, thet'd probably take the
hint.
\_ That's a $140K airplane. How often do you use it to justify the
cost?
\_ And that's any of your business because...? Maybe one flight
was enough to justify it to him. There IS a wider world outside
your own head, you know.
\_ I am just curious. Maybe *I* want to buy a plane, too.
It's none of your business to ask why I want to know.
\_ *shrug* fair enough.
\_ And do you have a Middle Eastern last name? Get the DHS on this
one stat!
\_ EIGHT year old plane costs $140K? How about a new one?
\_ $205K + options, which can reach $235K+
\_ Options? Can you get dubs on an airplane? Preferably with
spinners? How about custom exhaust?
\_ Don't forget random Azn characters. Each one
adds hp +5.
\_ How much for an NO2 sticker?
\_ And a clear case with neon lights?! I want
plane m0dz! |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:32263 Activity:high |
7/12 How do some cases go all the way to the Supreme Court, and not others?
What's the deciding factor there?
\_ It's appealed, and four justices grant or deny a writ of certiorari
depending on constitutional scope.
\- the USSC has original jurisdiction in a couple of areas
see 28 USC 1251. these dont "go all the way to the sup ct"
but start there. --psb
\_ this response is irrelevant to the question asked, as
well as the reply it is replying to. --aaron
\- this wasnt a "reply to the reply" but an elaboration.
by any reasonable criteria, since the person didnt
specifically ask about the appeals process or how
cert. works, the OP was asking "how do cases arrive
at the sup ct". one means is the fed and state appeals
process. the other are the OJ cases. didnt take your
medicine today? as for the deeper question of when/why
to the justices grant cert, given the first part of the
Q,i didnt think that was what was being asked, at least
at first cut. --psb
\_ my question is what prevents Supreme Court Justice, who is
appointed for life, accepting bribe and doing other nasty things
for personal gain?
\- Not just SupCt judges have life appointments. You may wish
to google for "Abe Fortas" --psb |
| 2004/6/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Science, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:31059 Activity:nil |
6/29 Supreme Court rejects Internet porn law
"Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if
any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for
them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy"
(There's no pubic hair in Justice Thomas' Coke!)
\_ Given that he has heard so many trials, he must have shaven it all
while in the courtroom. |
| 2004/6/29-30 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:31058 Activity:low |
6/28 In Scalia's dissent on the ruling that people in Gitmo have access to
the courts:
"The court's unheralded expansion of federal-court jurisdiction is
not even mitigated by a comforting assurance that the legion of
ensuing claims will be easily resolved on the merits."
Is he suggesting that the court should be less willing to consider a
case if it is difficult? Gosh, we shouldn't allow lawsuits from all
these people detained indefinitely in case their suits are not an open
and shut case.
\_ No. "On the merits" means they won't be resolved "on the merits".
It's English. He is afraid the courts will be clogged with cases
that have no merit and hope to get off on technicalities and dumb
luck. If the courts weren't so impacted you wouldn't need an
expensive lawyer to get justice from one because they'd have time
to deal with each case properly. The less time a judge has for
each case the less justice each gets and the more expensive your
lawyer has to be to be good enough to get your 2 bits in before
the judge falls asleep.
\_ Apparently Justice is blind _and_ on a short fuse.
\- i havent read the dissent but i suspect what he is saying is
the process isnt well defined enough. for example in the case
of death pentalty cases, after your first round of "free"
appeals, what should the threashold be for go to a second round,
third round, a fourth round ... if you have 5 claims, do you
have to raise them all at once or can you do it one by one,
can you conider new evidence or just "reversible errors" ...
must you have raised an objection at the original trial to
appeal on a certain issue. another example if the rodney king
case where after the initial acquittal in a weird end run
aound double jeopardy, the cops were re-tried under a federal
statue ... so there are some concerns about trying the case
as a class, worrying about jurisdiction shopping etc.
personal comment: i think scalia's reputation is over inflated.
and his whackoness is keeping him relatively irrelevant.
it's sort of the flip side of the last few years of brennan
and marshall's "pointless" dissents. i think after thomas
he is the most tainted justice. scalia's irritated screeching
is nothing new. again lawrence v texas, the nude dancing case
etc. --psb |
| 2004/6/28-30 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31050 Activity:moderate |
6/28 I read this today: "the gov. may try...hold terror suspects somewhere
other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights
apply." What determines where legal rights don't apply... war zones?
\_ I'd speculate that the court would rule that prisoner's have access
to the court anywhere under American control where providing that
access would not put an undue burden on the military. So a brig on
the front line, no, but a brig at a secure base, yes.
\_ Well, given that a US court could indict Manuel Noriega in
Panama guilty of drug offenses, and the US military could invade
Panama (and kill lots of innocent people in the process). Seems
like a court's jurisdiction has the whole world to play with, if
it chooses, since a precedent has already been set.
\_ Now at least we know why Bush wants to go to Mars.
\_ You prefer what? Sitting on this little rock forever or until
the sun grows cold? Leaving it to the future, take care of
yourself now? We stand on the shoulders of giants and have a
responsibility to the future to continue progress. |
| 2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:31037 Activity:insanely high |
6/28 Not quite unanimous: Three Supreme Court decisions today. 8-1,
6-3, 5-4. President does not get blank check for detaining U.S.
citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing during wartime (8-1).
Non-citizen detainees also have access to federal courts (6-3).
Guantanamo is in U.S. jurisdiction. Padilla case rejected on
technicality (should have filed in S. Carolina, not New York, since
he is detained in Charleston) (5-4).
\_ Sad that the Rheinquist court is the last bastion of sanity in the
Federal govt. But three cheers for these decisions.
\_ My opinion had been that it would have been unanimous against
\_ Think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority of the
court.
\_ I think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority
of the constitution. You remember what that is?
\_ "The constitution? Oh, that thing."
\_ My opinion had been that it was going to be unanimous against
detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing.
Guess who the lone dissenter was?
\_ What's odd is that Scalia and Thomas usually vote together...it
had to be one of them, right?
\_ If you say to yourself, Scalia prides himself on being the
smartest dude on the Supreme Court and won't go into history
books as clearly making the wrong decision -- what do you
have left?
\-Does anyone know what STEVENS J. wrote in the where
he wrote a separate opinion? Also I was crossing my
he wrote a separate opinion? I was also crossing my
fingers that the Ct would be the "last bastion of sanity".
I think it affirms their role in the checks and balance
system against the executive power and i think the very
idea of *anybody* should *never* get a day in *any* court
is completely shocking to any lawyer and undermines the
meta-principle of the "rule of law" rather than taking
sides on any particular law. --psb
\_ The process that gave Thomas a seat does damage to the
"last bastion" ideal - particularly as a raft of judges
are headed to the SC the same way. -- ulysses
\_ This must also apply to O'Connor then?
\_ What do you mean? Was there something particular
about the way O'Conner was apppointed to the court
or her voting patterns that you object to?
\_ She was a Reagan judge.
\- The SupCt isnt responsible for Thomas being
there. The executive is. The OCONNOR comment
\_ the legislative branch must take some
share of the blame as well, for politi
cizing the consent process. -crebbs
\-i dont think "advise and consent"
leaves them with much room. yeah i
suppose it is too bad they had to
go in for all the anita madness
when they just should have said
"you are too short to be on the ct".
and i think if anything the executive
cyntically used the black factor
to put the legislature in an awkward
position. if you decompartmentalize
from just talking about thomas to
the bork as well, i suppose you
have a point. but that doesnt
mean you float thomas to "get even"
and it certainly doesnt make him
well qualified. --psb
\_ It's not exactly "to get even"
(though...), It is simply a
case of "hey, you played politic
with someone who was qualified
so here's one at least as conserv.
but who is immune to that tactic.
\- well really to "get even"
the went with souter the
stealth candidate who
didnt have a long record
like bork. and that sort
of backfired. but nobody
is saying DS isnt qualified
to be there. --psb
\_ C.T. was chosen also
because he is immune to
the type of character
assassination that hurt
Bork. If there had not
been so much playing
politics by the Leg.
with exec. appointments
I do not believe C.T.
would have been
nominated. -crebbs
doesnt make any sense. Not only is OConnor
super-well qualified to be on the Ct [Rhenquist
was 1st in his law class at Stanford and OConnor
was 3rd in that class] but arguably she is more
influential than the chief because she is closer
to the center. It is amazing how many of the
most sig decisions have been written by her.
See e.g. http://csua.org/u/7yq --psb
\_ She *is* the swing vote, but she seems to favor
pragmatism over principle too much for my
taste.
\_ I remember when I posted that the USSC would probably declare
that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanimo detainees and was
that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanamo detainees and was
mocked for claiming this and especially mocked for using the
qualifier "probably." Well, Right Wing Nutjob, I mock you back
for being wrong and especially mock you for being such an
idiot extremist that you only respect people who claim
certaintly when they do not have it. Like the entire White
House Administration, come to think of it. No wonder you
are so lost.
\_ Why does the Court hate America?
\_ Why is it a "right wing nutjob" who you think was in favor of
us upholding our own constitution? --conservative
\_ Claiming that Bush is above the law is upholding the
Constitution? Sorry a very conservative supreme court
voted 6-3 against your very vocal and strenuous claim
that Bush could do anything he wanted to in Gitmo.
All your quotes from WH lawyers to naught. You and
the WH are both way out on a limb and you don't
even know it.
\-this is quite a simplistic comment.
her equal protection approach to in
texas vs johnson is quite principled.
part of the jobs of the USSC is to give
practical advice lower courts can apply
with some consistency, such as the
lemon test. do you really have any idea
what you are talking about. --psb
\_ hun? url please. I went and read this
case and do not see anything by her at
all, let alone anything regarding
"equal protection". -!principle boy
\- sorry, my mistake. the case to look
at is lawrence v texas, not
tx v johnson [which was the flag
burning case]. there are a lot of
strange departures from "principle"
in sup ct jurisprudence. it's not
so simple as practical vs principle.
like how to blanace sep powers,
federalism, legis intent, article i
powers, orig intent, stare decisis,
process vs. substance, disparate
impact ... see e.g. Benjamin Nathan
Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial
Process, A. Bickel: The Least
Dangerous Branch etc. i assume that
is the case you are asking about,
not the "lemon test" case, which
is lemon v. kurtzman interpreted by
oconnor in various "establishment
clause" cases like lynch v donnelly
to define govt endorsement. --psb |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30992 Activity:nil |
6/24 If you get a parking ticket and the court makes it practically
impossible to get a hearing, would you have standing to sue on the
grounds that there has been a constructive denial of access to the
courts?
\- if it is because you are handicapped and have to crawl up the
stairs to the courtroom without handicapped access, probably.
YMWTS: Tennessee v Lane. --psb
\_ I already know that case, that's why I'm asking. -op
\- well that opinion should give you a sense of how to
think about the issue. anythign more specific to your
circumstances will need localized facts, naturally.
parking offenses with trivial fines/consequences may
involves some shortcuts. --psb |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30991 Activity:high |
6/24 In the "I can't make this shit up" category:
Judge getting dismissed for using a penis pump, shaving his
pubic hair and "pleasuring himself" behind the bench while presiding
over court cases: http://csua.org/u/7wi
\_ Maybe he was hearing rape cases.
\_ I suspect he was pre-shaved. It's unlikely he actually shaved
while court was in session.
\_ I reject your use of the word "unlikely." Have you been
building up statistics on the genital-shaving practices of
judges in and out of the courtroom? I didn't think so.
\_ idiot. have you ever shaved yourself or another? he'd
either gash the hell out of his dick and balls or he would
get caught. keep your anal retentive self where someone
cares.
\_ he did get caught.
\_ not shaving himself. go away anal boy.
\_ He's not anal, he's just fuck-stupid...and not
nearly as funny as he thinks he is.
\_ As a likely male, he can attest to the difficulties of
male genital shaving. Even pervs don't want to nick their
winkie. |
| 2004/6/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30697 Activity:insanely high |
6/9 Why is a piece of Laci's hair on the fishing boat evidence of anything?
If Scott owns the boat, isn't it normal that Laci would've boarded the
boat several times either at home or on water?
\_ If neither his nor her family knew about the boat, that suggests
Lacy didn't know about it either. Since it's such a small dinghy
it's pretty unlikely she would have wanted to go out sailing on it
unless she likes going fishing.
\_ Another point is that I'm sure some of her hair was on his clothing
and could have fallen off in the boat. I find my girlfriend's hairs
at my work now and then.
\_ Yeah, but how likely would a loose hair stay on a boat
after spending the day out on a windy bay?
\_ If it falls under the seat or gets wet... maybe.
\_ shit, how do pieces of 2lb test line stay on a boat for
so long?
\_ Would you *really* send a man to lifelong imprisonment or
possible death because you're certain beyond a reasonable
doubt that any of his wife's hair found on his boat would
have to have been there only because he killed her and
used the boat to dump her and the hair stayed there afterwards
for investigators to find, but if she had been in the boat
for innocent reasons or her hair simply fell off his clothing
then it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the wind
would have blown it off? You're saying that the hair of
dead people is somehow immune to being windblown in a way that
the hair of those alive is not immune to being windblown. I
hope I'm never in front of a jury with people like you on it.
\_ remember that particular logic train next time *you* get
jury duty. |
| 2004/6/9 [Finance/CC, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30692 Activity:very high |
6/9 http://www.captain-obvious.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=466 The popeye pic about halfway down had me in tears. The site is mostly work safe but it might draw someone's eye so be careful out there. \_ The only things more retarded than the Keith guy are the person egging him on and the people who enjoy reading it. |
| 2004/6/2 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30550 Activity:nil |
6/2 To you sceptics out there... after 1.5 years, I finally got paid
from San Diego Unified School District. They deducted his paycheck
till it's all paid for. The court is slow (takes several months to
schedule, delay, serve, receive, and what not), but it works. Justice
is slow, but there is justice after all.
\_ So, how much are you getting, over how many months? Does it
cover the damage to your car in the original accident?
What were the total costs of bringing the suit (not including
the value of your time)?
\_ Damage was $1700. I spend $300 on a private investigator (did
I tell you he's very very clever and evasive?) I'm getting
$2000 total, and he ended up paying for the PI. As for how long,
I got the full amount 1 month after I served the Wage Withhold
Order. That is amazing considering that he only gets paid
$1600 a month, so I guess they deducted his future earnings
or something, I don't know. The judge didn't reimburse me for
mileage driving to the court house (took at least 8 trips to
get forms, etc etc), pictures ($20), photocopy of documents
($5), parking meter, numerous phone calls, and misc fees
which I did itemize but the judge didn't take them. -op
\_ Maybe he had a retirement fund you got to raid?
\_ oh, I forgot to say that I had the Sheriff serve the
Wage Withhold Order to a department called "San Diego Unified
School District, Department of Court Orders and Wage Earning
Withhold". So, yeah, I guess they deal with scums all
the time. -op
\_ one last thing to add. After getting the paycheck I no
longer have this hatred for Vietnamese people -op
\_ ob the driver was Vietnamese?
\_ What, no opening for a class-warfare flame-fest? |
| 2004/6/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:30533 Activity:high 57%like:34808 |
6/1 Why do I get the feeling Scott Peterson's trial will turn out to be
just like the Simpson's? Is the guy rich too?
\_ No weapon found, no clear cause of death, no witnesses. Tried
to run. Circumstantial case.
\_ The glove does not fit!
\_ Next time when you plan to kill and bury someone, make sure
you buy a pair of gloves of the wrong size. Did the police
bother to test the inside of the gloves for OJ's DNA?
\_ in the famous demo, oj was wearing a thin plastic glove
under the ill fitting leather glove. try wearing your
gloves with saran wrap on next time, they won't fit either
\_ First I've heard of this, Link?
\_ Instead of a wronged black community supporting the defendant, we
have wronged angry white males. Both groups think their guy is
guilty, but also think the evidence is not sufficient.
\_ I think he did it, I think the evidence is insufficient, I think
he'll go to prison for it, I think he should go to prison for it,
I think he'll go to prison for it for the wrong reason. Justice
isn't perfect but as long as the guilty get punished, even if for
the wrong reasons it's headed in the right direction. -awm
\_ The American justice systems, much like everything else,
are for the rich and the true scumbag. If you are rich, you
can hire a good enough lawyer and you can get away with
anything. If you are true scumbag, like those black mother
fuckers in Oakland, then you can get away with pretty
fuckers in Oakland, then you can get away with pretty [much]
everything too, because the law is so protective of the
supposedly innocent that it basically can't touch you. It
is the middle class that gets fucked up. It is so fucked
up, that when we deal with terrorists, we need to drop all
these bullshit and deal with them the correct way. If we
deal with criminals the way we deal with terrorists, a lot
less innocent lives will be killed by criminals that the
\_ fewer
law fails to bring to justice. If our justice system is so
fucking great, then deal with terrorists the same way.
\_ Wow, nice little rant. Did you lose $50 in small claims court or
something? I'm certain my experience with the legal system is
much worse than yours (since it continues on after 5 years and
isn't even half over) but I'm not that frothing and bitter about
it. Get laid, get drunk, get over it.
\_ I am the Law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be Judged!
\_ Great comic. Shitty movie. Too bad they ruined it.
\_ You know that guy who spray painted a bus in Singapore?
He'll never spray paint a bus in Singapore in his life
again, and will surely spray paint more buses in the US
while chanting "God Bless America!!"
\_ It wasn't a bus. It was several people's personal vehicles,
but we get the idea.
\_ This is a crock. Poor get totally shafted by the justice
system.
\_ Then why does the system fails to clean up Oakland? East
Palo Alto?
\_ I don't know but the answer is not because the poor
don't get punished for crime. California has a larger
percentage of its population locked up than any
place on earth. Talk to a DA or PD or any criminal
lawyer and ask them about justice and the poor.
\_ Shafting poor != cleaning up crime. |
| 2004/5/26-27 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30437 Activity:very high |
5/26 Have any of you ever gotten a ticket for riding your bike on
campus? I just entered a plea of not guilty at Berk. Traffic
Court and want to hear anyone's stories. If you know someone
who got one, please have them email me, or give me their
address. -maxmcc
\_ where on campus were you riding?
\_ had come from Lower Sproul, was parked at bike rack in front
of Wheeler. -maxmcc
\_ Q. Are you guilty?
\_ I was stationary with my bike lock in hand when he rolled
up.
up. -maxmcc
\_ Since this is not a court of law, I'll take your evasive
non-response as a "yes."
\_ Actual guilt has nothing to do with whether or not someone
gets punished. This is true in any legal system.
\_ I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
\_ I am more or less trying to figure out the following,
given that I plead not guilty:
1) if the cop shows up, how the fuck is he going to
remember a ticket he wrote last October, and what
is the practical upshot of that?
2) let's say the judge returns guilty verdict: am I
going to end up paying more than what the fine ended
up at after I avoided paying it and shit?
3) wtf goes on when the guy who gave you the ticket
shows up anyways? what if he doesn't show up?
\_ I know the officer can simply submit an affadavit.
\_ An affadavit saying what? This was last
October, and I can't imagine he would have
taken notes that he has lying around detailing
what happened...
\_ Most cops actually do take notes specifically
for situations like this. Your odds of beating
the rap this way are fair, but don't get too
hopeful about his lack of notes.
\_ so I wonder how I can find out when
exactly the DISMOUNT ZONE laws came
into being...
\_ I am pretty sure they came into being
in 1989. Want me to ask a few other
old timers to make sure?
\_ that would be wicked. -maxmcc |
| 2004/5/22-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30368 Activity:very high |
5/22 Update on the bus driver lawsuit. I won and submitted the Writ
of Execution, Earning Withholding Order to the Sheriff who served
it to his employer. He makes $1600 a month as a bus driver. How
pathetic.
\_ Um, what was this "bus driver lawsuit" about?
\_ You're really cool for calling him pathetic because of his
monthly salary. What do you do for a living, hotshot?
\_ And then stealing what little he makes from him.
\_ The guy gave me a bogus address/insurance info/etc. He
threatened to counter sue me with injuries that he didn't
even have, and changed his phone number so that I couldn't
call him anymore. I didn't want to raise my insurance
premium and certainly didn't want to pay for damages outa
my pocket money so hired a private investigator, who had
a really really hard time tracking him down since he is so
clever and elusive. But hard work prevailed and now he will
pay. PAY PAY PAY YOU FRIGGING LOW LIFE FORM! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
\_ You're disgusting.
\_ You didn't let me finish. After the private detective
served the paper, he filed for delay. So 3 months passed,
he lost the case, and filed for appeals via mail. But
that's not it. He wrote a check for $1-2 more than
necessary to the court clerk, and being government and
all they had to cash, refund, etc before they could
proceed with the appeals. So that delayed it by another
4 months. Just because he's poor and uneducated doesn't
make him less guilty for being a lying scumbag. That's
pretty much what both of the judges told him in court.
\_ Out of curiousity, why do you say this? Being poor
doesn't automatically make you good. -- ilyas
\_ Apparently, neither does being educated.
\_ No, really, what am I missing? It's one thing if
the guy agreed to pay, and then the op
realized the bus driver was a poor guy, and forgave
the debt. But this bus driver was not acting in
good faith, and was trying to avoid his obligations.
If I was in op's position, I would do the same
thing. -- ilyas
\_ What you are missing is that this moron
says that $1600/month is pathetic and feels
superior because of it.
\_ Hey, he can feel superior to me too, that's
about how much grad students make... which
is kind of depressing. -- ilyas
\_ if the bus driver is poor and uneducated
then the op should have more sympathy
for him because that's probably how he
was taught to do to survive (lying,
cheating, evading, etc). So yes I still
think the op is a loser and should at
least have given the bus driver a break
-guy who grew up poor
\_ So you hold people with less money to a
lower moral standard? I'm sorry but
\- Those of you motivated to reflect
a little deeply, in these times,
on wealth, on justice, "the good",
means and ends, and most of all,
"might and right", ought to read the
Republic. From a quick look, this
looks fair: http://csua.org/u/7f2
One of the first bits is on
"wealth and morality". I suppose
you can wait for the MEEL Gibson
and Brad Pitt version. --psb
\_ Oh look, the cliff notes, web
edition. -- ilyas
\- i'm obviously not suggesting
this is a substitute. but then
again not all of us read
ancient greek. if you want
"the real thing", penguin or
grube. i havent read jowitt.
--psb
\_ I like Allan Bloom. Penguin
sucks as a general rule.
Everything with a penguin
for a mascot sucks! Stupid
penguins. -- ilyas
\- dont be an idiot.
penguin classics are
usually pretty good
as a default. --psb
as a default.
off the top of my
head, the main thing
for which penguin is
not one of the standards
is homer. --psb
\_ Listen, partha...
when I buy a
translation, I usually
go to the kind of
store where there are
lots of them side by
side, and usually
read at least a
chapter out of each
right there in the
store. In my
experience penguin
is inferior to almost
any other edition, if
one exists. Penguin's
cheap though, I ll
give it that.
-- ilyas
\-i have a lot of
penguins that are from sylla-
bus recommendations. you want
to put your assessment of
greek or latin or italian
over the berkeley classics
faculty, be my guest.
in individual cases there
may be better options, like
say one of the recent
"pedagogic thucydides", based
on your particular
background and interest, but
penguins do have a good
general reputation. i should
clarify when i mean classics
i mean Classics with a Big C.
--psb
\_ You can find faculty
somewhere to recommend
almost every translation
there is. I trust my own
language sense. -- ilyas
\-do you know ancient
greek? --psb
this is so stupid I don't even have the
words to begin. Instead of being a
total piece of crap, maybe he should
have spent 1/10th as much time learning
to drive, getting an education, or any
number of other things that would
improve his life instead of putting all
his time and effort into being a piece
of total garbage. I not only have no
sympathy for the bus driver but I
loudly applaud the OP for keeping on
this asshole, not letting him get away
with it and making him suffer.
\_ He is a bus driver, he obviously
knows how to drive. As for the
education part, not everyone is
cut out for college. Some people
simply aren't smart enough, though
this guys sounds pretty clever.
\_ This is where I disagree. Making fun
of him for being poor is stupid. Making
fun of him (and getting payback) because
he is lying scum is fine. -- ilyas
\_ The guy got into a car accident and lied repeatedly to avoid
paying for it. This is different from stealing a loaf of bread
to feed your starving family.
\_ Sure, but why is his salary a relevant fact?
\_ Did I say anything about his "salary"?
\_ Yes. Can't you read the original post?
\- in court someone has to win. in the judgement of
who is an asshole, both can "win". --psb
\_ w00t! -psb #2 fan
\- this is really a horrible expression the
use of which you will look back on with shame. |
| 2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30332 Activity:high |
5/20 Terrorist lawyer released. (yahoo AP)
http://tinyurl.com/2bxac
\_ The fingerprints turned out to be from another guy. But, the
lawyer has a gag order on him. From the story:
Mayfield's brother, Kent, had to be pulled away from the TV
cameras by Wax when he shouted out: "This proves it was a total
witchhunt!"
\_ Can there be a blanket gag order to thwart all hate-america
anti-freedom speech and writing?
\_ But Foxnews said that freedom is slavery. you're not
pro-slavery are you?
\_ We should all be slaves of God, Christ, and His
free market on earth. Are you a godless communist?
\_ Good way to kill what could have been a good conversation. Do
you *really* prefer that the motd is just partisan noise? |
| 2004/5/12 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30183 Activity:very high |
5/12 "The lead attorney in the case, Eugene Crew, planned to ask the
judge Wednesday for more than $18.5 million in fees. He told
the judge in legal briefs that he deserves about $3,000 for
each of his 6,189.6 billable hours, "considering the enormity
of this undertaking against the most powerful corporation in
America."
\_ fucking lawyers
\_ yeah, and don't forget all the hours that they fuck the client
for three grand, but have some paralegal do the work at 12 bucks
an hour.
\_ Why do you hate capitalism?
\- it's not capitalism, it is self-regulation ... see e.g.
the Texas Bar suit again Nolo Press [which fortunately
they lost]. --psb
\_ they probably fuck the paralegal too
\_ What is this about?
\_ M$ antitrust
\_ To be fair, it's typical that class action firms charge what seems
like larger-than-normal hourly fees for their hours. The reasons:
1) If they lose, they don't get paid. At all. If "Crew" had not
won that case, that's 3 years of working for no salary.
2) They have to pay for the costs of the case up front and only
get paid back many years later (and only if they win).
So usually a firm like that gets what is called "lodestar" fees
which multiply the normal hourly rate by 2x or 3x to make up for
the above two points. Normal hourly rates for attorneys are
$3-400 or so, with super exceptional ones $600ish. So, by any
metric, this would seem like an exceptionally large amount to
charge. However, note that if the case was on contingency, he'd
be getting 1/3 of the settlement, which is way more than $3k/hour.
\_ $3-400 normal hourly rate! That's 6-8 times what I'm getting for
being a senior software engineer.
\_ Right, but if you were working for a consulting firm, they'd
probably be billing you out at that sort of rate. $3-400
includes lots of other costs besides attorney salary, like
staff salary, rent, copying, couriers, etc.
\_ I see.
\_ $50 an hour? Your fully burdened cost is double that.
\_ My attorney fiancee reports that "those lawyers did a fantastic
job" and deserve $3k/hour. The California settlement is a really
good one for consumers; in fact, it's a larger settlement than
the *national* settlement. She said that basically when you take
a case like this, if you fail, you're bankrupt; if Townsend had
lost the case, there would have been no more Townsend. Other firms
suffer the same problem (in the IBM toxics/cancer recent case,
Alexander Hawes & Audet lost and is now in serious financial
condition). |
| 2004/4/29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13458 Activity:high |
4/29 Will Chateau finally go the way of Barrington? [restored]
http://csua.org/u/748
\_ Finally? It was very Barringtonesque a long time ago, just much
quieter about it. Then Cloyne follows.
\_ Well sure, but what I meant was, will the lawsuit shut it down?
That's how Barrington got closed - the neighbors sued, and the
USCA closed the house rather than deal with the lawsuit.
\_ Is George Proper still around? If GP is still the general
manager then it is just a matter of time until the whole
place wears down and implodes.
\_ It is quite a bit more complicated than that, but it
started with a lawsuit, yes. My guess is that the USCA
will knuckle under to the nieghbors demand for a manager.
On a similar topic, did you know the the USCA will take
over control of Barrington again in just 17 more years?
\_ Cloyne may be dirty and chaotic, but we're generally pretty good
about not pissing off the neighbors (Goldman School excluded).
\_ Is that why the UC is requiring a full time house manager
before they will renew the contract with the USCA?
\_ I thought that was Casa Z.
\_ Nope, it's the CLO |
| 2004/4/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13301 Activity:nil |
4/20 Mom sues Coor's over sons death:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/18/coors.suit.ap/index.html |
| 2004/4/7-8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13067 Activity:kinda low |
4/7 Does it make sense to do both the Writ of Execution and Court
Order of Examination Debtor? I'm asking because Write of Execution,
wage garnishment only takes out 25% of the paycheck per month, and
given the defendants' job is very flexible, he may very well quit
his job and find something else. So should I do both or just do
Writ of Execution and hope for the best? Thanks.
\_ I think it's safe to say that you might be the reigning champion
of DoItYourSelfLawyering... I'd rather hear more about how this
dude hit you, what sort of damages you're seeking, funny anecdotes
about pumping a bus driver for money. Did he hit you with his bus?
That would be kinda funny. If you entertain us, we're more likely
to do your google legwork for you.
\_ yes. many bus drivers are child molesters and wife beaters
this bastard evaded me for a very long time till my
private investigator tracked him down. now he owes me
the original amount, money I paid to the PI, processing
fee, AND interest. I want to see him go down!!!
\_ more!
\_ I think it is obvious that you know more about this stuff
than anyone else reading the motd.
\_ Yes! |
| 2004/4/6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13034 Activity:nil |
4/6 I am writing up a Writ of Execution from winning a lawsuit for
wage garnishment and I called the defendant's employer (San Diego
Unified School District) and found out that they actually have a
separate department from the wage department that handles
garnishment. Is there anything else they do, or they (SDUSD) actually
expects a lot of unpaid lawsuits?
\_ Garnishment is also for child support and alimony, which guys are
notoriously bad about paying.
\_ Just out of curiosity, is this the guy who hit you with his car?
What a jackass.
\_ yes! Cool someone's actually following my posts, this is
really cool! I feel like I should have a fan club or
something. Anyways he is a school bus driver and after the
incident I've lost a lot of respect for bus drivers. I bet
most of them beat their wives and fail to pay child
alimony.
\_ dood, format your post. -car-dude's #1 fan
\_ isn't this taken care of by croned formatd?
\_ there's something about government and government workers, go figure |
| 2004/3/5-6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:12533 Activity:very high |
3/5 Martha Stewart guilty on all counts.
\_ Did anyone else besides me find that juror saying "This is a victory
for the little guy" unsettling? -- ilyas
\_ This is the paackage they're selling with this whole case. "Look,
we go after evildoers. Never mind that the SEC audit team has
been decimated." --scotsman
\_ No. See comment below about "jury was all pissed off".
I wrote that comment before I heard about what any juror said.
I'm sure Martha's defense managed to put some manager types
on the jury, and they still convicted.
\_ I ll take a public statement of a juror over your guess, as
far as the inclinations of the jury. The fellow whose comment
about Martha buying off a juror was deleted had an amusing
take on the situation, although it does smell of tin and
foil. -- ilyas
\_ The point behind my comment was that I guessed at least
what one jury member was thinking before they confirmed it.
\_ If you read the NYTimes site, you'll see the quote is:
\_ Martha paid the juror to say that, so that she can appeal on the
ground of a biased jury.
\_ Next on Marth Stewart Living: Three simple ways to brighten up your
jail cell.
\_ Poor Martha, I think she got prosecuted for being really bitchy.
\_ I ll take a public statement of a juror over your guess, as
far as the inclinations of the jury. The fellow whose comment
\_ She should just be fined. Jailing her serves to do nothing
except make her a ward of the state which ends up costing
taxpayers more money.
\_ Hell no bitch. She needs to do time in a cell. A fine is
meaningless.
about Martha buying off a juror was deleted had an amusing
take on the situation, although it does smell of tin and
foil. -- ilyas
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who lose money in the
market because of these kinds of transactions."
To me this doesn't sounds prejudicial, but more like he's
interested in seeing a guilty woman punished for harming
investors.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/stewart.jurors/index.html
Way to spin it, CNN. -- ilyas
\_ Poll: What do you think the sentence should be?
Jail > 1 year: ..
Jail < 1 year:
Probation/suspended sentence:
House arrest:
Wear polka-dots and eat McDonalds:
\_ Ok, so this means what in English for us little people?
Clone Martha and have clone serve jail sentence: .
\_ She should just be fined. Jailing her serves to do nothing
except make her a ward of the state which ends up costing
\_ CNN legal analyst: "It means that, unless this is somehow undone
on appeal, she's a felon and she's going to prison. There's
going to be a whole separate process in terms of what that
sentence might be, but it's not going to be probation. It's not
even likely to be a 'Club Fed' kind of thing. She's actually
going to be going to a real prison, like a real criminal."
\_ Not 'like a real criminal'. After she loses her appeal she'll
be in a real prison because she is a real criminal. And I hope
she's only the first of many corrupt execs to follow.
\_ Next on Marth Stewart Living: Three simple ways to brighten up your
jail cell.
Probation/suspended sentence:
House arrest:
Wear polka-dots and eat McDonalds:
Clone Martha and have clone serve jail sentence: .
\_ I guess the jury was all pissed off about how their bosses would
always be telling them to do illegal things
\_ She and Ken Lay will be playing golf together at the Federal
Country Club for the next 18 months.
\_ Kenny Boy is too well connected to ever to go jail. Only
little people and Democrats get busted for white collar crime.
\_ Oh really? Name those Democrats.
taxpayers more money.
\_ Hell no bitch. She needs to do time in a cell. A fine is
meaningless.
\_ Fuck you asshole. If you want to pay for her jailtime
go right ahead. It costs about $100,000 per annum to
keep someone incarcerate. Don't fucking mouth off
before you know what the fuck you're talking about.
\_ I know exactly what I'm talking about. Fines for people
who are already fucking billionaires don't mean shit.
It costs money to enforce the law. Bitch.
\_ I guess the jury was all pissed off about how their bosses would
always be telling them to do illegal things
\_ She and Ken Lay will be playing golf together at the Federal
Country Club for the next 18 months.
\_ Kenny Boy is too well connected to ever to go jail. Only
little people and Democrats get busted for white collar crime.
\_ Oh really? Name those Democrats.
\_ Martha is a prominent Dem contributor. However, with
repect to Ken Lay you really need to consider the
the time period of Enron's ascendence - the 1990s.
Enron received significant Federal help, in some cases
as it should have, during the '90s.
After all it was Robert Rubin, who had moved to
Citigroup, who called Oneil and asked the
Fed to bail out Enron (ala LTCM). Citigroup, in
case you don't know, was one of Enron's financiers.
\_ Ok, so this means what in English for us little people?
\_ Rubin was Clinton's Treasury Secretary who oversaw
the bailout of Mexico, Long Term Capital Management,
and others. Before this he was President (?) of
Goldman Sachs which made some of the Mexico loans
covered in the bailout. Post-2000 Rubin moved
to Citigroup which had facilitated a significant
portion of the 'creative' financing that allowed
Enron to do what it did. Rubin then had the gall
to call Bush's Treasury Secretary Oneill in ~Feb of
to call Bush's Treasury Secretary Oneill in ~Nov of
2001 to ask the Fed to bailout Enron (ie. act as
Rubin had). All this means that the Wall Street
has far too much power in the Fed gov't. When
people complain about the 'military industrial
complex' it absolutely pales in comparison to
the rent Wall Street (and the medical / insurance
BTW) extorts from the U.S. taxpayer.
\_ She was a licensed stock broker before she became the Martha
Stewart we know. She knew exactly what she was doing, then
tried to obstruct justice... she deserves her punishment.
\_ CNN legal analyst: "It means that, unless this is somehow undone
on appeal, she's a felon and she's going to prison. There's
going to be a whole separate process in terms of what that
sentence might be, but it's not going to be probation. It's not
even likely to be a 'Club Fed' kind of thing. She's actually
going to be going to a real prison, like a real criminal."
\_ Not 'like a real criminal'. After she loses her appeal she'll
be in a real prison because she is a real criminal. And I hope
she's only the first of many corrupt execs to follow. |
| 2004/2/2-3 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:12076 Activity:high |
2/2 Kansas court gives 18-year old 17 years for blowjob:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3689195,00.html
\_ It was rear action, not BJ.
\_ Bzzt. A BJ on an unwilling guy (or underage guy, in this case)
is often legally classified as sodomy. (Props to Law & Order:
SVU for the reference.)
\_ they plan to appeal to kansas supreme court
\_ it was a 14 year old. jesus christ oh mighty! you think it's
wrong to protect children from sexual predators?
\_ By tossing children in prison until they're 35?
\_ Troll? They were basically boyfriend&boyfriend, < 4 years
apart in age.
\_ In California a 18/14 year old couple is legal. |
| 2004/1/20-21 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:11839 Activity:low |
1/21 I'm looking for a lawyer who can represent me in a small claims appeal
case. Where do I start? Thanks!
\_ the phone book. look under "L".
\_ John Edwards
\_ Generally lawyers don't appear in small claims. That's the point.
\_ a lawyer can't represent you in small claims court, period
(except in very specific cases, like if you're a lawyer and
you're representing yourself). but this guy is asking about
an *appeal*, which is probably going to be in superior court.
\_ EXACTLY. In appeal both sides can have lawyers, and it
is usually wise to do so. |
| 2004/1/14-15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:11771 Activity:kinda low |
1/14 No such thing as racism!
http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c1gb7953-8798,00.html
\_ Racism aside, this is messed up. If it's consensual sex between
two high school kids, child molestation and statutory rape should
not pertain.
\_ Oh my!
\_ There may be racism in the sentencing but he did commit the crime.
Their law says under-16 is off-limits, and he was over 18.
\_ Maybe not even in the sentencing:
'The latter charge, even without claims of aggravation, provided
for a lengthy sentence, under Georgia's child protection laws.
"The judge doesn't have an option" on the aggravated child
molestation, Simpson (the defense attorney) told the Atlantic
Journal Constitution. "His hands are tied. I have never seen this
before, and I've tried hundreds of sex-related cases."' |
| 2003/12/19-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:11522 Activity:nil |
12/18 You know, the jury recommended death for John Muhammad. I think
they'll recommend life in prison for Malvo, since they want the
maximum punishment for him, which in this case would be facing
60+ years in jail at the beginning of his life. I figure they'll
think kids will think it's an easy way out if they kill a bunch
of people, receive so much attention, then get to die painlessly in
the end. |
| 2003/11/5-6 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:10954 Activity:low |
11/5 I won in Small Claims and the Defendant filed for an appeal. I got
the new court date which will happen on 1/2/04. However, today I just
got a new notice titled "Clerk's Notice of Continuance RE: Hearing"
and the date is 2/27/04. Does that mean the date on 1/2 is canceled?
\_ Should file to dismiss the appeal. Ask opposing council why
a court should even consider an appeal. Are they offering new
evidence?
\_ how can this be done?
\_ Yes.
\_ Call the court clerk and explain and ask what your options are. I
wasn't even aware an appeal of a small claims judgement was
possible but I guess it makes sense sort of. Anyway, see if there's
a way to file to dismiss or otherwise squash their whole thing and
try to get any dates moved up because it looks like the person is
just trying to delay in the hopes you'll give up and go away.
\_ This means that he has asked the court to move the date out to
2/27/04. Unless you are in a hurry, just show up that day.
IANAL. |
| 2003/11/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:29606 Activity:high |
11/3 Linda Tripp wins lawsuit for violation of privacy:
http://uk.fc.yahoo.com/031103/325/ecy92.html
\_ Who says the gods have no sense of humor?
\_ hm. I didn't find it funny after learning she's getting almost
$600k... I find it hard to believe there was that much damage.
Of course, who knows what the lawyers take away. Are court
winnings taxable income? |
| 2003/10/31-11/1 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10888 Activity:nil |
10/31 So I went to Small Claims Court and won. However, I'm really
dissappointed at how it works. It is quite informal and arbitrary,
just like politburo, and you're at the mercy of whoever's the judge
that day. For me, I spent a lot of time organizing photos, documents,
NOTORIZED documents, etc but the judge didn't even ask for them.
Like I said it's really arbitrary like politburo. Court system sux.
\_ and even after you win, how do you collect?
\_ go to their employer and garnish their wages if they don't
pay up.
\_ I won by default 10 years ago when the defedent didn't show up in
the court. She hit me in a crash and she didn't have a driver's
license. That's the end of the story. I never collected the
money. Oh, the judge did look at the repair estimate slips I showed
him before setting the amount, though.
\_ It's your own fault for not persuing it further. The court only
decides who wins and for how much, if anything. There are other
mechanisms for extracting payment. The court system is
excellent. It allows little people without a lawyer to sue and
win thousands of dollars with little time, expense, or
expertise in the law.
\_ How does one force the other guy to pay after winning in Small
Claims Court?
\_ There are a few ways, the best is garnishing wages if they
have a real job. If they're entirely under the table it
will be harder but not always impossible if you keep on
them. However, it is true that for a very small claim
you will spend way more time and effort than the money
involved. Then it becomes about revenge or personal
satisfaction.
\_ you can pay a collector, $0 if no payment collected
but about 50% if collected. The court case is
a really powerful document. The paper gives you
rights to garnish any information on that person
and allows you to mess up his/her credit rating
and allows you to seize properties, assets, and
more commonly, wages. The other way is to pay
for a private investigator who will do these things
for you. You can always find one that'll charge
$0 if not collected.
money. |
| 2003/10/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10547 Activity:nil |
10/8 I just won in a Small Claims court and the Defendant applied for
an appeal which will be in another court, NEXT YEAR. What are the
chances that the appeal will go through? Should I attempt to
negociate with the Defendant before next year?
\_ how could we possibly tell without knowing more?
\_ 1) Outlook not so good
2) Reply hazy, try again
\_ whatcha win?
\_ I lend him my vehicle and he crashed it and refused to
pay for it. However both of us acknowledged that he had
no license. The judge awarded me the full amount of the
repair PLUS money I paid to a private investigator who
found his address/new number because he did a pretty
good job evading me (moved, changed #, etc etc).
\_ For the sake of the motd's collective edification, can
you tell us how you ended up lending your vehicle
to him in the first place? Sounds strange given
what you've mentioned, and no one would want to repeat
whatever mistakes were made. |
| 2003/9/25-26 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:10323 Activity:low |
9/25 What does jail bait mean?
\_ ask google, or jeeves. -- the web has all the answers you need
\_ A hot underaged girl.
\_ typically a girl. could also be a boy. age varies from state
to state.
\_ wait, it's not all under 18?
\_ here we go again...
\_ 'jail bait' implies by getting involved with said person,
you are risking breaking statutory rape laws. Generally
< 18, but its a bit more complex than that. IANAL
\_ http://www.ageofconsent.com
\_ Age of Consent Laws in the United States
----------------------------------------
Age 14: Hawaii, Pennsylvania
15: Colorado, South Carolina
16: Alabama, Connecticut, Deleware, District of Columbia,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakata, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
17: Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas
18: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Calif., Florida, Idaho,
Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakata, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin
\_ mmm.... underaged anal.
\_ It's pretty much the same as 18+ anal.
\_ Shh! Don't spoil his fantasies with your pesky
reality. |
| 2003/9/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10302 Activity:high |
9/23 Court reinstates recall. Bye Davis.
\_ Hell-o-o-o Bustamante!
\_ Hell, maybe. Bustamante, no. Not with the election now instead
of in March when all the illegals will get to vote.
\_ Wow. The levels of idiocy are astounding!
\_ Of whom? The Court, Davis, Bustamante, or the illegals?
\_ look to thyself, young sprite. |
| 2003/9/10-11 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10141 Activity:moderate |
9/10 Business school or law school. What's better for a geek's career?
\_ porn school.
\_ How about joining the Human Sexuality Dept.?
\_ A real geek wouldn't consider either one.
\_ not true
\_ B-school. Not that you wouldn't succeed in law school, but it's
much less useful for doing anything except, well, pretty much, law.
\_ That's absolutely false. I know a number of guys that went on
to very successful business careers in the private sector (w/o
going to B-School). I also know a couple of guys that went into
law enforcement with law degrees. Knowing the law is far more
useful than you give it credit for.
So if you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. For anything else,
b-school. You'll learn something and perhaps more importantly,
meet a lot of talented motivated people with diverse backgrounds
(depending on your b-school). And they will be thrilled to meet
a techie person who actually understands techie things, since
many of them will be interested in careers at technical companies.
\_ Talented, motivated people with diverse backgrounds? What is
this school you speak of? A close friend of mine went to a
top five business school and met only idiots and middle managers
clamoring to move into upper-middle management. I apologize for
my sarcasm, which is borne primarily out of skepticism. Did you
or someone you know have a different experience? If so, where?
\_ I thought the same thing before I visited a friend at
Harvard. He was ChemE at Cal, and I was really impressed
with the class I went to with him. All the students came
from different backgrounds ... investment banker here, govt
civil service person there, farmer over here, engineer over
there. Very thoughtful discussion, and what was neat was
that everyone spoke with a different perspective. So the
discussion was very interesting, and I completely changed
my mind on business school. I would have liked Harvard.
BTW, my understanding is there's a top-3 (Stanford, Harvard,
Wharton) and a all-others, and it's a huge gap between top-3
and all-others.
\- what about kellog? also the diff school have diff
flavors. like case approach vs. theory [uchi] etc.
\_ There's a number of solid next-tier schools ...
Kellogg is one, also Fuqua, Darden, Sloan, Haas, etc.
But seriously, no matter what weird ranking might
jumble them up, the top 3 are definitely the top 3
with a big gap between. You'll rarely/never find anyone
who turns down Stanford/Harvard/Wharton for anything
else at all. The other schools are consolation prizes.
\- ok if you say so. http://mba.eiu.com |
| 2003/8/26 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:29471 Activity:nil |
8/26 Court: State (Arizona )must cover care for illegals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970709/posts
\_ Check those numbers. 1.5 to 2 billion nationally, annually.
This is hysteria over nothing.
\_ A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it adds up to real
money.
\_ Tell that to rummy. |
| 2003/8/15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:29355 Activity:nil |
8/15 Cracking down on Illegal Criminals
"This past December, a man and woman sitting on a New York
City park bench were surrounded by a gang of young men. The
gang kicked and beat the woman before dragging her along
the nearby railroad tracks and forcing her into the woods,
where they repeatedly raped the 42-year-old mother of two
and threatened to kill her."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964613/posts
\_ The term 'gang' has a negative connotation which prejudices the
reader against the young men before their side has had a chance
to be aired in an open court in front of a jury of their peers.
I find this entire article racist, classist, and typical of
the hatred the ultra right wing religious nuthead freepers are
spreading. They should be stopped. No free speech for fascists! |
| 2003/7/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:28888 Activity:high |
7/1 A witness of an accident I had refuses to come to the court house
because he said "there is nothing in it for me." How do I issue a
subpoena in a small claims court?
\_ behold the power of google
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/subpoena.htm
\_ All well and good, but it's pretty difficult to make a
witness show up AND be useful if they're not interested.
Will small claims accept an affidavit in place?
\_ Damn this google crap. Pretty soon, I'll have no use for the
motd! Curses!
\_ well, it's still good as an intelligent google front-end.
\_ what about this resembles intelligence?
\_ "If you show and say the right things I won't kill you, that's
whats in it for you, you selfish stupid bastard!" always worked
for me. --never lost a court case
\_ isn't this "assault" or some fancy legal term?
\_ You better have a reaaaally open-and-shut case, because the
testimony of a witness that you forced to show up could be worse than
no testimony at all...
\_ I second that. We are having to resort to an uncooperative
witness in one of our cases (on the bright side, the opposing
party isn't having much luck either). Your best bet is to get
him/her to cooperate, but beware of anything that may be
construed as creating bias. Otherwise, you'll have to go
through the trouble of impeaching him/her on the fabrications.
\_ Look up "Everybody's Guide to Small Claims Court in CA", Nolo |
| 2003/6/14-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:28730 Activity:moderate |
6/14 Can digital pictures be used in court room?
\_ of course they can
\_ why of course? Can't pictures be doctored?
\_ just because they can be doctored doesn't mean they
aren't allowed. If you DO doctor photos and get caught
you are in for loads of trouble.
\_ i've just assumed "real" photos can be doctored as well,
albeit with a bit more effort.
\_ most of the techniques for doctoring digital photos
are emulations of well-understood darkroom
techniques. -tom
\_ I used to use photoshop in the darkroom all the
time when I was on the high school year book staff
and you were in band.
\_ lets say I took pictures of the apartment before and after moving
out, gets deducted for ridiculous amounts and didn't get the
deposit back. Can I still use digital pictures as evidence in
a small claims court? I mean it's sooooo easy to doctor pictures.
\_ you're supposed to have someone witness you taking pics
when you move in. ObGoogle.
\_ Yes. The small claims court judge will decide based on anything
they feel like. Who says they're digital sourced anyway once
you've had them printed on kodak? Don't tell the judge unless
he asks, dumbass.
\_what are the discovery rules in small claims court? if it
was regular court, you wouldn't only have the judge to worry
about but the opposing party. that a photo was doctored
would come out on cross-examination. the opposing party
would very likely have the photo ruled inadmissible on lack
of foundation alone. even if the rules are way more relaxed
in small claims court, there has to be some similar
mechanism, i'd imagine.
\_ Can't you read? I just told you small claims court
judges decide based on whatever they feel like. The
typical case time in front of a judge is about 45 seconds
for each side. You watch too much TV.
\_ don't forget to check if this landlord has done these kind of
things to other tenants in the past. That could be more firepower
than any pictures, digital or not. i highly doubt that digital
pictures would be ruled out as evidence. you can scan a negative
and doctor it up as well.
\_ in real court, they can ask for the negative and have
experts analyze the negative. Small claims court could
have more lenient rules. |
| 2003/4/1 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:27930 Activity:high |
3/31 http://news.com.com/2100-1018-994810.html The patriot act at work. \_ You realize the patriot act was first introduced by the Clinton administration in 95-96 by Janet Reno, right? \_ who cares who introduced it? (Although I would like to see documentation on that claim, it would be interesting) |
| 2003/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:27642 Activity:moderate |
3/9 More on the belligerent lawyer at the mall.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html
\_ He was just looking for a lawsuit. |
| 2003/1/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:27079 Activity:moderate |
1/13 Just pray that you don't get sick (unless you like being strip
searched by the secret police):
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v288n21/ffull/jlt1204-3.html
\_ Being detained and strip searched is the least of your
worries if you're undergoing radiation therapy, genius.
\_ Yeah, but talk about adding insult to injury!
\_ That guy hit a jackpot! Now he can sue the police dept for millions
of dollars on emotional damage. I bet he and his lawyer are
partying right now.
\_ You can't sue the secret police. If you do, they come for
you and yours in the middle of the night.
\_ You of course read the article and saw it was the NYPD.
Little did anyone else know they're a secret org. |
| 2003/1/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:26973 Activity:low |
1/3 So if my idiot manager tells me my attitude is unacceptable and wants
to know if I'm going through some sort of 'phase' and we're going to
have a discussion about it, is that a good sign or a bad sign? ;-)
\_ How's your resume looking?
\_ definitely not a good sign, but not necessarily a bad one either.
make up some excuses and then work on improving your attitude,
if you like your job, that is.
\_ Tell him your hooker has skipped town right after you gave
her rent money. So now you are broke and not getting laid
to boot. That will ensure his sympathy.
\_ I think it's too late for that when it's gotten to
this point. Esp. since the manager is called "idiot".
\_ Yeah, we're waaaay past the point of fixing anything. Idiot
is so stupid I can't even read Dilbert anymore because the
Dilbert boss is smarter than mine. Resume is looking really
damned good. Been interviewing well. I'm the only tech so
I'm unlikely to get flat out fired without enough warning to
bail out first. --op
\_ If you're patient and like revenge, I recommend that you
continue interviewing, get offers, and then get fired.
After you get fired, get a lawyer and sue them.
Wrongful termination lawsuits are usually settled out of
court if you did your job and got fired just for
"attitude" problems. You can probably milk a years
worth of salary out of them.
\_ Aren't we in an at-will state? Does he even need
to give a reason to terminate?
\_ It's a bad idea anyhow. Why worry about revenge if
you're better off someplace else? They don't need
a reason to fire him, but it sounds like they are
afraid to do that.
\- Look for something else. Quit. Write reasonable
toned letter making reasonable points to boss^2.
Your grievance is with your boss not the company.
So when you retaliate you should "keep your eye on
the boss". --psb |
| 2002/11/29-12/1 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court] UID:26667 Activity:very high |
11/29 Has anyone used a lawyer for fighting a traffic citation? If so what
was the outcome and how much did you shell out.
\_ Unless you killed someone or you're up for some other sort of
serious felony conviction you're wasting your time. The lawyer
fees will seriously outweigh the court penalties for a simple
guilty plea. No real lawyer will take your "75 in a 55 zone" case.
\_ how about 125 in a 30 zone?
\_ I think that falls under "serious felony".
\_ I used the SF Traffic Clinic lawyers to fight a traffic citation.
It was a couple hundred dollars, but I avoided a point on my
driving record, and kept my insurance costs down too. They
specialize in driving citations in the bay area and are pretty
good at arguing down a 75 in a 55 zone to a smaller offense. --chris
\_ Be your own lawyer: http://nolo.com
\_ thanks chris, that's what I wanted.
\_ Be your own lawyer: http://nolo.com. Direct(but long)URL:
http://nolo.com/lawcenter/index.cfm/catID/8A09EBA2-DCC7-4589-9ADC0530153F4C9C/subcatid/CF015A63-6B69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E
http://nolo.com/lawcenter/index.cfm/catID/8A09EBA2-DCC7-4589-9ADC0530
153F4C9C/subcatid/CF015A63-6B69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E
Check out books like: Fight your ticket
\_ I have the Nolo book, used it in court, judge loved
\_ me too. but I didn't do everything the book said.
my attempt and reduced the fine but didn't dismiss
the ticket. --op
\_ same here. but I didn't do everything the book said.
Since then, I've been waiting for a speeding ticket
to fight but haven't gotten one --poster of the book link
\_ I used stuff from the Nolo book and totally got my ticket
dismissed. It really helps to know the Law here. -ERic
\_ Ever heard of http://csua.org/u
\_ You're doomed. |
| 2002/11/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:26582 Activity:nil |
11/19 is there any ground for a lawsuit if i got involuntarily transferred to
another department, and the department that i am being transferred to
terminated me on the date of my transfer citing that i am not a good
fit for the only position that they have in the department? note that
there was a layoff (i think, since about 5 people got let go) about 2
weeks ago. realistically speaking, what will i be able to get out of
this lawsuit and will this lawsuit affect my future career?
basically, i am just bummed by their unprofessionalism and the
"termination" on my employment record after having given them my heart
and soul during the past 2 years, and had an excellent performance
record with them. i want to get a general feel of this before
consulting legal consult. any tips, urls, past personal/friend
experiences, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
\_ YES! SUE THEM! There's a federal law that requires companies to
give 90 day advance warning for any layoff. Most tech companies
\_Depends on the company size and number of layoffs. It also
depends on how you were hired. Also, the OP says he got transferred,
not fired. There's a distinct difference.
violate that law, that's why the people get severance packages
contigent upon you signing a waiver stating that you will not
sue them. In this case, your company is circumventing that law
by making it appear as a transfer and then a firing. That's
bullshit.
And anther related advice to everybody who is about to get laid
off: DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING and DO NOT TAKE ANY SEVERANCE PACKAGE.
You can get more money out of suing them. But it does take more
time. I suggest that you be patient and wait for the bigger
check when they settle out of court. And they will settle out of
court.
\_This only applies if a company doesn't file for Chapter 11 or 7.
If a company seeks bankruptcy protection, you will most likely not
see a dime. I think it goes something like this: Court, Attorneys,
IRS, judgements, preferred creditors,
unwashed masses of stockholders.
\_ in calif its only if they are laying off over 20% of the company
at a given time.. they can get around this by saying "we are
gonna do layoffs in 90 days" but not saying who.. untill that
90th day.. or so ive been told by a few diff hr girls -shac
\_ Not in California.
\_ This is true only if you expect the company to still be around
for a while, right?
\_ obviously yes.
\_ Since my companies were startups that were doing final layoffs
before shutting down it was more like take the severance check
directly to the bank the moment I got it before everyone else
got to the bank and emptied the account before my check could
get there. ;-)
\_ Not really, but in America you can sue anyone for almost anything.
I doubt any legal counsel will take up your case since it's pretty
flimsy, but who knows. If you look hard enough, you can probably
find some crackpot lawyer to waste time on it. If you are willing
to pay for the prosecution out of pocket then anyone will take the
\_ Take legal advice from someone who doesn't
know how to user the word "prosecution"?
\_Apparently you are confused. I assume you
don't understand the colloqualism of
"paying for the prosecution." Sorry, you lose.
\_ or the word "use"? gotcha hypocrite!
\- er are you suggesting "pay the for the
prosecution" is an expression like "pay the
piper"? otherwise "prosecution" implies
criminal jurisdiction pursued by the "public"
rather than a tortious claim, which is what
i assume you are suggesting. so i suppose it
it clear what you mean, but poor usage.
lots of matters can either be criminal or
tort, so it's worth being clear. --psb
case. If you don't like the job, then quit. Keep in mind that if
you do set yourself up for potential future career damage if word
ever leaks out. Keep in mind, they haven't fired you, and their
case for transfer can be relatively easily justified.
\_ It's worse in Japan. You can't quit at all. And if you manage
to leave, you will be blacklisted.
\_ As much as Tokyo has managed to piss me off, I refuse
to touch America until that idiot you people call a
president is extirpated from office. That country is
so royally foobar'd now that you'll have to pay me the
negative deficit and a whore every night from
yoshiwara before I go back. I have absolutely no
desire to go back in the near future until McCarthy 2
relinquishes his totalitarian grip on that place. I
do miss aspects of America (namely prices) but that
place is just a wasteland. I'm glad I got out while I
could because I'd hate to be in that landscape right
now. I suppose if I were in college it wouldn't be so bad
but I graduated UCI and moved on so living there would be a
nightmare. Even my friends and family are struggling
with the unemployment problems. Really the country
needs to implode and start from scratch because it has
too many unsolvable problems. - Happy Living In Tokyo
\_ Yawn. Whatever. You graduated from UCI? Maybe that is
your real problem? Take the ultra leftist hate mongering
zero references agenda driven drivel elsewhere. Troll.
\_ Maybe you should pay attention to what people outside
the country see that we cannot. At least his comments
are more than an ad hominem attack.
\_ If I looked like Kim Il Sung, I'd probably move too
\_ I'm assuming this job is in California. We all work "at will" which
means they can fire you without cause for pretty much anything. I
suggest you find a labor lawyer and take them up on a free
consultation (do not pay for a consultation, call someone else).
A California labor lawyer can tell you if you've got a leg to stand
on. I'm guessing not but I'm not a lawyer and neither is anyone
else here.
\_ Just move on A.S.A.P. before your skills get rusty. You don't want
a reputation as a vengeful person. Just take some recommendations
and prepare the explanation well for when you interview.
\_ The valley isn't that small. No one has a repuation at the
grunt level. That's pure nonsense. |
| 2002/6/11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:25070 Activity:moderate |
6/11 Want to graduate, but failed your classes? Get a lawyer and get
out on time!
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0610sunrisegrad10.html
\_ Now there's a winner. "Yeah, I needed a lawyer to graduate."
\_ Damn... I have 180 semester units, but can't find a degree.
Can I just get a lawyer? --scotsman
\_ What a chicken school district. |
| 2002/5/27 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:24953 Activity:nil |
5/27 XP AntiTrust patch:
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/24/technology/microsoft.xp.reut/index.htm |
| 2002/5/5 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:24715 Activity:nil |
5/4 Attorney General Edwin Meese III explained why the Supreme Court's
Miranda decision (holding that subjects have a right to remain
silent and have a lawyer present during questioning) is unnecessary:
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
suspect."
-- U.S. News and World Report, 10/14/85 |
| 2002/5/1 [Transportation/Car, Computer/HW/Printer, Reference/Law/Court] UID:24646 Activity:nil |
4/29 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-895715.html Two more companies consigned to trashbin of corporate history. |
| 2002/4/25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:24577 Activity:nil |
4/24 The new Windows logo (after the Anti-Trust lawsuit concludes):
http://homepage.mac.com/adambetts/MacNN/CutOut.jpg |
| 2002/3/27 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:24241 Activity:nil |
3/27 what is a grand jury and what do they do? are they special jurors? |
| 2002/2/10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:23830 Activity:very high |
2/09 does anyone have any experience applying for a patent as an
independent inventor, i.e. without the aid of an employer or
institution (but not without a lawyer)?
\_ Are you prepared to shell out $10K out of your own pocket? If
not, forget it.
\_ Generally if you're doing it via an employer, the government, UC,
or some other institution you don't own it anyway so it doesn't
matter. On your own you go find yourself a patent lawyer and shell
out big bucks for them to write a decent patent and do prior art
searches, etc. It's important to know what a patent is. A patent
is the right to exclude. It gives you the right to keep others from
using your invention for 20 years from the date of filing (in the
US). It provides no other benefit. It isn't instant wealth. And
defending your patent from infringers could easily take millions of
dollars in legal fees and years in court without any guarantee of
success. Good luck!
\_ A friend of mine has applied for about a dozen patents as a
independent inventor. He found a good patent lawyer to help
him with the applications. It took several iterations with
his lawyer to work out the first application, but the others
were quite easy. Make sure that the patent lawyer you get
is familiar with the area of your invention (ie if you invented
a specialized asic, get a lawyer who knows how to file hardware
patents), otherwise you may end up spending a lot of money
to file a patent that doesn't completely cover your invention. |
| 2002/1/27-28 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:23684 Activity:moderate |
1/25 Sharon assasinates witnesses against him:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=116256
\_ "Local Lebanese militia group takes responsibility for attack."
\_ So Belgium sets of a kangeroo court which allows any nutcase to
\_ So Belgium sets up a kangeroo court which allows any nutcase to
sue anyone else in the world for generic human right's violations
no matter where they occured. It's a joke. Who cares what anyone
in Belgium has to say about anything. The only thing Belgium was
ever known for was being a super highway for the Nazis on their
way to Paris. Why do you or anyone else care what Belgium has to
say? As if a 'conviction' would mean Belgium would show up in
Israel to arrest Sharon? Let's add Arafat and the leaders of just
about every Arab nation to the list while we're at it. Let's add
every American President to the list. How about Putin? He's a real
bastard, too. Silly. |
| 2001/12/5-6 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:23152 Activity:high |
12/5 Let's say I'm on the jury for one of bin Laden's top men. Will my
identity be concealed? Is it public info?
\_ I think it'll be public info if bin Laden goes to criminal court.
\_ I think it'll be public info if he goes to criminal court.
However, if he's captured alive, I think he'll most likely go to
military tribunal instead where many things can be kept secret.
\_ You'll end up known and on a jury for a good 18 months in seclusion
and will probably be offered entry into the FBI's witness protection
program afterwards. You'll need it.
\_ I think you're both full of it. the secret military
tribunals you are thinking of have no jury, just judges.
\_ I wasn't thinking of a secret military tribunal. Thank you for
caring.
\_ I think "trying one of bin laden's top men" is exactly
what bush and co had in mind when they brought back
ultra double secret military tribunal trials. i hope.
too bad that with the new presidential paper secrecy
laws, we won't know about it for 200 years. |
| 2001/10/12-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:22706 Activity:kinda low |
10/11 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7479309.html?tag=mn_hd it is so obvious what the media-content industry is trying to do now. \_ It is? What? |
| 2001/7/25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21944 Activity:nil |
7/25 New lead attorney in M$ anti-trust case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27449-2001Jul20.html |
| 2001/7/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:21908 Activity:high |
07/22 yes the US sucks for arresting the russian adobe ebook hacker,
but I think he fucked up by actually charging money for his
program (a free version that partially decrypted the ebook,
a non free version that decrypted the entire book).
\_ His company charged money for the program. He wrote the program.
\_ does this company have any other employees?
\_ Yep, a bunch. http://www.elcomsoft.com
--Galen
\_ If you visit Elcomsoft's website, don't forget to check
out http://www.mailutilities.com too (different URL,
but all Elcomsoft products). Gotten spam lately?
There's a good chance that you can thank Elcomsoft and
its happy band of "white-hat" (ha) hackers for writing and
selling address-harvesting and bulk-E-mailing software.
\_ why shouldn't he be arrested? the law's the law, shouldn't people
be bitching and doing something about the law instead of whining
about the enforcement? hm, i'd be interested in seeing a poll of
industry employees vs. college kids re: this law.
\_ Elcomsoft is based in Russia, isn't it? US law does not
apply to violations of American justice committed outside
the country. Not even if the perpetrator subsequently enters
the US. I don't see what is so difficult about this concept.
If he had written the tool inside the US, or were hosting it
on a US webserver (did he?) the situation would be different.
In this case, the only justification for arresting him here
would be a formal request for legal assistance and extradition
from Russian police as a result of a crime committed in
Russia. -John
\_ What did he do?
\_ This *is* an attempt to change the law.
\_ There are (at least) two troubling things here:
1) putting someone in _jail_ and refusing access to diplomatic
envoys for "violating" the DMCA
2) the DMCA itself, for making it impossible to expose false
advertising on the part of companies selling hw or sw security
systems. "Your security is broken" "Prove it or we sue you
for libel" "OK, here, look!" "Smack, you're in jail for
violating the DMCA" --dbushong
\_ Free Dmitry. http://www.boycottadobe.org/pages/rallies.html
Rally at Adobe in San Jose tomorrow mid-day among other places. |
| 2001/7/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21898 Activity:moderate |
7/21 Is it illegal to swear at a cop? Can you get arrested/fined for
doing that?
\_ yes
\_ It's not illegal to swear at a cop per se-- there are very few
laws that apply to cops specifically, with the exception of some
sentencing-related laws for cop killings. There are, however
laws about obscenity, which a cop could reasonably cite you
under for swearing at him.
\_ Then do you know where I can find out exactly what
what these rules are? Some website with state/federal
laws?
\_ The relevant rules are found in the Constitution
under the section called Amendments.
\_ Wow. Can you sue a coworker or underling with those same
laws?
\_ yes -- but you probably won't win.
\_ that's too bad. There is this one guy in my group
who swears way too much, so I wanted to threaten
to sue him in the hope that he cleans up. (Its so
bad we cannot allow him to speak to potential
candidates, customers or upper management)
\_ can't you sue him for something like mental anguish,
distress, etc.? even if you probably won't win, the
threat of a lawsuit might be enough. alternatively,
you could just tell him to, "shut the fuck up"
\_ I think option B is preferable here. The lawsuit
threat will just convince him you're a stiff
corporate pussy.
\_ I've already tried the stfu approach, it
doesn't work. He just swears at everything.
Every other word out of his mouth is one of
{mother}f*ck{er,ing}, shit, crap, damn, etc.
My intention was to make it clear to him that
unless he cleans up, he will be out of a job.
\_ Are you his boss? If not, then you stfu.
\_ Swearing at a cop is not illegal, but it is a good way to
get your ass kicked. -ausman |
| 2001/6/30 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/Security] UID:21688 Activity:nil |
6/30 fuck amihotornot: http://www.ratemyrack.com |
| 2001/6/29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21674 Activity:high |
6/28 Maybe everything is not going according to plan for Redmond:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20079.html
\_ but enough is, you cunt. |
| 2001/6/28 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:21661 Activity:high |
6/28 Court Reverses Microsoft Breakup Order
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Microsoft_Antitrust_Tria
\_ "Trial"
F**K!!!
Maybe tjb had paid Judge Jackson to bad-mouth against M$.
\_ No, M$ paid off the higher court judges or threatened
them and/or their families. This judgement was obtained
by bribery or extortion, which how all crime syndicates
obtain "justice".
\_ The Bush Administration cut off funding for prosecution
of the case. So, in a roundabout sort of way, yes.
\_ Isn't this particular hearing just based on the M$
briefs vs. the findings of facts (no prosecution
involvement). |
| 2001/4/20-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21041 Activity:high |
4/20 US District Court judge rules "The First Amendment clearly applies to
the internet. The law says that a person has a right to speak
anonymously." Who would've guessed?
<DEAD>digitalmass.boston.com/news/daily/04/042001/chatter_privacy.html<DEAD>
\_ but tom reserves the right to not reply to your
posts on the motd.
\_ Who said anything about tom? The whole world doesn't revolve
around tom. The truth is tom is a very itty bitty tiny part of
the world. The post is about important things, not tom.
\_ as far a free speach on the internet goes, i think that
what i will call the "tom phenomenon" is very important.
by this i mean that unrestrained speach also can lead to
unrestrained censorship. in the end, as on the motd, we
are not censored by large insitituions or governments,
but by single, petty individuals who feel very strongly that
certain points of view need to be censored.
\_ tom is so k3w1!
How many tom's does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One. Cause the world revolves around him.
- tom's #1 fan
\_ you already used this joke with Alan Greenspan this morning,
ikiru. -tom
\_ tom, i think most people only bait you and pick on you
because you're intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
it isnt personal. youre not worth getting personal over.
it -is- fun to bait you though. youre very knee-jerk and
reflexive which adds a dose of consistency to life that
some find comforting. thanks for being the same old you
every day without any growth or change all these years.
keep on truckin! -!ikiru
\_ said like a moron whos never made a solid argument
in his life. you're the kind of person who likes to
play devil's advocat because it's easier than making
constructive arguments. you should kill yourself.
\_ A friend of the devil is a freind of mine. |
| 2001/3/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Health/Men] UID:20764 Activity:high |
3/12 Penis. Cut or uncut? Sue if you're not happy.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/gma010207circumcision_suit.html
Note the high quality "study" his lawsuit is depending on.
\_ get over your dicks already. --chris
\_ ari has Jewish penis.
\_ Show your support by beheading your clitoris.
\_ get off my dick. -tjb
\_ and get onto mine! --Moron
\_ get off my dick. -nweaver
\_ A clear case of Freudian penis envy if ever there was one.
\_ Why didn't he sue his mom instead? Geez.
\_ Sigh. A new breed of blood sucking ambulance chasing lawyers that
are even too lazy to chase ambulances.
\_ Hi. My name's Mr. Hutz. I'll be your lawyer, bodyguard, and
drug dealerrrr...keeper-awayer. |
| 2001/1/24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:20415 Activity:very high |
1/23 what's better paying a speeding ticket fine and having the point
added or paying a lawyer to fight it for you?
\_ A speeding ticket? Sheesh, go to court, plead guilty and beg the
judge not to give you a point. A lawyer won't help unless you
killed someone while speeding in which case a point on your record
is the least of your concerns. A *lot* of people have a point or
two. Big deal.
\_ How does one plead guilty and _not_ get a point? The only
way I've seen people successfully remove points, is by
having a lawyer.
\_ Depends on whether the case is winnable, how many points you
already have, and if you can go to traffic school. In general,
just pay the fine. California considers you a good driver with
only one point, although your insurance will rise. --dim
\_ insurance rates rise by how much in general? How long do
the points stay on your record? How long do you get penalized
by insurance?
\_ Points stay on your record for 3 years. Your insurance
will penalize you for the duration. My insurance went
up 10% with 1 point, but it will go up *much* more with
2 points (I've had 2 before). --dim
\_ if you can afford it, get the lawyer to remove the point...and
especially if you've already got a point on your record.
\- it depends on the side effects. if it your first point and
tschool is an option, you could do that. what is your argument
going to be? they lawyer has to make some kind of argument.
you may want to look at nolo press book on fighting tickets.
i suppose you can look at blashfield but at that point better to
pay a lawyer. --psb |
| 2000/12/14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:20098 Activity:nil |
12/13 Seen on rec.humor.funny:
A guide for the perplexed on legal maneuvering:
If it benefits my candidate, it's the rule of law.
If it benefits your candidate, it's a technicality.
\_ how banal. tom, is that you?
How about "justice is a decision in your favor."
\_ how about "Marriage is like a caste system. Once you go there
you've lost all of your mobility." -married sodan 1999
\_ How about "Marriage is like a pie. It tastes sweet for the first
few years and later on you just want to throw up"
\_ "This URL has been censored." |
| 2000/11/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:19878 Activity:nil |
11/21 Any online reference as to how to sue the federal government (or
(some dept. thereof)? If not, an off-line ref. would be o.k. |
| 2000/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Law/Court] UID:19785 Activity:very high |
11/15 I am typically not so blunt, but does anybody else think that the
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris is a total bitch? She is
not even trying to pretend to be non-partisan. Which cabinet post or
ambassadorship has she been promised?
\_ so she should break the law to please Gore? all she is doing is
following the law put there to protect the will of the people and
preserve fairness.
\_ Yes. We need to ELECT GORE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
The law is irrelevant, only ELECTING GORE matters!
\_ Read the law you dipshit. Title 9, Chapter 102.166. It's very
clear about hand recounts being totally legal. They have followed
that law to the letter
Here you go _/
\_ reformatted in the interest of space. I
believe that its (2) that you want to read.
Gore is trying to break the LAW, and Ms. Harris
is trying to do her job (uphold the LAW). Last
I checked we were a nation of LAWS and no one
including GORE was ABOVE THE LAW.
\_ Uh, yes. Gore protested with the canvassing board
within 5 days of the election. So yes, Gore did
what he had to do. This says nothing about that
bitch having any right to try to stop the counts
like she did this morning. And I can't wait until
the Florida Supreme Court gets its hands on this
case firmly. They are all Democratically-appointed
judges. |
| 2000/9/9-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:19217 Activity:high |
9/9 I was woken up today (Saturday) at 9 am by a telemarketer. Is
there some way to avoid this (aside from unplugging my phone and
missing calls from friends worth being woken up for)? For example,
there could be a law passed where telemarketers have to
electronically identify themselves as such. Then, the residential
phone customer (me) could choose when they want to receive/block
calls from telemarketers with the touch of a button. How would one
go about trying to get a law like this passed? -tired & pissed
\_ telemarketers have caller ID blocks which makes it impoossible
to tell what their number is or *69 them. You can pay PacHell
$2/mo to block all *69/CallerID blocked (yes, the double negative)
numbers or pay PacHell $6/mo for caller ID and the above service
is free. The only problem is that if you have friends who work
in SVC their companies probably also have callerID blocks. That
can be remedied by using *82 to disable it temporarily.
can be remedied by using *82 to disable it temporarily. When
you do get called by a telemarketer, try to give them the run
around. Make them pay for their crimes or just start cussing
at them. If you really want to look up laws try
http://thomas.loc.gov
\_ My experience is that telemarketers call from areas that
don't have caller id, and whenever I get a call and my
caller id unit tells me this, I don't even bother answering.
There is a difference between calling from an area without
going to stop AT&T from calling me. Besides, it's
not that I mind them calling. I just mind them
calling when I'm sleeping on a Saturday morning at
9 am.
caller id and calling from a phone that has it blocked.
\_ All you need to say is, "Can I please be taken off this list?"
nnnnn \_ All you need to say is, "Can I please be taken off this list?"
Ta-da. After a number of months of this, your tele-marketing
calls drop *dramatically*.
\_ I don't see how telling Discover card not to call me is
going to stop AT&T or the "Rescue Mission" from
to help and I get this crap. Thanks buddy.
calling me. Besides, it's not that I mind them
calling. I just mind them calling when I'm sleeping
on a Saturday morning at 9 am.
\_ Most telemarketing is outsourced to a
small number of companies - if you tell
them not to call, they're supposed to
remove you from all lists, not just the
client they're calling you for.
\_ Whoops. I should have read your original
question more carefully and realized you had
greater problems than 9 a.m. phone calls. I try
to help and I get this. Thanks buddy.
\_ Relax. Don't take it personally! I was
just being more specific about the
problem. But thanks for your help.
\_ Anyways, they're supposed to
only call from 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.,
which includes weekends. It's
bad manners, but it's legal.
\_ Yes, the polite approach is best. I hear that if you piss
off a telemarketer, they'll put your name on more lists.
\- i just say "please mail me the infiormation so i can
review it" --psb
\_ I was called by providian credit card, and i said i wasn't really
interested, and she kept insisting i give the last 4 digits of
my SSN to check to see how much credit I would have, so i thought
it couldn't hurt, and within seconds she started saying
"your credit card will be arriving in two to three weeks", and
I kept repeating "No!! no!! I dont want a cred-" "Thank you
and have a good day" and she hung up. I got my unwanted CC
last week with a $59 intial charge tacked on. I called up and
told them the whole story, they appologized, cancled the card
but it took me half an hour, waiting and getting transfered.
\_ Saying anything _but_ "No, please take me off this list"
is always a bad idea. If at any point you say the word
"Yes" in response to any question, they've got you.
"Are you having a good day?" "Yes." Pow!
\_ "What is your company? Please add me to your no call list.
Never call me again. Thank you". Do this, and the number of
telemarketing calls swiftly goes to 0. If any company calls
you a second time, sue them in small claims court for $500. |
| 2000/8/18-21 [Reference/Tax, Reference/Law/Court] UID:19038 Activity:kinda low |
8/18 I need recommendations on estate planning books. Something that
covers trusts, living wills, tax saving plans, etc. I'll try to
do this myself first before consulting a CPA. Thanks.
\_ Nolo. Good luck.
\_ get a lawyer before you f*ck it up and end up giving most, or all,
\_ get a lawyer before you fuck it up and end up giving most, or all,
of it back to the government!
\_ A laywer is necessary, but I think that he wants to do
his "homework" before talking to one. At $250/hr its best
to go in with a good idea of the problem space you are
dealing with.
\_ His lawyer will already know. He's wasting his time.
\_ The government sucks! -anarchist
\_ the government sucks! -anarchist |
| 2000/7/31-8/2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18833 Activity:kinda low |
7/31 "When you're a U.S. citizen you have to build OpenSSL in conjunction
with the RSAref library." What is the reasoning behind this?
\_ Well, only if you're in the USA. RSA has a patent in the USA.
Fortunately, that patent is expiring on Sep. 20, 2000. --PeterM
\_ Patents are evil! Kill all patents! Free beer for the
people! We have the right to everything free!
\_ It's incorrect actually - it's if you are in the US or not -
non-citizens are not exempt from US law when on US soil. RSA
can still sue your scrawny ass for patent infringement if you
don't. (They're not likely to, but they can.)
\_ also, US Law applies to US Citizens no matter where they are
in the world. |
| 2000/7/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:18741 Activity:nil |
7/20 Looking for a NT/data recovery expert to do 2-3 days work (ASAP)
as an expert witness for an upcoming trial. Opposing party claims
that all data on its stand-alone, NT-running PC was "accidentally"
erased; the law firm I work for suspects otherwise. Must be (a)
technically capable and (b) articulate, calm, and unflappable (as
you may need to testify at trial). If interested email timothym.
\_ You don't need an expert. If it was accidentally erased, you
should be able to get it back w/ any <$40 data recovery tool.
If not, it was intentional and they burned that file real good.
\_ Fair enough, but *I* can't tell that to a jury; I need
someone with established credibility (EECS degree;
SiliValley experience, etc.) to sway a jury.
Also, evidence that files were intentionally burned may
be admissible in court. -timothym
\_ Has anyone actually attempted recovery? Your expert's
testimony doesn't count very much, otherwise.
\_ Supposedly the user's SA did, but we don't believe his
story. (We've already obtained evidence that this
company doctored some e-mails and documents; they've
got little credibility at this point.) -timothym
\_ Your expert needs to attempt recovery / inspect
the PC, I suppose with the defendant watching.
Call up http://drivesavers.com and see what they say
about the whole thing. Otherwise, yeah, your
expert can comment on the defendant's testimony. |
| 2000/7/18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18707 Activity:very high |
7/17 If my okay looking neighbor is topless in her backyard, is it legal
to tape her? Do I need a consent similar to that of phone
surveillance?
\_ How good looking she is has nothing to do with the legality of the
situation. As for the rest, consult a lawyer, not the motd, as
always. IMO, go ahead, tape her, just don't distribute copies.
You might want to go next door and say hi.
\_ If you are not planning to rebroadcast the recording you do not
\_ You mean broadcast. Learn english.
need to consider the legal implications (the ethical ones are
another matter), rebroadcasting is illegal. There is a reasonable
expectation of privacy in ones own back yard.
\_ Broadcasting, reproducing, or publically displaying.
\_ Bahaha. "Reasonable expectation of privacy". Is that as
gray as say, abortion and euthenasia?
\_ Legally abortion is very black and white.
In many jurisdictions, so is euthanasia.
\_ Your comment is ill-formed on so many levels.
\_ http://www.voyeurweb.com
\_ You sick fuck, do you realize that if you do this without
her consent and she finds out, she could probably prove that
it was taped from your window, given the viewpoint? I think
a lawyer would lick his chops when thinking of getting his hands
on 40% of the punitive damages you'd have to pay.
\_ present precedent or shut the fuck up.
\_ The many lawsuits the last few years against companies
that hid cameras in locker rooms, etc. and then sold video
on the net.
\_ better yet, explain what this has to do with the question.
he doesn't mention anything about selling the videos.
\_ Y3AH 1T"Z 0KAY D00D!!!1!!1!!!! 1F UR LUCKY, MAYB3 SH3"LL NOT1C3 U
TAP1NG 0N3 DAY AND ASK U 2 CUM 0V3R 4 A 3-S0M3 W1TH H3R AND H3R
H0T BL0ND3 FR313ND!!!!!1!!1!! TH1Z W0RK3D 1N A PR0N M0V13 1 SAW
0NC3!!!1!1 GUD LUCK!!!11!
\_ I'll tape it for you next time. |
| 2000/5/7 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court] UID:18195 Activity:high |
5/7 Legal questoin. If i open a ISP on indian land, sets say Navajo
territory, am I still goverened by US crypto export laws?
\_ They aren't foreign nations. They still follow all Federal laws,
so this won't help you export weapons, no. Go to a foreign country
if you want to help terrorists and the mafia evade the FBI.
All Federal laws apply and all State laws apply if you're not a
member of that tribe. As if you're the first person in 200+ years
to think of abusing Native Americans.... |
| 2000/4/27-28 [Transportation, Reference/Law/Court, Recreation/Dating] UID:18127 Activity:nil |
4/26 http://www.peacefire.org/staff/bennett/autodave |
| 2000/4/24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18103 Activity:nil |
4/24 to those people who said that the elian custody matter had already
been decided for the miama family in florida family court, you seem
to have missed the part where that decision was thrown out because
under florida law a great uncle does not have a claim to custody. |
| 2000/3/11-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:17742 Activity:kinda low |
3/10 http://interstice.com/leo \_ bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! \_ Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
| 2000/1/20-21 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW] UID:17273 Activity:moderate |
1/19 http://linuxcentral.com/linux/LDP/rms.txt Is it really true that amazon has patented the use of cookie in online ordering? I thought they are not even the first one to use it. Can I patent eating food through my mouth? \_ Anyone who thinks amazon patented cookies has either not read the patent (very likely), understands nothing about patent law (highly likely), or is a complete moron. Choose any two of the above. The fact that the court has prevented amazon competitors from using amazon's patented one-click technology makes it clear that the court feels amazon is likely to win it's case in a trial. I trust the opinion of the court on this matter more than I trust the opinion of the uninformed slashdot masses who would all be super geniuses if they knew 1/10th of what they think they know about the world or anything in it. \_ They patented "One-Click Shopping" which uses cookies. And if you worded it right, you could probably convince the morons in the patent office to issue a patent for eating with your mouth. \_ Quick! Patent the "9 items or less" line and sue every supermarket chain in the country! \_ patent office workers are underpaid and overworked and if you were knowledgable enough to approve good technology patents you wouldn't be working there \_ Wasn't Albert Einstein a patent clerk? --dim \_ Exactly. That's why he quitted, and that's why he didn't bother patenting his Theory of Relativity. (If he worded it right, he could've even patented a theorem, right?) \_ Wrong. The one rare thing patent law is explicit about is that you can't patent laws of nature. If he BUILT something using the principle, however.... -alexf \_ But you can patent DNA sequences! That sounds like it's in conflict with the above statment. \_ That's an ongoing debate. Check specifics with someone who knows more than I do. -alexf \_ Which reminds me of this: computer programs were thought of as algorithms, which were math, which was laws of nature. How was computer programs excluded from this law and became patentable? \_ Software is now considered an implementation and not an algorthym. If you look up the exact definition of algorythm you'll find pretty much zero software falls under that definition. In very simple terms, the law considers software to be no different than hardware in terms of patent- ability. Software is an expression of the idea, the same way hardware is. You build it with bits instead of widgets. Consult a patent lawyer if you want a full legal explanation. IANAL. \_ I think there's been some debate about whether or not software should be patentable, or just \_ http://lpf.ai.mit.edu copyrighted-- but the original reasoning of software patents had to do with the analogy that a computer given the software of a word processor was bascially similar to the invention of a typewriter. \_ What's the difference between patent and copyright? \_ Copyright protects things that can be copied (text, images, music, etc.) Patents protect inventions. \_ Hell, you're composed of atoms--basically your ideas are just random fluctuations of nature. How can you patent anything? |
| 1999/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:16806 Activity:nil |
11/1 How come the judge in the Wyoming gay bashing trial can bar the
"gay panic" defense? Shouldn't the jury be the ones to decide
whether certain defenses in a court trial are valid or not? |
| 1999/10/6-8 [Computer/SW/Graphics, Reference/Law/Court] UID:16669 Activity:very high |
10/5 Is GIF pronounced as "jif" or "ghif"?
\_ my officemate says "jif" is east coast while "ghif" is s west coast
\_ Depends. Are you a retard or a normal person?
\_ You are retard
\_ You are retard, me am not retard, you am big dummyheaded!!
\_ You are a retard.
\_ Yes.
\_ don't know how to answer a question?
\_ The answer is valid. To go back to second grade and
answer in a complete sentence, "Yes, GIF is pronounced
as either 'jif' or 'ghif'. Some people say it the first
way, others the second, neither is 'more correct' than the
other."
\_ say jif. ghif sounds gay.
to steal other people's work.
\_ no, it's just the opposite.
\_ I usually pronounce it as "that obsolete, poorly-compressed,
limited colormap, patent encumbered, joke of a format that
should be avoided whenever possible"
\_ That's pretty long-winded for a three-letter word.
\_ It is not patent encumbered. Unisys is not going to sue your
soda home page into bankruptcy for violating their patent or
send you a bill for $5000. And in general, there's nothing
to steal other people's wor
wrong with patents. 99% of the anti-patent crowd never did a
god damned thing worthy of one, so no shit they want the right
to steal other people's work.
\_ Second that
\_ I am staunchly anti-software-patent, and I have done
several things that were patentable. In fact my newest
invention is called "Device Enabling Pro-Software-Patent
Motd Posters to Bite Me". -blojo
\_ If you didn't get a patent, how do you know it was
patentable? You wouldn't be the first to think he was
a Eureka! super genius but turn out to be just another
MOTD editing fool.
\_ "If you have to ask, you don't know." I am a
research programmer in the field of 3D graphics
and computational geometry. I spend 100% of my
time thinking up systems that are new, and then
trying them out. When you're In The Zone of
knowing all the current research, and adding to it,
it is generally easy to know what is patentable
and what is lame. -blojo
\_ I know you're Mr. Graphics. That doesn't make you
super foo. You're still not a lawyer.
a patent lawyer. I easily grant your graphics
super fu. You're still not a lawyer.
\_ The point was, that if you're aware of the
state of the art, and you know what was patented
in the past given the state of the art at that
time, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure out roughly what has a good chance of
far superior math skills to you".
being a defendable patent. Sure, you
might be a little off here and there, but you
pretty much know. -blojo
\_ You're not a lawyer, but you play one on
the motd. If it was that easy, why are
all those engineers bothering to go to law
school to retrain as patent lawyers? They
should just go take the bar exam right off
since it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
It does take a lawyer, though.
\_ well if they had a bar exam to become a
patent lawyer in that narrow field, maybe.
but they dont, you have to be a full
lawyer to be a patent lawyer, and so you
have to take the full bar exam. Hence
the need to waste time with law school.
\_ I think you're a little confused about
the patent process. Patent lawyers
do not come up with ideas of what to
patent. The engineers come to them, and
they say "Help me patent this." It
costs significant dollars to see a
patent through, so you don't do it unless
you're pretty sure it's viable. Also,
who are these armies of engineers
retraining as patent lawyers of whom
you speak? I don't know any of them.
Sounds anecdotal to me. -blojo
\_ I thought Compuserve came up with the format?
\_ You people have gif and jpeg confused.
\_ Compuserve developed the GIF format using the LZW
compression method Unisys developed & patented.
(Note to pro-patent-mongers above: Unisys only did
the W in LZW - the original LZ work was done elsewhere
and merely extended by Unisys, but their patent allows
them to profit off the work of others.)
\_ "allows them to profit off the work of others": Hello?
Know ye nothing, young jedi knight? They're only allowed
to profit from their useful and original extensions to
another's work, aka "their own work". I see nothing
wrong with that. Anyone not using their extension owes
them nothing and no one is required to do so. In any
event, a patent doesn't last forever. Old patents are
17 years from the time of issue. New patents are 20
years from the time of first application filing.
\_ What is the W in LZW? I know how Lempel-Ziv
compression works, but I never learned about W. -emin
\_ The "W" is (W)oman. As in "Woman of Power with
far superior math skills than you".
\_ The "W" is (W)1MM1N!!1! As in "D00D, 1 G0TTA
1NV3NT TH1Z GRAPH1KZ F0RMAT S0 1 KAN SHAR3
P1KS UV N3KK1D W1MM1N W1TH MY K0MPUT3R
FR13NDZ!!!!1!!!!"
\_ Oh yeah, you're right. Tpyo, sorry.
\_ Getting back to the original post, "gif" is pronounced
"jif." The "g" before "i" grammar rule says that the
"g" picks up a "j" sound. Yup..."ghif" sounds kinda
gay, please don't use that in public. -- swings
\_ I wonder who's getting me gifts (pronounced "jifts"
according to the above post) for my birthday this month? I
use (ghift) in public all the time and I sound way too cool.
\_ Also "giant" vs "giddy". Both common English words that
somehow violate this mysterious "g before i rule". There
are numerous counter examples to this so called rule. But
really what can one expect from the motd anyway?
\_"g" before "i" generally applies when in doubt. my goodness
EECS people always have to have the last word, eh?
\_ i think words with "g" pronounced as a soft "j" sound
before "i" are few and far between. there is no such rule.
it makes sense intuitively to me to pronounce it as a hard
"g". i can't understand why you'd want to pronounce gif
like jif. it's not a peanut butter for god's sake. -lila
\_ It really doesn't matter! People who pronounce it
"ghif" are probably used to the "gift" idea; people who
pronounce it "jif" either think there's that rule to
pronunciation, or just like the alliteration that you'd
get with "jif" and "jaypeg".
\_ well of course it doesn't matter. since when
did we debate anything of import on the motd? -lila |
| 1999/8/11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:16294 Activity:nil |
8/11 Anybody have experience filing a personal injury lawsuit? Car
accident related? I'm thinking of doing that would appreciate
any pointers to books or web sites that guide you through the
paperwork. Thanks.
\_ ED! ED! ED is the STANDARD! Personal Injury Lawyer.
\_ Jim Rodgers, "The People's Lawyer"
\_ http://www.nolopress.com |
| 1999/8/8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:16270 Activity:nil |
8/8 http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2310792,00.html?chkpt=hpqs014 |
| 1998/9/29-30 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:14695 Activity:high |
9/29 Under what condition is it legal to tape a conversation without
the other party's prior consent? I know it is illegal for phone
conversations (e.g. Linda Trip) but what about other places?
The taping of a Texaco coorporate meeting was illegal, but
all those "investigative" reporting on 20/20 are. Helpful
URL is also welcome.
\_ If you are a fat ugly woman who wants to betray your best
friend then yes. Otherwise no.
\_ You need a lawyer. This is a complex state-by-state issue with
a pile of federal laws thrown in for kicks. For example, in some
states, it is legal if *one* of the parties consents to the
recording.... Linda just chose the wrong state to turn on the tape
machine.
\_ Since you're in California, I found something in the phone book.
If your machine beeps every 15 seconds, -or- if you've been informed
and you don't hang up, then you've consented.
\_ For telephone conversation it is often illegal, but in public
accesible places I doubt it. Otherwise, it would be illegal
to tape your Bio1A lecture.
\_ I think there's a distinction as to whether a recording
is legally used against you or something; how does the
to be recorded. --dim
\_ You've been informed that you're being recorded. I
hate to agree with dim but that's correct. Everyone
gets lucky sometimes.
whole self-incrimination thing work anyway? -John
\_ how about all those phone service / tech support things
where they basically tell you 'this call may be recorded/
monitored for quality assurance pruposes'. They must be
assuming its legal in that case.
\_ By remaining on the line you are implicitly agreeing
to being taped.
\_ I think in the case of Candid Camera and 20/20, they have to
tell the people that they've been taped afterwards, then give them
the choice to destroy the recording. |
| 11/23 |