9/3     "NY case puts N-word use among blacks on trial"
        http://www.csua.org/u/114a (news.yahoo.com)

6/17    Don't mess with Texas:
        http://gawker.com/woman-tells-carjacker-he-picked-wrong-witch-runs-him-513728108
        \_ Kudos.  I just worry that some shameless ambulance-chasing lawyer
           might sue her on behalf of the criminal.
           \_ America has more lawsuits per capita than any other nation.
              Lawyers, rejoice!!!

10/18   Holy s*** I didn't know Atheists are banned from holding
        public office in the US:
        http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/184232/these-7-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office
        \_ Yeah, those laws are pretty embarrassing, but they're ancient and
           unenforceable.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
           \_ Are these the same states that ban garage sales unless you're
              selling your garage?

10/1    Photos of the Supreme Court in session:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/8zuqc25 [slate]

7/23    Sexual assualt victim could be sent to jail before the attackers:
        http://www.csua.org/u/x44 (news.yahoo.com)
        Our justice system is great.

3/27    Trayvon Martin case:
        http://www.csua.org/u/vw7 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk
        Is this truth, or false rumor spread by critics?
        \_ Does it make any difference?
           \_ I guess since there probably won't be solid evidence on either
              side of the story (no witness, no surveillence tape, ...), this
              will sway the jury if it's true.
              \_ Lemme put it this way: if they try this in a Simi Valley
                 equivalent, all the jury hears is black dude acting
                 suspicious. Cf. Rodney King.

7/5     "Motorcyclist crashes in helmet law protest, dies"
        http://www.csua.org/u/tqr (news.yahoo.com)
        How ironic.  He got what he fought for.

4/6     "Ohio Christian convert fights to stay in US"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_us/us_runaway_convert_7
        Give her asylum!  We need more hot gals like her in this country!

11/11   The DC sniper Muhammad was executed 7yrs after his crime.  Don't denth
        penalty convicts usually spend much longer time on death roll?  What
        put him in the express line?
        \_ Even the supreme court said they should have had 2 weeks to
           consider commuting his sentence to life.  anyway troll boy,
           perhaps the mountain of evidence against the guy, the confession
           of his accomplice, and terrorizing our capital had something
           to do about it.
        \_ In contrast, this guy lived 16 years and never saw the Chair. Damn.
           "Oakland man on death row dies in hospital"
           http://www.csua.org/u/pkv (http://www.sfgate.com

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/21/BAO71AO2BH.DTL

10/28   "Price to PepsiCo for Not Being in Court: $1.26 Billion - Yahoo!"
        http://www.csua.org/u/pev
        This two guys scored it really big.  Who would have thought that a
        company as big as PespiCo wouldn't even show up in court?

10/1    It costs $500,000 USD to rape a child:
        http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/roman-polanski-paid-samantha-geimer-601583-in-civil-settlement-of-sexual-assault.html
        \_ "Geimer, now a mother of four, has said repeatedly and publicly
           that she thinks Polanski was treated unfairly and expressed a desire
           for the case to be resolved without prison time."
           So she thinks he didn't commit a crime but she wants him to pay her?
           Or what?
           \_ "treared unfairly" and "he didn't commit a crime" aren't the
              same thing.
              \_ If that's the case, it means she's saying that someone
                 drug-raping a 13-yr-old and being a fugitive doesn't deserve
                 jail time.
                 \_ or perhaps she means the claims against him were exaggerated?
                 \_ or perhaps she means the claims against him were
                    exaggerated?
                    (I certainly don't know, but neither do you)
                 \_ Yes, that is how I read it too. Maybe she means that he
                    has already suffered enough and now just owes restitution
                    to his victim. It is not an unreasonable position to take.

5/8     http://csua.com/?entry=52724
        I had my day in court today. Was awarded the $350 he owed me, $150
        in damages, and $200 for having to drive down from SF to LA. If I had
        a pay stub, he probably would have given me money for PTO. The case
        went extremely quickly. He asked when I moved out, how long I lived
        there (2.5 years) and if I got a statement of deductions within 21
        days. I hadn't (postmark was 24 days) and he asked the landlord if he
        mailed it within 21 days. The landlord (who is old and nearly blind)
        said that he was sick and was a few days late. But the judge said that
        the law was "very, very strict" when it comes to the deposit and that
        was the end of that. He didn't care whether or not the deductions were
        "reasonable". Yay justice! In a month or two, I'll send an update with
        how my collection process is going.
        \_ good job taking $700 from a blind man!
           \_ your brain has been classified as: slave of emotion
           \_ http://antagonie.blogspot.com/2009/04/attack-of-returned-evil-blind-dead.html
           \_ justice! just because he's old means he can arbitrarily deduct
              money? his wife always seemed very lady-macbeth-like.
        \_ good job. blind or not, he was probably relying on your being out
           of the area. as i advised you earlier, the law is pretty strict,
           so as long as the judge find you credible [tried to work it out,
           so as long as the judge finds you credible [tried to work it out,
           not asking for $10,000], he'd probably rule for you.
        \_ good job, seconded the above comment. Being old or
           insane or stupid are not excuses. I congratulate you. You've learned
           to fight for your justice, and that you'll need to do this over
           and over again throughout your lifetime so better learn to fight
           for your right now than later. Life is unfair, and the law is
           for your rights now than later. Life is unfair, and the law is
           there to help you. In this case, the law prevailed because
           you did your job as a citizen of justice. Good job, and CONGRATS!

           you did your job as a citizen of justice. Also, by doing so,
           you're indirectly helping your fellow citizens as your action
           is a deterrent for future offenders. Good job, I whole heartedly
           thank you for being such a good citizen, and CONGRATS!
           \_ I second this sentiment.
        \_ with small claims, getting the judgement is the easy part.
           Collecting on it is what is hard.
           \_ i dont get the sense that this guy is a "hardened criminal" but
              just going for the easy shakedown. i suspect if the fmr tenant
              indicates he'll file for a lien against the property, and/or
              contempt of court, this guy will pay, if not immediately upon
              losing, since the fmr tenant has already demonstrated "resolve".
        \_ Here is what happened to me if you're wondering:
           I lent my motorcycle to a "friend" in the parking lot who was
           begging to learn from me. He's a full time bus driver in San Diego.
           We did this many times, so why not. He went fast, and wrecked it,
           but promised payment and gave me his contact, and left. Two
           I lent my motorcycle to a "friend" in the parking lot. He's a
           full time bus driver in San Diego. Why lent the motorcycle?
           I've done it many times with my other friends, so why not. He
           wrecked it, promised payment, gave me his contact, and left. Two
           weeks later he said "Sorry you should have known better, you've
           learned your lesson." I filed for SC and served the paper to his
           address but it's fake. I totally forgot that he also specialized in
           fake IDs. Anyways, I hired a PI who helped me get through
           the process, step by step. Fees included getting his actual address,
           his employer information, serving paper (actually very hard since
           he could refuse signing and invalidate my SC, which he did), and
           collection. Around the same time I also "consulted" with a lawyer
           for 10 minutes and charged only $45 but he was COMPLETELY
           USELESS. Anyways, I filed, then he delayed the court date, then
           I won the case, then he appealed, then he delayed the appeal court
           date, then finally I won the case again. I wrote him 2 letter asking
           for payment, and after a month of inaction as anticipated, I got in
           touch with his employer's Wage Garnishment Department to collect
           payment (yes, a lot of bus drivers are child molesters, debters,
           and shady characters in general so they have a special department
           just for that). Yes I got paid but then I started getting "weird"
           calls. I moved and changed my number, several times. What an
           adventure, but it was all worth it. The best part was the court
           made him pay for my private investigator because he was so
           elusive! The judge hated that! LOL he sure learned his lesson.
           Here is the full chono:
        2003:
        4/3 http://csua.com/?entry=27971    wreck "car" (really a motorcycle)
        5/8 http://csua.com/?entry=28377    he gave me a fake ID
        6/14 http://csua.com/?entry=28730   can I use digital pictures?
        7/1 http://csua.com/?entry=28888    his friend refused to go to court
        10/8  http://csua.com/?entry=10547  won first time
        10/31 http://csua.com/?entry=10888  thinking back
        11/5 http://csua.com/?entry=10954   he delays court date
        2004:
        1/20 http://csua.com/?entry=11839  lawyer in small claims?
        1/27 http://csua.com/?entry=11974  serving the paper?
        4/6  http://csua.com/?entry=13034  Garnishment how to's
        4/7  http://csua.com/?entry=13067  Writ of Execution (garnishment)
        5/22 http://csua.com/?entry=30368  Got notice about garnishment
        6/2  http://csua.com/?entry=30550  Got my MONEY!!!
        9/23 http://csua.com/?entry=33725  Beware of retaliation, esp. from
                shady characters
        Unrelated to the above, but goody (not me, but was interesting):
        http://csua.com/?entry=12128  Landlord asshole
        http://csua.com/?entry=26050  Move out deductions?
        http://csua.com/?entry=28520  $150 worth suing?
        http://csua.com/?entry=31179  Holiday Inn assholes
        \_ my life is so boring
        \_ Curious: how did you win in the first place? it sounded like you
           couldn't get the witness (friend of the opponent) to cooperate,
           so I wonder what proof you had.

5/6     "Wal-Mart pays $2M to avoid charges in death probe"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_bi_ge/us_wal_mart_death
        "Nassau County District Attorney ... said that if she had brought
        criminal charges against the retailer for negligence in the worker's
        death, the company would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine if
        convicted."
        Choosing to pay $2M-for-sure over $10K-maybe?  Does Wal-Mart have a
        conscience now?
        \_ Of course not.  They're paying for avoiding an admission of guilt.
           They're also paying to avoid a wrongful death suit.  -tom

4/30    So I have been posting reviews to Tripadvisor. They are usually good.
        A couple have been poor. I noticed that the poor ones tend to
        recieve poor marks for "helpfulness". I think that is someone at
        the establishment marking my poor review as "unhelpful". What
        really irritated me is when my honest and accurate review was
        removed from the site. I got a letter from Tripadvisor saying that
        I had violated policy by "smearing" the establishment. (I actually
        rated the place 3 stars but related a poor experience I had.) So
        Tripadvisor acts under pressure from property and restaurant owners
        to remove bad reviews apparently. This calls into the question the
        value of any reviews on that site. This is certainly unethical,
        but is there a basis for a lawsuit?
        Article I found:
        http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-travelquest_0525_r_lmv_pmmay25,0,5120261.story
        \_ See also the East Bay Express story on yelp.
           http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/yelp_and_the_business_of_extortion_2_0/Content?oid=927491&page=1
            -tom
           \_ Good article, thanks.
           \_ I have a friend at yelp who is one of those people who is so
              earnest he pretty much can't tell lie.  (It's kind of embarassing
              how earnest the guy is.)  His take on that article was that
              it is 100% bullshit.  That said, yelp reviews suck so hard
              they are useless.
              \_ The guy who owns Mama's Cafe told me he's repeatedly
                 received calls from Yelp saying that they'll "re-
                 prioritize" bad reviews in exchange for donations.
        \_ This is my least favorite Yelp reviewer on planet:
           http://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=G3bUPrjE__b-jKpYASYFxg
           \_ Why? Looks like he gives a lot of relevant information.
                \_ how nice:
                   "It's like the creepy math nerd from high school:
                   I wouldn't hang out with him if I didn't have
                        to get his class notes! "
                   \_ Dude probably was the creepy math nerd.
                      Anyway, I am not on Yelp to make friends. I want
                      lots of accurate info and he seems to provide more
                      than average.
        \_ What would you sue them for? They haven't caused you any harm.
           IANAL, but you have to have some kind of personal stake in something
           to file a lawsuit.
           http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
           \_ "I suppose a disgruntled business could bring an
              unfair-trade-practices-type lawsuit of their Terms of Service,
              but it has to hinge on whether they're saying one thing and
              then are doing something else. That's the only way there could
              be any legal action."

4/27    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8023341.stm
        SCOTUS upholds FCC's zero-tolerance obscenity policy.

4/10    Is it common for a judge in a family court situation to tell
        the attorneys or both sides how he wants to see the situation
        resolved, and inform them that if the parties don't agree to that
        resolution in open court that it will not go well for party
        not toeing his perffered line?  This seems a little strange
        to me. It also leaves no record of the outside influence for
        the future which is disturbing. --jwm
        \_ Sounds odd to me, but I don't knoe anything about a family court.
           Is this in reference to some current event, or is it personal?
           \_ It's something I encountered.  Apparently this is the second
              time it's happened. It's my GF's case, and I wasn't there
              the first time around.
        \_ Judges have a lot of authority for a reason. If you don't want
           to go with his proposed settlement, you might want to try and
           get judges changed, but you are not likely to be successful.
           What does your lawyer say?
           \_ Laywer seems unphased by it, and said that's how it is. She
              drops her counter-claim, or basically we'll lose. The judge
              is threaten to decide against the side that chooses to litigate.
              It wouldn't seem as weird if it happened in open court,
              were it would be on the record, but it wasn't it, it was
              done in a backroom, with only the lawyers present.  It just
              seemed shady to me. Seems that only courses are to aquiese, or
              litagate lose, and appeal. The secnd is not a good option as
              it's very expensive, and there's not way to prove that the
              loss the first time was the result of judical bias.  Maybe
              this is standard and customary, but it just feels like it's
              unethical if not outright illegal.
        \_ Isn't this the whole point of having a judge?
        \_ This is pretty normal in most civil cases.
           \_ That's good to know. I'm not unhappy about the result, but
              it seemed a little strange since it was backroom deal,
              and kept off the record. Just seemed like someome was
              hiding something.
              \_ From what I've seen, Judges have a good sense of what
                 a reasonable settlement is and try pretty hard to get
                 the parties to settle.  While I haven't been to a pre-
                 trial conf. yet, I'm told that in marginal cases the
                 Judge will often tell a party that he/she/it is going
                 to lose and should just settle and that parties who
                 don't take the Judge's advice often end up regretting
                 their loss even more b/c of the additional expense and
                 burden of trial.
        \_ I am a little surprised at the discretion judge have in some cases
           beyond the "pay money" "go to jail" "take a class" "specific
        \_ I am a little surprised at the discretion judges have in some cases
           beyond "pay money" "go to jail" "take a class" "specific
           compliance with the contract" standard forms of "community service"
            ... e.g. cases where the judge said "you can either go to jail or
            wear a sign saying ..." or do some other humiliating/shaming thing.
                 to lose and should just settle.
        \- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28judges.html?pagewanted=all

3/17    I posted on 2/10 about a landlord that stiffed me $600 on
        my deposit. I wrote him a "strongly worded letter" and followed it up
        with a "Pay up or I'm going to file a small claims court in 10 days"
        template. He didn't respond so I filed a claim, but the day I filed
        a claim, he wrote me back and added $250 to the deposit. If I hadn't
        already spent the $60 on the filing, I would have been happy and taken
        the money and gave up. As is, I think I should probably still do that,
        but I'm interested in learning about the whole legal process. Anyone
        have any experience with Small Claims Court? Is it as fun/fascinating
        as it sounds? The worst part is that I'm guessing that the judge won't
        give me the 2X deposit that I'm suing for because he's no longer acting
        in "bad faith"...
        \_ Unless you can claim your costs are greater than $250, the
           judge will probably get annoyed at you for wasting time
           and public resources. What are you going to ask for ...
           you cant say they reason your pursued the case was to see
           how the system would work.  If you proceed, you definitely
           want to have on record an explanation to the former landlord
           why the current settlement still leaves you short and what it
           would take to resolve it [i.e. "I spent $X in costs and time T,
           which is worth about $Y ...].  What did your landlord's letter
           say? [Also, I am not sure if your cashing the check has any
           legan bearing ... if a landlord tried to evict you but takes
           legal bearing ... if a landlord tried to evict you but takes
           money from you, it alters the situation for him].
           \_ I appreciate your advice, but I don't understand "costs >$250"?
              He's still deducting $250 from my deposit for things like paint,
              but I lived there for 3 years, longer than the typical life of
              cheap apartment paint. Can you not sue in small claims for $250?
              I don't want to waste the judge's time, but I thought small
              claims was for exactly that... small claims.
                     \_ I thought you meant the landlord sent you a $250
                        "bribe" on top of what he owned you to drop the
                        case for double/punitive damages/costs. I didnt
                        realize he still left you short. I think you need
                        to clear up the accounting if you want motd.advice.
                        By the way, there are a lot of obligations in CA for
                        landlord w.r.t. to deposits, especually if he doesnt
                        return the whole amount. You might look at the Nolo
                        Press book for renters.
              \_ Small claims is, technically, for anything up to $1,000;
                 after that, you jump up to regular court. That said, the
                 trend in modern justice is toward mediation and, well,
                 breaking even, so since you're already getting what you
                 wanted (minus $60), a judge is likely to tell you to get
                 lost. -!pp, IANAL
                 \_ limit is now $7,500 in CA for small claims
                    \_ See? More evidence that IANAL.
              \_ I don't understand, did he deduct $250 from the money he
                 owed you (and therefore still owes $250) or did he add
                 $250 to the money he returned? If it is the former, you
                 can still reasonably sue, if it is the latter, I can't
                 see what your claim would be.
              \_ If he gave you back $600-$250 then hell yes you can
                 take him to small claims (and may even be able to ask
                 to add your filing fee to the judgement if you win).
                 If he gave you $600+$250 then shut up and take your money.
                 \_ He owed me $1060 and gave me $600+$250=$850. So he still
                    owes me $310 (+filing fee?). Are you suggesting I shut up?
                    owes me $310 (+filing fee?). Should I sue or shut up?
                 \_ He owed me $1060 and gave me $460+$250=$710. So he still
                    owes me $350 (+filing fee?). Should I sue or shut up?
                    \_ up to you, but I would at least write him a letter
                       or e-mail saying you got his extra $250 and he is still
                       short $x, and you still feel stiffed and will still sue
                       unless he pays up.  Judges like to see this follow up
                       since if it works, it saves them time.
                       \_ Seconded. Make copies of everything you send so you
                          can show it to the Judge. Oh, and buy a book on how
                          to collect your judgement if you win; it's not just
                          a matter of having the Judge make the landlord hand
                          you the money.
                    \_ 1060 - 850 != 310
                        \_ Derr, at least the math in my letters to him was
                           correct. Here's the real accounting:
                           Deposit: $1060
                           First Check: $460
                           Second Check: $250
                           I'm going to cash the check today and have someone
                           serve him papers tomorrow. I will also write him
                           a letter saying that I received his second check
                           but that he is still short $350 and that he should
                           pay me the $350 or contact me if he wants to settle
                           this out of court. Thanks for the tips. Also,
                           Nolo Press is awesome.
                           \- Nolo >> Texas
                            \_ Inflamed hemorrhoids >> Texas.

12/21   "Calif. Court: Would-be Good Samaritan can be sued"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection
        That's why there are so few good samaritans in America, The Country of
        Lawsuits.

11/25   Judge legislates from the bench, strikes down 31-year-old law
        prohibiting adoption of children by gays
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138201/posts
        </for jblack fetish guy>
        \_ If you're going to piss off jblack, you should post pro
           immigrants and pro colored people URLs. I'm sure these two
           issues will really push his buttons. Or just email him at
           jblack@csua.berkeley.edu. That's Justin P. Black.
           issues will really push his buttons.
        \_ For those who are interested the opinion is available at:
           http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file16_37906.pdf
        \_ when laws and words don't mean anything anymore
           time for secessions.
           \_ If words don't mean anything anymore, why is it that all you
              have to offer are empty words?
           \_ look up "balance of powers."
           \_ The South Will Rise Again!
              \_ Didn't they just do that for the last 8 years?

11/18   http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/BANK1478HP.DTL
        Hans Reiser, the computer programmer who admitted to strangling his
        estranged wife, is trying to appeal his conviction and sentence on the
        grounds of ineffective assistance from his lead attorney.
        Reiser gave a number of other reasons for his appeal, saying he wanted
        to explore "anything else that may help me get out of prison and
        reunited with my children" and get his "life situation improved."
        \_ Umm... little late for that, don't 'cha think?  Besides, do
           his kids WANT to see him now?  I sure wouldn't.

11/13   EU's Court of First Instance rules that Lego bricks are not trademark-
        able:
        http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/12/business/lego.php
        Opinion available at: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6s77ap [europa.eu]
        \_ SOCIALISM.  oh wait its Europe

11/12   http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4AB8KG20081112
        Appeals court upholds Jefferson charges
        Dear "Why aren't they going after Jefferson?!?!?"-guy: they are.
        And now the man gets due process. If, like Stevens, he's convicted by
        a jury of his peers, calls for his resignation will be heartily
        supported.
        \_ LOL.
           \_ it's teh 'lolz', not lol.

10/22   Poor thing. The moral of the story here is, don't confess to anything:
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27321165
        \_ ZOMG POT! Clearly a communist.
           \_ Umm, she skipped out on a check.  She deserves what she gets,
              probably more.
        \_ How would non-confessing have helped?  She was pretty clearly
           guilty.  I guess she could have made it the 10 days...?
           \_ A truly smart person would have seen the cops and immediately
              paid the bill. To confess to bailing on the bill is just dumb
              and arrogant.
           \_ No, there is not really enough evidence there to make a good
              jury case. At the very least the DA pleas it down if you hire
              a good lawyer. Though if you have three "friends" that are
              willing to finger you, you are totally screwed. I really just
              posted it as a gratuitous big boobed woman though.

10/16   ACORN really is the biggest threat to democracy?  Holy shit.  Who
        knew get out the vote drives were so dangerous.
        \_ Uh, didn't know it was "the biggest".  You might want to check out
           the situation in Ohio though.
           \_ "We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's
              relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe
              perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in
              this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."
              The fact the McCain is morally bankrupt enough to say this
              in a debate is just... well.. wow.
              \_ The GOP is playing a very dangerous game here, by threatening
                 violence if they lose. They could really end up in a very
                 big hole for a very long time if they follow through on that
                 threat.
           \_ What, where the supreme court agreed that the voter
           \_ What, where the supreme court unanimously agreed that the voter
           \_ What, where the supreme court unanimously agreed that voter
              disenfranchisment is not a valid campagin tactic?

9/20    Paulson is trying to pull off some kind of coup:
        Sec. 8. Review.
        Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
        non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be
        reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
        \_ The Paulson Plan is a crock of shit.  It must be stopped.
           http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal
           http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/218444.php
           \_ ugh.  are we totally fucked then?  I would hope that faced
              with GLOBAL FINANCIAL RUIN AND ANARCHY, the finance firms
              would shut the hell up and take their medicine.
           \_ Now he is talking about usuing taxpayers dollars to bail out
              foriegn banks? What kind of nonesense is this?

8/26    Bernie Ward, super-perv
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/22/BA0912G3V4.DTL
        \_ Man, that article is full of all kinds of irony.

7/6     "Employers use federal law to deny benefits"
        http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080705/benefit_battles.html
        Don't think your family is safe when you have life insurance.

6/11    Poor Judgment? http://preview.tinyurl.com/54onws

5/22    r kelly trial commencing:
        http://www.hitsville.org/tag/r-kelly
hey, the first one is still good.
              \_ just saw it.  bleah.  someone went wacky with the
                 raytracing.

5/22    r kelly trial commencing:
        http://www.hitsville.org/tag/r-kelly
        \_ fuck rap and hip-hop

5/16    PoMo Darmouth Prof goes nuts, sues students for disagreeing with her:
        http://www.csua.org/u/ll5
        \- Wow, that's an amusing distraction from the more serious case
           of Torture, Tenure and John Yoo. If she gets her "day in court",
           I hope she gets a judge like CSAGAN did in the "BHA" case:
            http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Sagan.txt

5/12    here is a fairly reasonable timeline, with notes, of Hans Reiser's
        actions up until his arrest:
        http://www.jaygaskill.com/GURUonTRIAL.htm
        \_ zzzzz... MurderFS developer kills wife, goes to prison, justice
           served.

5/10    In Linux, is there a safe way to resize a mounted LVM
        ext3 partition?  I know you can do it with reiserfs.
        None of my partitions are in reiserfs.  I was thinking of
        converting to reiserfs, but then I don't want to wake up
        one morning and read how Linus has decreed no convicted
        murderers can touch his git repository now.
        \_ Yes. Search for ext2online.
        \_ Reiser might yet possibly succeed on an appeal. Did we have
           \_ HA! - danh
           much discussion about his trial here yet?
           http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7544
           \_ through sheer force of will that crank has posted his
              rantings on many many sites on the internet, it doesnt
              make it believable.  http://jaygaskill.com/blog1 is
              a better place to start.  or wade through the
              sfgate reiser blog articles. - danh
           After reading that I'm pretty dubious about how they could
           convict him in criminal court. Unless that page is leaving things
           \_ uh that is by a known crank... when he's not busy posting
              insane stuff about the reiser trial, he is pushing
              his guide to cross compiling in windows and linux
              and cygwin.  dont pay attention to him - danh
              \_ Just curious, is there something wrong with his cross-compile
                 guide?
                 \_ What does a cross compile guide have to do whether
                    Hans murdered his wife?
                    \_ I don't know either, but danh mentioned it like it
                       proves the pro-Reiser guy is a crank.  So, I'm curious.
                       -pp
                       \_ Pretend there is a forum for people commenting
                          on the Reiser trial.  Pretend there is a dude
                          who keeps posting about how the Jews have it in
                          for Reiser, it's obvious Nina's best friend
                          killed her, some more stuff about Jews, then
                          he posts his linux/windows cross compiling guide.
                          All the posts are by the same guy.  It is reasonable
                          to assume the dude is a crank.  Most of his posts
                          have been deleted from the sfgate news articles
                          and reiser trial blog, he just can't help himself
                          from ranting about the Holocaust myth.  It's the same
                          guy on the proronix forum, and it's the same guy
                          who is the only person who posts to the linux kernel
                          dev. lists from an AOL account. - danh
                          \_ Can we give him a soda account?
                             \_ No computer access allowed in jail.
           out. No body, no weapon, no direct evidence.
           \_ plenty of circumstantial evidence, plenty of motive,
              defendent did an amazing public job of destroying
              evidence. - danh
              \_ Then he should be tried for destroying evidence right?
                 \_ Destroying evidence, and getting caught destroying
                    evidence, before being tried for the murder of your
                    wife is looked upon poorly by jury.
                 \_ The prosecutor was able to bring up the reasonable
                    argument of "Why would Hans destroy the interior of
                    his car, wash it out with a hose, and tell the jury
                    a completely implausible story about his actions,
                    if he were not guilty of murder?"
                    \_ That may be a reasonable argument, but not
                       beyond reasonable doubt (w.r.t. implausibility)
                       \_ It's simple: kill your wife, go to jail.  Very
                          reasonable.  Writing a filesystem is not a get out
                          of jail free card.
                 What exactly was the circumstantial evidence? The car
                 seat? That doesn't seem to hold up to the reasonable
                 \_ You should look up the photos of the CRX interior.  A funny
                    thing is it wasnt even his own car.  So he ripped out
                    the passenger seat, the carpeting in the interior,
                    and the trunk interior, and just sort of lost it and
                    says he doesn't remember where he dumped it.  Plus
                    he hosed it out with a garden hose.  Then he claimed
                    he did all of this so he could sleep in his car.
                    In a storage unit.  In Manteca.  Then on the stand he
                    said oh nevermind about all that cat stuff, I only
                    spent 1 night in it.
                    \_ He ripped out the carpeting? I thought they said
                      \_  First, remember this isn't his car.  He got rid
                          of the passenger seat.  He got rid of the interior
                          carpeting of the trunk.  He cut out the interor
                          carpet of the backseat of the car (remember a CRX
                          has more of a 'bench' back there, not a full seat)
                          On the witness stand he said he was doing to
                          make some kind of futon back there.  The prosecutor
                          had a lot of fun picking that argument apart.
                          ok I don't remember what happened to the interior
                          carpet on the passenger side.  He did hose out
                          that area (he claimed he was cleaning his car.
                          Who the hell hoses out their car?).  The Oakland
                          PD inventory report said there was a couple of
                          inches of water in the soggy carpeting, when
                          the car was confiscated as evidence.
                          Hans claimed he slept in the car, even when it
                          was in this soggy state.
                          \_ See what I really need is an accurate account
                             of the trial. All I have so far is the thing
                             from the "crank" and useless articles like
                             the wired one below.
                             \_ yes, obviously you "need" that so you can
                                try to prove what you already want to
                                believe.  The people who saw it all
                                convicted him.
                                \_ No, obviously you're a douchebag.
                                   I'm not trying to prove anything.
                                   I'm skeptical and looking for info.
                                   Juries aren't always right.
                                   You're a douchebag.
                                   \_ There's a ton of info about it all over
                                      the net.  Pick your source.  The rest of
                                      us figured it out already.  He's a cold
                                      blooded killer.  --someone else
                       there was wet carpet in the car? Supposedly he
                       did not have a real place to live and had
                       financial problems so trying to live in the car
                       \_ he could have slept at a friend's house.
                          it makes no sense that he would store his car
                          in a storage unit, in manteca, then sleep in it.
                          he took a lot of weird trips in the car to
                          Fairfield, Reno, Truckee, and Manteca, even
                          on days he was supposed to be in court
                          for the custody of his kids.  His own mother
                          was unable to entire the house for a few weeks
                          because the police were searching the house
                          for evidence, she stayed with friends, like
                          a normal person.  Maybe Hans has no friends.
                                It doesn't appear that he does. _/
                                Are weird trips evidence of guilt,
                                or just weirdness?  Was he somehow
                                driving around disposing of body parts?
                                \_ Maybe!  He spent a big chunk of his
                                   testimony saying how much he loved
                                   his kids, and lived for his kids.
                                   There was a hearing for the custody
                                   of his children.  Nina couldn't make
                                   it since she was busy being a missing
                                   person.  Hans spent the day doing
                                   some unknown thing in Truckee.
                                   \_ Hans and Nina were together in Truckee.
                                      Hans + Nina_corpse + shovel spending a
                                      family day in Truckee.
                       doesn't seem completely implausible. Forgetting
                       where he put the car seat does seem implausible
                       though. I'd like to see a timeline of events
                       that isn't
                       doesn't seem completely implausible. Forgetting
                       where he put the car seat does seem implausible
                       though. I'd like to see a timeline of events
                       that isn't from a "known crank". Where did you
                       get your information?
                 doubt criterion. Reiser is clearly a weird dude. But
                 for example it's not criminal to evade surveillance or
                 buy police investigation books.
                 \_ It is criminal, and extremely stupid, to get on
                    the witness stand and lie to the jury
                 It seems to me that
                 Reiser's extreme social weirdness made the jurors and
                 judge hate him. I haven't seen a logical story of how
                 the killing theoretically happened.
                 It seems to me that Reiser's extreme social weirdness made
                 the jurors and judge hate him. I haven't seen a logical story
                 of how the killing theoretically happened.
                 \_ I posted a reasonable timeline in a different link.
                    sure, everyone hates hans.  he weirdly spent 10 days on
                    the stand telling everyone what a horrible human his wife
                    was.  if you're on trial for the murder of your
                    wife, as your internet lawyer I recommend DONT DO THAT
                    \_ No, I came around to the general consensus after reading
                       more. But just from an entertainment/murder mystery
                       perspective I am pretty curious exactly what he did
                       and how it fits with the timeline. It's odd that he
                       did most of the most suspicious things after he was
                       already under police surveillance. His recorded
                       phone call response to the wife's friend was pretty
                       flamingly guilty. This dude has serious issues. He
                       seems to have near-zero social sense/empathy.
                       \_ I think it's weird there is no body.  I do not think
                          Hans is/was clever enough to make a body disappear.
                          \_ I think he was probably quite clever in specific
                             narrow ways. I mean, if he hadn't sabotaged
                             his own trial he might now be a free man. Or if
                             he hadn't said certain things that only a
                             social retard would say.
                 \_ no, his ridiculous eye-rolling lies made them hate him.
           This has nothing to do with your question of course.
           \_ Here's Wired's take:
              http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reiser-guilty-o.html
              He seems to have been mostly convicted on the 'strength'
              of his own testimony.
              Not sure why it's first-degree though.
              \_ Why did his attorney have him testify at all? Sounds like a
                 mistake.
                 \_ His attorney didnt.  Hans did.  Hans threatened to
                    fire his attorney.  I guess his attorney relented.
                    Hans is dumb.
              \_ jury thought he lured his wife to his house, with the
                 children, on a weekend when he wasn't scheduled to
                 see the children.  also there are some interesting
                 ways to interpret 'with pre meditated motive'.  you
                 don't have to plan your crime for days and days
                 beforehand. - danh
                 \_ Doesn't that seem flimsy? Is that premedidation beyond
                    reasonable doubt?
                    \_ I thought first degree was a bit excessive,
                       but he did annoy the crap out of the jury.  He
                       should have stayed off the stand.
                    \_ "Hey Nina come on over so I can whack you dead, bury you
                       out in nowhere and lie my way into jail!"  It was very
                       clearly first degree.  After he killed her he gave a
                       zillion different stupid stories on the stand, never
                       said, "oh oops sorry, I killed her in a fit of rage
                       because xyz" or anything else a reasonable person could
                       believe.  Justice was well served.
           \_ Reiser did all sorts of things which removed "reasonable"
              doubt.  I believe the jury returned the correct verdict
              given the evidence.

5/6     Will someone tell Hillary that our antitrust laws don't extend to
        foreign countries?
        \_ She made it clear that she would allow common citizens to sue and
           get them at the WTO, etc.
               \- hillary isnt the SOA on this:
                  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-879
                  of course it would be interesting to see other countries
                  deciding US pushed IP regimes dont apply in their
                  domain. --psb

4/27    Let's say I'm someone famous and SNL/Mad TV keeps making fun of
        me like it does with all famous people. Let's say it is outrageous
        and they portray me as a child molester in my Santa Barbara
        mansion. At what point can I sue SNL/Mad TV for libel?
        \_ Never, see Falwell vs. Hustler.
        \_ If you can sue media for libel, South Park wouldn't be
           airing would it? Nothing is as worse as South Park.
           \_ Except, possibly, your grammar.
        \_ whenever you feel like it.  Of course, your suit will likely be
           thrown out of court and you'll be wasting lawyer dollars.

2/14    good reiser trial blog
        http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
        \_ His defense seems to center around "my wife went to russia".  Can't
           he hire someone in Russia to find her and take some pictures of
           her at lunch or something?
           \_ OJ is still looking for Nicole's killers
           \_ Well, without a body can there really be a crime? Yes, but
              there's a huge element of doubt introduced.
              \_ People get convicted of murder without the body sometimes.
                 I bet it'll be a mistrial
                 \_ Sure they do, but it makes it really tough.
                 \_ If he takes the stand, he'll be found guilty.  If he
                    doesn't, he'll probably get a hung jury.  -tom
              \_ There's no body but he's claiming she fled to russia.  The
                 case will be dropped instantly if he could prove that.  It
                 makes me suspicious that we haven't heard a single thing about
                 investigating his claims she's living there now.
                 \_ He's just saying that he has no idea where she is and
                    that she may have gone there. How do you investigate
                    that? It's hard enough to find someone in the US.
                    \_ If she's there where she has family and other roots she
                       shouldn't be that hard to find.  It isn't the heart of
                       Africa.
        \_ Unless you think Nina's family are masters of manipulation, it's pretty
           clear her side of the family thinks she's dead.  I guess she could have
           accepted her new job, gotten groceries, taken the battery out of
           her cell phone, THEN hopped skipped and jumped to a secret hole
           in Russia and resolved to never talk to her beloved children
           again.  Oh yeah this is after she planted her blood, and Hans' blood,
           on the stairport of Hans' house.  Remember Nina hasn't lived in that
           house in over a year.
                       \_ It's hard to find someone who doesn't want to
                          be found. Thats my point. If she's just living
                          a normal life there then sure.
        \_ Unless you think Nina's family are masters of manipulation, it's
           pretty clear her side of the family thinks she's dead. I guess she
           could have accepted her new job, gotten groceries, taken the
           battery out of her cell phone, THEN hopped skipped and jumped to a
           secret hole in Russia and resolved to never talk to her beloved
           children again.  Oh yeah this is after she planted her blood, and
           Hans' blood, on the stairport of Hans' house.  Remember Nina hasn't
           lived in that house in over a year.
           \_ Actually, the way it went down was that ext3 was feeling the heat
              from reiserfs so it ordered a combo hit/frame-up on the Reisers.
              Nina was killed and Hans was framed so that reiserfs would wither
              and ext3 could go on try to take over the world.
           \_ From what I know I think he killed her.  I'm just saying that
              if his defense is that she's is Russia, how much effort has he
              put into finding her?  Seems kinda important, no?

11/21   The USSC granted Certiorari in DC v. Heller (the DC gun control
        case in which the DC Cir. held that the 2d amend confers a personal
        right to keep and bear arms):
        http://tinyurl.com/2ybkhz (nytimes.com)
        The SCOTUSBlog discussion for this case is here:
        http://tinyurl.com/36ou5y (scotusblog.com)
        [For those who asked me to update the motd on how I did on the CA
         bar, I passed!]
        \_ Yeah? Congrats?  Who are you?
           \_ ranga@soda
              \_ Do you have an Innnndian accent?
        \_ Grats! That's cool because we had a shortage of lawyers.
        \_ That's great! Obviously, this world needs more lawyers!
        \_ [Congrats! What kind of law are you planning to do?]
           \_ I'm working at a firm that mostly handles patent cases.
           \_ Right now, I'm working at a firm that mostly handles patent cases.
              \_ Are you making more money than you used to? Working more
                 or less hours? -ausman
                 \_ I am making quite a bit more money. My hours are
                    about the same as when I was a coder.

11/2    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/lf_nm_life/usa_highways_sleep_dc

        '"Maggie's Law," is named after a 20-year-old college student, Maggie
        McDonnell, who was killed by a drowsy driver in 1997. The driver
        admitted to being awake for 30 hours after smoking crack cocaine.

        His lawyer successfully argued that there was no law in the state
        against falling asleep at the wheel. The judge barred the jury from
        considering the driver's sleep deprivation as a factor in the
        crash. He was fined $200.'

        Two-hundred dollars for killing someone.  WTF?
        \_ Names named after innocent girls are always stupid
           \_ yeah.. like yer-mom
        \_ Laws named after innocent girls are always stupid
        \_ Was she riding a bicycle or something?
        \_ This is stupid. What if it was not due to drowsiness, but
           just accidential? The driver made a mistake? How can he
           possibily be off by just paying $200? So next time I hit
           someone I'll just say I am sleepy and that's it? America is
           great isn't it? At least in China you get executed. -troll
        \_ Let me guess, no general "driving under the influence" law, just
           a "driving while ETOH intoxicated" law?

10/15   2 blocks of my neighborhood were completely blocked and there
        were police all over the apartment unit next to mine. They blocked
        everyone and they wouldn't even let residents nearby go in/out of
        the street! We were locked down for maybe 2.5 hours-- I was
        starving, and almost peed in my pants. Is the lock down even
        LEGAL??? Can I sue the police for creating disturbance? Anyways
        rumor has it that there were shootings and some people got killed.
        As I'm searching local news online I couldn't find any reported
        incidents. Are there other places to find crime data and details
        of the police report?           -just got a pepper spray
        \_ I hope you are trolling the motd for amusement.  In my heart
           I hope to G-d none of my fellow sodans are this dumb.
           I hope to God none of my fellow sodans are this dumb.
        \_ Do you live in Oakland?
        \_ You don't have a toilet in your apartment bathroom?
        \_ In order to sue, you'd have to prove that the police were not
           acting in accordance with their duty at the time. If there were
           shootings and people got killed, your odds of doing so are slim to
           none.
        \_ Great idea, sue the police for trying to stop shootings in your
           neighborhood.
        \_ There was a shooting and you bought... pepper spray.  Okey dokey!
           \_ You did't see the "Talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight:"
              article in that other thread above?  -- !OP

7/13    Another good Conservative railroaded by Fitzgerald:
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1865420/posts

7/13    "Under the president's reasoning, any while-collar defendant should
        receive no jail time, regardless of the reprehensibility of the crime."
        U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, a Bush appointee, said before
        sentencing attorney Troy Ellerman to prison.
        DAMN LIBERAL JUDGES!!!!!
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/13/BAGR7QVVIF1.DTL&type=printable
        \_ I was confused when reading that in the paper today.  I couldn't
           figure out why the judge would bring up Scooter while sentencing
           someone.  I mean I can see why, but legally... it shouldn't
           matter.
           \_ Eh, please read more carefully?  The defense lawyer cited
              the commutation in asking for a lighter sentence.
           \_ Because Bush explicitly said that the sentance was too high.
              That was his rational.  Not that the crime wasn't exactly as
              the prosecution claimed but that jail time was too much for
              the crime.  Therefore jail time should be too much for someone
              else charged with the same crime, no?
              \- i just want to point out this is bullshit ... kinda
                 like when MSFT wanted to pay a fine in donated software.
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   White gave Ellerman until Sept. 13 to report to
                   prison. He did not impose a fine, saying it would be
                   a hardship for Ellerman's family, but ordered the
                   attorney to give talks at 10 California law schools
                   about "the importance of being a fair and honest
                   advocate" in the three-year period after his release.
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                 1. i dont want an ethics lecture from a criminal
                 2. he will probably put "lectured at X law school"
                    on his resume
                 3. this is hardly unpleasant work
                 4. he should have to do something involving a
                    a orange jumpsuit and used chewing gum.
                    \_ He still has to go to jail for 2 years doesn't he?

7/6     21ST CENTURY CATCH-22
        Journalists: "We've been spied on by the feds, we're gonna sue!"
        Federal Court: "Sorry, you have no standing, your case is thrown
        out."
        Journalists: "What do you mean, no standing?"
        Federal Court: "You can't prove you were wiretapped."
        Journalists: "But it's a secret program!"
        Federal Court: Sorry, ask the white house."
        White House: "We're sorry, we can't give you that information."
        Journalists: "But then how can we prove we were harmed by your
        illegal program?"
        White House: "You were saying?"

7/6     FREE CLARENCE AARON:
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/cases/aaron.html
        \_ Yes, because an interview with a convicted criminal is never
           one-sided.
        \_ the first time offender got 3 consecutive life terms for being a
           middle man in 1 drug deal.  Do you really think that's fair?
           \_ Who are you responding to?
           \_ Or so he claims.
              \_ even if he personally inserted cocaine into the noses
                 of 80 school children, do you think he should get life
                 without parole?
                 \_ Given that we don't know the whole story, I have no idea
                    what the proper penalty should be.
                        \_ There's a link on that page to a prosecutor's
                           comment and explanation of the case and sentence.
                           still seems just a little harsh.
                           \_ And you didn't post the link why?
                              \_ Pure laziness actually.
                                 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/cases/clark.html
                                 http://urltea.com/xgd (pbs.org)
                                 I dont like mandantory anything.
                                 \_ I don't see anything from the prosecutor.
                                    But at any rate there's a lengthy interview
                                    with the defense attorney there.  Still the
                                    same side of the story.
                    \_ Screw the circumstances, if he personally inserted coke
                       into the noses of 80 school children, the answer is
                       YES, he should get life without parole, first-time
                       \_ I was joking...
                          \_ Aaaaand?
                       offender or not. Some things are just beyond the pale.
                       As for the current situation, well, that's a different
                       matter.

7/5     hi. motd liberal here.  if bush commuted this guy's sentence,
        i will immediately convert to the cause of gwbush conservatism.
        no fooling.
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/cases/aaron.html
        \_ "So one particular day, my friend Robert called me at Louisiana to
           ask me, could I introduce the two parties? I said, 'Yes.' He say,
           'Well, if you can introduce us, I'll get you fifteen hundred
           dollars, if you can introduce us we can come to some type of
           agreement.' I said, 'Oh, I have no problem with that.'"
           Um, sounds like he may have known more than he claims.
        \_ i think he's guilty.  he says he's guilty.  guilty guilty guilty.
           do you really think deserves life in prison?  we're talking
           life here.  he's not getting paroled.  he will die in
           prison.

6/26    Students have freedom of speech unless they want to talk to about
        bad stuff, says Supreme Court
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

5/22    Identical Twins sleep with the same woman, neither wants to pay child
        support.
        http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3195632&page=1
        \_ "Look, she had a bunch of girlfriends to the rodeo and they got
           drunk and she went banging on Raymon's door trying to have sex,"
           Copeland said. "He says he did reluctantly.but I can't imagine it
           was reluctantly . and that's when the baby was conceived I guess."
           That doesn't sound like judge-talk to me.  She just handed down a
           ruling, and she ended her commend with "I guess."
           \_ It sounds like Judge Judy!
           \_ You ever been in a court?  It sounds just like a judge.  And I
              mean a real court, not watched it on TV.
              \_ I've only been to the Small Claims Court in Oakland once.
                 But the defendant didn't show up, so I won by default and the
                 judge didn't really need to explain his ruling.

5/11    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271438,00.html
        Authorities charge 28 in South Carolina of arranging phony
        marriages to help foreigners evade immigration laws

4/12    http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/cooper.transcript/index.html
        I knew it! Duke players innocent. This will teach colored people
        a lesson that you can't use the race card all the time.
                                        -someone pissed about oj's trial
        \_ Uhm, yeah whatever.  It was pretty clear the prosecution's case
           was flawed in the first few months.  Your last line about 'teaching'
           people is weak trolling.  Try again some other time.  Or just don't.
        \_ O.J. Simpson vs. Scott Peterson.

4/2     USSC denies cert. in Gitmo habeas appeals; lets D.C. Cir. get
        first crack.
        http://urltea.com/3ay (scotusblog.com)

4/2     Are you a gadget freak? Do you know a gadget freak? The US District
        Court is looking for a gadgeteer to supervise just about any device
        not attached to a desk. Listing here:
        /csua/pub/jobs/courtroom_tech_spec
        E-mail me with questions. --erikred

3/31    Anti-plagarism service sued for copyright infringement:
        http://urltea.com/321 (washingtonpost.com)
        \- hello if you are interested ... really interested ... I have
           put the complaint at:
           http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Ephemeral/TurnItIn-complaint.pdf
           \_ Thanks.
        \_ Am I the only one who really doesn't like TurnItIn but
           really hope they win because of what it might mean for
           fair use rights?

3/28    Attorneys fired for performance, not political reasons?  It depends on
        what "performance" means:
        "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons
        for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely
        artificial" -Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Gonzales
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/28/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html
        \_ The administrations can define the meaning of any words in the
           language as needed.  For example, "sex".
           \_ Yes, clearly the incompetence and corruption of the current
              administration is the fault of Clinton's penis.
        \_ The only crime taking place is the political stupidity of the admin
           who should hav come out on day 1 and said, "We fired them because
           we can, tough shit" and walked away.  At least KS is finally, but
           too late, sort of kind of saying it.
           \_ There is a reason they lied about it in the first place and
              I am kind of surprised that you don't understand why.

3/26    "I support the First Amendment right to carry and bear arms," - Rudy
        Giuliani, on Sean Hannity's radio show.
        \_ Are there any other ultra-dense cities in the world
           where it is legal to carry guns?
        \_ Maybe he's trying to make the point that the pen is mightier than
           the sword!
           \_ only if said pen is stuck into the neck
              \- how would you like a pencil in your neck?
                 get off bob dole's lawn.
                 --bdole
                 \_ ???
        \_ Thus far, the D.C. Cir. has little company in its holding that
           the 2d enumerates two rights, one for the states re militias,
           and one for the people. But no court has held that this this
           personal right is incorporated against the states.
           Maybe "Rudy" thinks the personal right would get more mileage
           in the courts if one were to claim that it was based on
           associational freedoms, "free exercise" rights (particularly
           if one was a sikh) or "expressive" political speech rights,
           all of which receive strict scrutiny and are incorporated
           against the states via the 14th.
           Or he just misspoke 1st for 2d.
           \_ "Rudy" misspoke?  Anyway....  If the USSC rules that the 2nd
              does mean 'personal right' to carry a weapon, will you accept
              that or come back and complain that BUSH's court has destroyed
              the USC?
              \_ If my comments conveyed the message that I believe the D.C.
                 Cir. incorrectly decided that the 2d enumerates a personal
                 right and a state right, I apologize. I think that the D.C.
                 Cir. correctly decided that the 2d enumerates a personal
                 right.
                 I would completely support a USSC decision finding that
                 (1) the 2d enumerates a personal right; and
                 (2) this right was incorporated against the states via
                     the 14th.
                 Finding  a personal right w/o incorporation is, in my view,
                 insufficient b/c the states would remain free to regulate
                 arms. Since the 7th's jury trial in civil cases hasn't been
                 incorporated, conceivably the 2d's personal right may not be
                 either.
                 \_ Thanks for clarifying.

3/26    Alberto Gonzalez just keeps on lying.  Now I personally
        think that NO ONE should be surprised that the bush administration
        has been firing US Attorneys for politically motivated
        reasons.  It's just the sort of thing they would do.  Yawn.
        I wonder why Gonzalez gives new and exciting reasons for
        it all happening every day.  His masters should tell him
        to quit talking to the press.

3/26    33-year-old senior counsel to AG Gonzales takes the fifth
        http://tinyurl.com/2358nr (washingtonpost.com)
        \- how long before immunity offer? you know the republic is in
           trouble when the president's lawyer's lawyer has a lawyer.--psb
           \_ The AG is not the President's lawyer, more like the countries.
              \- not this AG. i forgot who said this but one reasonable
                 media commentator said somthing along the lines when
                 ALBERTO went from the white house to the DoJ, his office
                 changed but his job didnt. and it's "country's".
        \_ "between 1981 and 2006, only five of 486 U.S. attorneys who
            served in those 25 years have been fired before their
            terms expired, and none were fired for political reasons."
            http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/22/attorneys
            \- for the nth time, this case is not about a "statistical"
               argument [beyond the prima facie "firings are very rare".]
               this is because we KNOW the details of each (most) individual
               case. for example nobody is bringing up the SF dood because it
               is well established he was leem. you use statistical args
               when for some reason you cant see inside the process ... like
               say in a venire/population that is 30% black and one DA
               over the last 20 trials has 1% black jury members due to his
               use of peremptories ... which one the one hand, he doesnt
               have to "explain" but on the other hand he cannot throw off
               somebody "only" because of race [BATSON v KY]. or say other
               cases of discrimination where there is no per case paper
               trail ... e.g. men and women are evaluted differently for
               promotion ... and there is no memo saying "grade women
               harder". if there is a statistical argument, it is in the
               classifications of this class of united states attorneies
               [where patrick fitzgerals was given a mediocre grade, others
               were given good grade that changed suddenly etc]

3/23    "WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire
        several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents
        released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely
        involved in the dismissals."
        http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070323_ap_documentsshowgonzalesokdfirings.html

3/21    One of the fired US Attorney's tells his side of the story:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html

3/15    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/15/national/a072741D41.DTL
        Spann's father, Gary Spann, told The Sacramento Bee in 2005 his daughter
        routinely called the girl a "devil child," and she belonged to a cult
        that worshipped the late rapper Tupac Shakur as the reincarnation of
        the 16th century political philosopher Machiavelli.
        She also was upset because her daughter kept getting out of bed and
        interrupting a telephone conversation, according to the court filings.

3/13    More on the BUSHCO US attorney fiasco:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/b76k6 (boston.com)

2/8     Okay, weird but true:  RIP Anna Nicole Smith
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dm4p5 (cnn.com)
        \_ Weird?  More like not altogether surprising. -dans
        \_ I was shocked.  I miss her.
           \_ Her child is being sold on ebay!
        \_ I would probably die too if Howard Stern was my boyfriend.
           \_ That attorney looks pretty decent on TV.
              \_ Actually, I was confused.  I thought Howard Stern
                 her boyfriend was the same as Howard Stern the
                 radio guy.  So I slammed the wrong Howard Stern.
        \_ The only weird thing is it took this long.
        \_ No one will remember her in 50 years.
        \_ No one will download her in 50 years.
           \_ I wanted to download into her.

2/6     Amusing op-ed on the early responses to the Duke rape case.
        (Has kind of a "where are they now?" feel)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/190uejex.asp
        \_ Is it good or intentionally amusing?  I don't want to
           by chance pollute my mind with the Weekly Standard.
           \_ Good, I guess.  It's kind of a well reaseached rant.  Good
              if you were/are really annoyed with the lynch mob that
              formed around that case, but you could probably pick it
              apart if you felt like it.
              \_ Like some of the people we saw posting about it right here?
           \_ It's pretty good.  It's not brilliant, but the general point
              is solid.  It may push some people's buttons.  -niloc
        \_ Long, tendentious and tedious, like most Weekly Standard articles.
           \_ I agree.  I much prefer 5 second sound bites, too.

12/20   Georgia kid gets 10 years for getting a bj from a 15 yo when he was 17.
        No parole plus sexual offender registration.
        http://www.csua.org/u/hr9
        \_ IMHO 10 years is too much, given that the age of consent in Georgia
           is 16.  I wonder if that's even longer than some adult rape
           sentensings there.
           \_ The point is, why is it even a crime?
        \_ Who pressed charges? The girl's parents? If so, they are
           despicable.
           \_ The people who made the law are despicable.
              \_ What's the problem with the law? It protects minors from
                 abuse. What I want to know is how he got convicted.
        \_ Way to ruin a life morons.
        \_ I bet the girl was white.  Our lily white daughter befouled by this
           colored boy!?  Guilty!
           \- if BILLARY wins, he may get a presidntial pardon!
              are any of the sex fiend teachers having relations with
              students cases in GA?

11/14   http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/11/13/ap3170519.html
        Immigrants charged with being terror suspects may be held indefinitely,
        with no right to challenge their detention.

10/18   Hi sodans.  I'm thinking of getting married to my h07 42n ch1x gf.
        After we get married, I want to convert her to a PR (green card).
        A lawyer is charging $1,500 for this plus $935 to the government,
        for a total of $2,435.  Process takes 4-6 months.  Does this all
        sound about right?  Thanks.  (The URL below mentions $500 for lawyer
        fees and $50 for a do-it-yourself kit.)
        http://www.usavisanow.com/immigrationservicesprices.htm
        \_ Why the hell do you need a Lawyer for this? Especially if
           she's here and you are marrying her. There's 0 probability
           of this being denied, short of her being a terrorist. So
           just file the paperwork yourself, it's not that
           complicated. You graduated from Berkeley and can't figure
           out how to file some INS paperwork?? Save the $1500 on
           something else. I know a place that will do this a lot
           cheaper in Mountain View, probably $300-$400. I'll post it
           tomorrow if you want it.
                    \- some of the INS paperwork is crazy. it's not a matter
                       of cleverness but recordkeeping and dilligence. i mean
                       the ask thinks like "list every time you have left the
                       country with dates" and "list ever law enforcement
                       event including all (non-parking) tickets, with dates".
                       so some of that's almost impossible to get 100% correct.
                       \_ Partha, how many "law enforcement events" have you
                          had? And c'mon, you don't keep track of when you're
                          in and out of the country? Mexico doesn't count.
                          \- i guess the INS/DHS probably doesnt know about
                             the "you, i know" episode with the campus police.
                             those are not the first words you want to hear
                             from a cop. it also seriously freaks out any
                             of the other people you are with.
           \_ thanks, fyi, the $1,500 lawyer is in cerritos, and another couple
              used them.  i also figured i could just spend $ on the govt
              filing fees (which I tabulate to $190 I-130 + $395 I-485 = $585),
              but I wasn't certain. -op
              \_ I-130, so she's not here. The place I used charged me
                 about $200-300 for filing the initial paperwork.
                 Afterwards I did all the follow-up paperwork myself,
                 no big deal. Makes me wonder if I should've paid the
                 $200 in the first place, but it's only $200.
                 \_ she just graduated on F-1 and will be working on OPT in the
                    U.S. for at least ten months.  don't i still need to file
                    an I-130 to establish the spousal relationship?
                    \_ I don't know. I thought I-130 is for spouse who
                       is not here. But I am no expert. I'll post the
                       place I used tomorrow.
        \_ My wife and I just finished the process, including lifting the
           conditional PR (married in late 2002).  It did require diligence
           and chasing the INS at various points, but I didn't think that it
           required a lawyer, just good record-keeping and thoroughness.
           Don't ever believe anything they tell you, though, to some
           extent - every person we ever talked to at INS (phone or in
           person) would tell us something completely different.  Glad it's
           over.  One benefit at the time was that we could still go in in
           person (Sacramento), so my wife had work authorization from day
           one under the new status.  You can email me if you have specific
           questions - mds
        \_ thanks for all the advice, everybody.  fyi, the process seems to be
           much quicker these days.  The $1,500 lawyer got that SoCal couple I
           know the PR card for the grad student / non-citizen spouse in about
           four months from the initial time of filing I believe.
           I hope it will be just as quick w/o the lawyer. -op

10/17   http://csua.org/u/h8f (washingtonpost.com)
        Ken Lay gets the last laugh:  By dying with pending appeals, his
        convictions are vacated and all litigants will need to sue the estate
        via civil action

10/12   HANS:
        http://tinyurl.com/jlbjp (geekz.co.uk)
        \_ I find these in poor taste and, worse, unfunny.

10/12   HANS:
        http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/so-i-married-a-kernel-programmer

10/1    Is it illegal to tape someone without their knowledge?
        And if so, why?
        \_ In some states, yes.  As for why, I'd assume for privacy?
        \_ No.  Just ask George W. Bush and Albert Gonzales.
        \_ No.  But if you surreptitiously tape a conversation without
           the other person's consent, although the act itself is not
           illegal, that evidence is not admissible in court.  Unless you
           are a law enforcement officer, and it's part of an undercover
           sting.
           \_ OK, that's *exactly* what I was trying to determine.
              Why is that? The best way to get an admission out of
              someone is without their knowing it's being recorded;
              so why is it inadmissible? -op
              \_ Thank Linda Tripp. Following Monica-gate, several states
                 passed or strengthened existing laws governing wiretapping
                 without express permission. This is why your phone company
                 tells you that your help call may be recorded for quality
                 assurance.
           \_ Reference, please.  Most sources I've seen say that it's
              illegal, period.
        \_ You can tape them, just not a phone conversation with them.

9/27    Anne Nicole Smith got fucked by her left-wing socialist attorney. HA
        HA HA HA HA
        \_ Is Anne N. S. the same person as Anna N. S. the Playboy Playmate?
                \_ It gets better ... Her attorney is Howard Stern!
        \_ She just had a baby a few weeks ago.  She can already resume
           intercourse?

9/12    USPTO Trademark attorney cites 10 MB of pr0n as evidence to
        reject a trademark filing:
        http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0911061uspto1.html

8/24    Can someone please summarize what the Mesothelioma lawsuit is about
        and why it is such a big deal?
        \_ asbestos + lawsuit money + govt plan to enforce settlementsa
        \_ Nothing. Just another plan for mediocre law school grads to
           try and make a quick buck. They advertise on late-night TV;
           try to make a quick buck. They advertise on late-night TV;
           that should clue you in.
           \_ How do I qualify for it?

8/10    Martinez murder, the weirdest part is the todo list
        http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/08/MNG3IKD9Q45.DTL
        \_ Nicole Brown Simpson's "real killers" strike again. -Mark Fuhrman

7/13    http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/plame_lawsuit.pdf
        Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson sue Libby, Rove, Cheney, + John Doe's
        for retaliatory action under color of federal law for the exercise
        of free speech

7/12    http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/6280/index.html
        How did an Orthodox Jewish lawyer and family man fall so hard for a
        Scores stripper that he invited her to his kids' bar mitzvahs?
        \_ this is from Aug 2002? Is this apropos of anythign in
           in particular??
        \_ Sounds like a story for link:ihatestrippers.com
        \_ Is going to strip clubs really that common a business practice?
           \_ Unless you're gay or a religious person, yes. That's how the
              world works to close big deals. No string sex or no deal,
              take your pick.
        \_ I read the article and noticed that it's incredibly similar to
           a Law & Order CI rerun that I watched recently, right down to
           the really small details (except there was a murder involved in
           the tv show). Is it legal for a show to take a story like this and
           make it into an episode? can they still claim that "any similarity
           to persons living or dead" is just a coincidence?

7/10    Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws - Yahoo! News:
        http://www.csua.org/u/geg

5/25    Ken Lay convicted on all 6 counts (conspiracy to commit wire/securities
        fraud, wire+securities fraud).
        Jeffrey Skilling convicted on 19 of 28 counts (conspiracy to commit
        wire/securities fraud, securities fraud, making false statements,
        1 out of 10 counts of insider trading).
        Judge separately finds Lay guilty on all 4 counts of bank fraud.
        \_ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12973712
           Conviction of Enron's founder marks another dark moment in the
           Bush era. The jurors took a chain saw to the moral claims of the
           Texas-based corporate culture that had helped fuel the rise to
           power of President George W. Bush.
           \- you know just the the prosecution did in the enron case, it
              is better to stick to your strong claims when making a case
              than dilluting it with iffy claims. invading a country on
              false pretenses, shooting the us reputation in the foot
              by torturing people, dispensing with separation of powers,
              and putting us on the road to plutocracy is enough to hang
              on BUSHCO.
        \_ obviously, Kenneth Lay is a bad CEO. A good and effective CEO
           would have bribed the judge and jury and kept its shareholders
           happy. That's the job of a CEO. Even Al Capone would have
           done better than Kenneth Lay.
           \_ Maybe the judge gave erroneous instructions to the jury, and
              the case will be thrown out two years later
              \- some commentators seem to think the jury is really
                 solid, and by example use the fact that they acquitted
                 SKILLING on many counts, suggesting they were carefully
                 assessing the evidence in teh cases they voted to convict,
                 rather than having some kind of shutgun approach.
              \- commentators feel the jury in this case was pretty careful.
                 the use the fact that SKILLING was acquitted on quite a
                 few counts to suggest they were deliberate in their findings
                 rather than doing things in a shotgun manner.
                 \_ it doesn't matter how competent the jury was if they
                    were given erroneous instructions from the judge.
                    the supreme court will agree unanimously to throw out
                    the case if it happened in the same way as:
                 \_ it doesn't matter how competent the jury was if the
                    judge, uh, innocently gave the jury the wrong instructions
                    http://csua.org/u/fzu (Wash Post)
                    \- sure it could happen but if ever you believe the
                       but there are reasons to believe the jury this time
                       was "better than average" rather than worse than
                       average. i dont know if the appeals based on judge's
                       instructions look more like "per se" or "rule of
                       reason" type violations [do you have to hit some
                       fuckup threashold or is it purely technical] but
                       there is one view from HPITT, the former SEC chief:
                       fuckup threashold or is it purely technical].
                       here is one view from HPITT, the former SEC chief:
                         http://csua.org/u/fzx
                       ok tnx.
                       ok tnx. i think the real outrage in a sense is
                       it seems clear those two illegal CEOs will go
                       to a cushy prison rather than weekly beatings/
                       sodomy/hepatitis/hiv+ prison. ok tnx.
        \_ For many centuries, greedy big oppressive imperialistic
           penises who have absolute control of the institutions they
           inherited, altered the lives of many that they touched for worse.
           Case in point, American Natives, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Iraqis,
           Arabs, etc, all for what? The bottom line-- PROFIT. They raised
           profits without regard to humanity, by bringing drugs (opium,
           alcohol), diseases (blankets with smallpox), prejudice (Manifest
           Destiny), greed, humiliation to non-whites, and other evils of
           humanity. They implemented regime change to pillage resources
           like oil, they broke up tribes and families for cotton labor,
           they forced people to follow their religions, they rewrote text
           books that glorified the white race, so on and so forth. It's
           about time these white oppressive imperialists pay for what they
           and their ancestors have done for centuries.
             In short, I'm very very happy with the outcome of the trial.
           I hope it is one of the many trials to come. Down with all evil
           white hypocrits like GWB. Equality and justice for all!!!
           \_ white, jblack is, but small penis, he has. what say you?
           \_ You know, this sounds like an insane rant...  except, it's,
              well, true.
              \_ There is no need to apologize for our actions. The only
                 thing true is that this is written by an angry minority.
           \_ All this and still the best, sanest, society created.
              \_ History is written by the victors, and you seem to
              \_ History is written by the victors (written by the victors
                 dipping their large white penises in ink), and you seem to
                 know your history well.
                 \_ Yep, study history so you can be the victors.
                    Otherwise, you're dead (or maybe a slave).
                    \_ Thanks. I'm trying my best. I've been educating
                       people on why we should oppress evil white men and
                       the movement is growing strong. Wish me luck!  -pp
           \_ Are you that naive? Do you like what you have? I mean
              think about it. There are so many resources in the world.
              You knew it was dog-eat-dog growing up. And you complain
              and complain and complain? What has all that leftist crap
              brought to the world? Nothing. What has all this greed and
              evil brought? Sure some profit more than others. But geez!
           \_ somebody has a tiny little penis.
              \_ Agreed. It is a God given right and our destiny to get
                 land, lumber, and petroleum. If little people happen to
                 get in the way, it is our duty to use our God given
                 powers to re-educate them.
                 \_ perfect is the enemy of best.
        \_ Next stop: pound me in the ass prison
           \_ Like hell.  They go to min. security pound-me-in-the-chessboard
              "prison"
        \_ Cool. When is their public hanging?
           \_ "As I told him, we've just begun to fight" -Skilling's lawyer

5/19    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/18/gym.bribes.ap
        Teacher pleaded guilty for taking $1-a-day bribes. Result:
        three years probation, pay back, and 300 hours of community service.

5/16    Sowell on the Duke rape case
     http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/05/17/197673.html
        \_ I don't see anything wrong with any of his points; they just come
           down to the truth of what really happened.  That opening quote from
           the "young man at NCCU" really is reprehensible.  Whether this is as
           much of a shared attitude as Sowell claims is another matter.
           \_ I guess you've read "Bonfire of the Vanities"  -John
           \_ I like how he conflates one idiotic statement by one stupid
              college student with the attitude of the entire civil rights
              leadership.
                \_ that's a pretty common pundit tactic these days.
        \_ When I get bored I leap to the defense of scummy rich white
           guys from Duke who run around raping black women.
           \_ allegedly raping... or maybe we should skip the whole trial?
              \_ Was the victim attractive?
                 \_ She was dressed in a provacative manner!
                    \_ Remember, strippers' testimony isn't worth as much as
                       that of "normal people"
                       \_ No, but getting your story straight is important.

5/12    http://csua.org/u/fu5 (Wash Post)
        Votes for death for Moussaoui were 11-1, 10-2, 10-2 on three death-
        penalty eligible charges.
        On the 11-1 vote, jury foreman says the reason for the life in prison
        vote was never put forth by the dissenter for discussion by the group
        despite repeated attempts to draw out a reason.
        \_ I think he's a delusional whack job who did not
           personally bomb the WTC.  he probably wanted to really badly.
           is that reason enough to improsin him for life ?
           \_ Yes.  Isolating dangeous people from society is one of the
              big responsibilites of the government.  Just because the
              reason you're crazy is that you're delusional doesn't make
              you any less dangeous.
              reason you're dangerous is that you're delusional doesn't
              make you any less dangerous.
        \_ So? I'm actually glad to hear you don't have to provide reasons
           for a decision like this.
           \_ In a jury room they are supposed to.  That's what they're there
              for.  Otherwise we might as well roll dice or draw cards.
              \_ I thought you had to supply reasons _for_ voting for the
                 death penalty, not against?  Or do we have mandatory death
                 penalty for big enough offenses now?  I thought it was always
                 a choice between life imprisonment and the whack for murder 1,
                 sufficiently bad treason, terrorism and a very few others,
                 with the jury given the ability to choose between the two
                 if the prosecution asks for the death penalty?  -John
                 \_ I'll clarify: I believe the jury should be discussing all
                    their options and everything presented in the case before
                    them before reaching a decision.  It sounds like one juror
                    was unwilling to perform their full duty while the other
                    10-11 tried very hard to do so.  If the juror simply
                    didn't believe in the DP then they shouldn't have been
                    allowed on a potential DP trial, but since they didn't
                    speak up we will never know why they voted the way they
                    \_ Ah okay, "should".  My question was more, is there a
                       legal requirement for them to justify their vote
                       against the DP lest the judge declare a mistrial or
                       something?  -John
                       \_ I don't believe there's a strict legal requirement.
                          As jurors they have a lot of latitude in what and
                          how they deliberate.  See "jury nullification".  Even
                          so, I still feel they *should* have even if they
                          probably weren't strictly legally required to.
                          \- the term you are looking for is "death qualified"
                             it is constitiional to require jury members be
                             open to capital pushisment in captial cases
                             but that is not a requirement. i dont know if
                             the prosecution asks on a case by case basis
                             during vore dire "we want a death certified
                             jury" or if it is mandated in certain
                             jurisdictions automatically under certain
                             circumstances ... like can you ask for a death
                             certified jury if you are still open to
                             negotiating if you will go for life or death
                             penalty? this is relevant because there have been
                             some studies whether death qualfied juries are
                             more pro-prosecution ... in which case they would
                             want a DQ jury even in a non-capital case.
                             while jury nullification means the jurors
                             never have to give an explanation, they actually
                             can be quite limited in how they negotiate ...
                             like they cant find for a lesser charge unless
                             it is offered to them, and in some cases judges
                             have done things like turned down requests for
                             a dictionary etc. i dont remember the USSC
                             cases on this but no doubt you can find them on
                             the WEEB once you have the right term.
                    did, if there was any reason at all, good, bad, or
                    otherwise.  In some sense I feel justice has been robbed.
                    I'd much prefer if they had participated fully in
                    deliberations and it went 12-0 against the DP than 11-1 or
                    10-2 for, but not knowing.  My cynical side says to look
                    for the book hype from juror #12 in the next few weeks.
                    \_ I dunno, my analysis is that the lone standout may
                       have been afraid of getting outed as the one voting
                       against death, and subsequently getting screwed by dumb
                       Americans in terms of privacy, success, and happiness
                       for the rest of his or her natural life.
                       How many 9/11's are there?
                       \_ Fame is fame.  If I was the hold out I'd be making
                          mega bucks with in 3 months.  No one famous was ever
                          held back by anything but their own stupidity.  Look
                          at Hollywood.  There are oodles of rich and famous
                          people, many of whom have no talent, education, or
                          anything else going for them, yet there they are.
                          \_ So to summarize:  You say maybe it's a book deal,
                             I say maybe the guy's afraid, you say if you were
                             the holdout you'd be making a book deal ...
        \_ You may wish to read about the case of the United States
           successful bioinformatics researcher by day /
           Islamic intellectual by night Ali al-Tamimi.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Al-Tamimi - danh

5/7     NIA Deputy Director General Michael Hayden: No probable cause mentioned
        in the 4th Amendment. Easily refuted.
        http://monkeydyne.com/lj/probable_cause.mov
        \_ Probable cause applies to warrants.
           You can search without a warrant, as long as it's reasonable, like
           when a police officer pats you down for weapons if he or she has a
           reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, orwhen  Dubya says so.
           reasonable suspicion you might endanger them, or when Dubya says so.
           \_ ...also called probable cause.
              \_ do your homework:  http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org)
              \_ do your homework
                 http://csua.org/u/fr5 (flexyourrights.org)
                 http://csua.org/u/fr6 (findlaw.com)
                 "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the
                 circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or
                 that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search
                 for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and
                 dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has
                 probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the
                 absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
                 (a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a
                 warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot
                 be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot
                 observations of the officer on the beat is required. ..."
                 This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a
                 'stop' and a 'frisk' amount to a mere 'minor inconvenience
                 and petty indignity,' which can properly be imposed upon
                 the [392 U.S. 1, 11] citizen in the interest of effective law
                 enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion."
                 Can't blame you for not knowing, though, since it took a
                 Supreme Court challenge to resolve this ... in '68.
                 \_ "5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the
                    circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety
                    or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable
                    search for weapons of the person believed by him to be
                    armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether
                    he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime
                    or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed."
                    Please to be pointing out where this applies to wiretaps.
                    \_ "when Dubya says so"
                       so, do you acknowledge you were wrong about "also called
                       probable cause"?
                       \_ Am more inclined to quibble endlessly with you about
                          whether said "probable cause" in this case is the
                          suspicious behavior of suspects, but suspect that
                          we're of more similar than dissimilar mind.
                          \_ eh, I've been kind of doing a Colbert thing, so
                             you're right about that part.

5/2     Zacarias Moussaoui verdict in 20 minutes (it's now 1:10PM, it'll
        be out at 1:30PM). What is your prediction? Death or life in prison?
        \_ Life.  He didn't actually participate, and his role was minimal.
           Death if the jurors are stupid / weak-willed.  I wouldn't be
           surprised if they vote for death just so they won't be outed as the
           juror who voted for life for a 9/11 terrorist.
           \_ 1:40PM LIFE!!! You're good. Let's play this game again.
           juror who voted for life for a 9/11 terrorist.  I might do the same.
              \_ Thanks, but I also thought the jury wouldn't convict Scott
                 Peterson.
        \_ The guy belongs in an asylum, but of course, we don't put people with
           deeply held, illogical religious convictions in asylums.  We praise
           them as "people of faith".
           them as "people of faith" (or, if we don't agree with the beliefs,
           just call them "evil").
           \_ It's okay to have faith and spiritual beliefs.  Really.
              \_ Sure it is, as long as they don't cause you to make dangerous
                 decisions because of an illogical spiritual conviction, like
                 "I can fly" or "God wants me to lead this country to war" or
                 "I will get 40 virgins in Heaven for this"
                 \_ But those are just as valid as any other non-fact-based
                    belief. Those beliefs are ok unless they aren't... well
                    maybe they're just not ok.

4/6     http://csua.org/u/fg6 (orlandosentinel.com)
        Lawyer for DHS ICE Operation Predator chief (who pleaded no contest
        to exposing sexual organs and disorderly conduct), says he could have
        won the case:
        "The victim's account is not credible, Phillips said, saying that if
        the teen could see 2 centimeters of flesh from 20 feet away when others
        sitting much closer to Figueroa didn't notice anything, 'she has the
        visual acuity of most birds of prey.'"
        \_ 2 centimeters? Now I feel sorry for the guy ...
        \_ It's not too hard to see 2cm at 20 feet distance.
        \_ He thinks the average juror Joe would know how long a centimeter is?
        \_ because clearly, 20 feet from someone is a safe distance to be
           masturbating.

4/6     Netflix sues Blockbuster for patent infringement:
        http://tinyurl.com/qvqpw (reuters.com)