Reference Law Court - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Reference:Law:Court:
Results 1 - 150 of 234   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    

2006/4/5 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:42691 Activity:nil
4/5     http://csua.org/u/ffx (azcentral.com, AP "sodomy" link replaced)
2006/3/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:42509 Activity:high 79%like:42498
3/28    http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.212651~-118.660726&style=o&lvl=1&scene=3064367
        Is this an example of how suburbs grow? First they carve out
        the road and then they build houses on top of it?

        shares is 1,000,000.  All 1,000,000 shares are issued, and employees
        are granted 10% of that, and the founder grants himself 90%.
        What's to prevent the founder from voting to double the number of
        authorized shares to 2,000,000 and screwing the employees with 2x
        dilution?  Other than all the employees getting pissed and leaving.
        \_ The board can do anything.  If you're a staffer and want to sue,
           you're welcome to but good luck on that.  You'll spend way more
           on lawyers than whatever you might have regained in a lawsuit and
           probably won't win anyway.
        \_ Word of advice, if the chair/founder/whatever is Ari Zilka, leave.
           He'll take most of the money and leave you suckers with
           almost nothing.
        \_ Nothing.  But, generally this is why small corporations have
           boards, and, if memory serves, the board must be at least 3 people,
           and, once a corporation gets to a certain number of employees, the
           board gets bigger. -dans
           \_ What if two of the three positions on the board of directors
              are occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the
              founder will always get the majority vote?
              \_ Welcome to the wonderful world of business.
              \- Is the founder's name RIGAS? --psb
        \_ Merely issuing more shares would not directly screw the employees.
           If he did something like say grant himself 1,000,000 new shares
           that could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit but good luck.
           \_ What about doubling the number of authorized shares?
        \_ We just started covering this in my bus org/corp law class. The
           way I understand it majority controlling shareholders have a
           fiduciary duty wrt to the minority shareholders. In the scenario
           you describe the maj shareholder has effectively reduced the
           voting power of the min shareholders by 1/2 (assuming that each
           of the new shares has one vote and the voting power of the old
           stock did not increase). By acting this way the maj shareholder
           has breached his fiduciary duty and the min shareholders can sue
           him for this breach.
           [ I might have this wrong, so I'll ask my bus org prof on thurs ]
        \_ Can the dude with 90% also pay himself a big salary, and thus
           take away all the profits of the company?
2006/3/28-31 [Reference/Law/Court, Industry/Startup] UID:42498 Activity:moderate 79%like:42509
3/28    Hi, let's say there's a small corporation.  The number of authorized
        shares is 1,000,000. All 1,000,000 shares are issued, and employees
        are granted 10% of that, and the founder grants himself 90%.  What's
        to prevent the founder from voting to double the number of
        authorized shares to 2,000,000 and screwing the employees with 2x
        dilution?  Other than all the employees getting pissed and leaving.
        \_ The board can do anything.  If you're a staffer and want to sue,
           you're welcome to but good luck on that.  You'll spend way more
           on lawyers than whatever you might have regained in a lawsuit and
           probably won't win anyway.
        \_ Word of advice, if the chair/founder/whatever is Ari Zilka, leave.
           He'll take most of the money and leave you suckers with
           almost nothing.
           \_ Please tell me more of the Ari Zilka story (I've heard rumors)
              \_ If I tell you the story my identity will be exposed.
                 Let's just say that he's born with special privileges in a
                 well connected family and feels entitled to do whatever he
                 pleases without regard to the well beings of the people
                 who works for him. Back then he and the VCs had deep inner
                 connections and they knew how to get around "the system"
                 very well. They knew how to make up rules and and before
                 you know it, checkmate. You no longer have any legal
                 protection and you're of no use to them. Ari is one
                 fine example of why the rich get richer.
        \_ Nothing.  But, generally this is why small corporations have
           boards, and, if memory serves, the board must be at least 3 people,
           and, once a corporation gets to a certain number of employees, the
           board gets bigger. -dans
           \_ What if two of the three positions on the board of directors
              is occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the
              are occupied by the founder and his wife, in which case the
              founder will always get the majority vote?
              \_ Welcome to the wonderful world of business.
              \- Is the founder's name RIGAS? --psb
              \_ Then you're fucked.  Not sure, but there *may* be laws
                 against this because of conflicts of interest. -dans
        \_ Merely issuing more shares would not directly screw the employees.
           If he did something like say grant himself 1,000,000 new shares
           that could be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit but good luck.
           \_ What about doubling the number of authorized shares?
              \_ That's basically the same as issuing treasury stock... it
                 only matters when it actually changes hands.
        \_ We just started covering this in my bus org/corp law class. The
           way I understand it majority controlling shareholders have a
           fiduciary duty wrt to the minority shareholders. In the scenario
           you describe the maj shareholder has effectively reduced the
           voting power of the min shareholders by 1/2 (assuming that each
           of the new shares has one vote and the voting power of the old
           stock did not increase). By acting this way the maj shareholder
           has breached his fiduciary duty and the min shareholders can sue
           him for this breach.
           [ I might have this wrong, so I'll ask my bus org prof on thurs ]
        \_ Can the dude with 90% also pay himself a big salary, and thus
           take away all the profits of the company?
           \_ Yes, but the minority shareholders could almost certainly sue
              him because he is not working in the best interests of the
              shareholders. -dans
                 \_ Who is Ari Zilka? -dans
                    \_ ari@csua
                 \_ what goes around, comes around.  hopefully he'll get
                    his just due.
                    \_ He paid his dues when he married chris@soda.
        \_ I don't think there is anything realistic stopping this behavior.
           However, most (not every) leaders realize that by sharing the
           wealth the company has much better chances of success, as everyone's
           interests then align for the good of the corporation.  It's better
           to own 25% of a billion dollar corporation than to own 90% of a
           $10 million dollar corporation.
           \_ Yes, but it's relatively much easier to create a $10M company
              than a $1B company.  Taking the chance of success into account,
              and also taking into account (to use the numbers from your
              example) most people would value $9M more than 9/250 of $250M,
              maybe it's a better strategy to shoot for the 90% of $10M.
                \_ Except a lot of leaders of companies already HAVE that
                   much money.  I'm pretty sure my founding CEO was.
                   much money.  I'm pretty sure my founding CEO did.
2006/3/17-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:42286 Activity:nil
3/17    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188181,00.html
        On headline news, Jacko closes his Neverland Ranch permanently
        and is not coming back to the US!!! Oh my god!!!
        \_ Dept. of Labor closed it, not Jacko.
           \_ Yeah, Jacko just stopped paying them.
              \_ Yeah, but they were still working without pay, until DOL
                 ordered them to stop.
                 \_ Keep working, I have your children!
2006/3/3-6 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:42091 Activity:nil
3/3     http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palomares3mar03,0,7560875.story
        "While this story sounds like a script from 'The Shield' or 'Training
        Day,' it actually happened."
        \_ What's a "civilian custodial officer"?
2006/2/21-23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41945 Activity:low
2/21    Michael Morales, convicted of brutally murdering a 17-year-old
        A-student who had sung in church choir and who was working part-time to
        earn money for college, has had his execution indefinitely postponed.
        FYI, his sentencing judge formally recommended commutation from death
        to life-in-prison w/o parole last month, after it was found that the
        prosecution's star witness had lied about a Morales making a
        confession.
        \_ Uhm, yeahhh.....
           http://tinyurl.com/l2yua    (reuters)
           \_ "Killer's Execution is Postponed Indefinitely"
              http://csua.org/u/f1l (latimes.com)
              Original post implied it was postponed because of the trial
              judge recommendation.  This was incorrect.  Delay is for
              review of execution procedures, hearing scheduled May 1. -op
           \_"The sworn statements of six jurors supporting the clemency bid
              and another statement from a prosecution witness recanting her
              testimony were proved to be forgeries by the prosecuting team."
             Dude, Ken Starr is fucking tool.
              \_ Yeah, but even so, the trial judge supports commutation
                 to life w/o possibility of parole because of the star witness
                 to life w/o possibility of parole because the star witness
                 lied.
        \_ But didn't he also claim to have "turned his life around" and
           "sought forgiveness"?  Doesn't that imply he, at least after his
           initial trial, was admitting guilt?
           \_ I think there is no doubt he did it, but I also think that there
              is a question whether the jury would have went with death w/o
              the star witness.  I think that's why the trial judge said
              what he said.
2006/2/18-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:41922 Activity:high
2/18    Now here's an excellent reason to put a child in the SF public
        school system.
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/19/SPED.TMP
        \_ I'm going to make a prediction.  I predict that the GOP is planning
           a frontal attack on public education within the next year, and that
           talking points are being distributed through their usual channels
           in anticipation of that attack.  You can jump up and down and flame
           me, and say that's crazy now, but I'll just repost this whole thread
           in a year, when we're hearing a new proposal to phase out free
           public k-12 education in America.
           \_ So, are you anti-vouchers?  If so, what's your reasoning?
              Or, do you really believe the GOP wants to completely phase
              out free public education?  Also, if you're so sure about
              your prediction, why not sign your name? -jrleek
              \_ I am 100% pro-vouchers, and yes, I believe that the long-term
                 goal of those at the top in the GOP is the destruction of
                 all social services.
                 \_ Well, I'm with you on vouchers, but I think your fear
                    of associating your name with your prediction shows
                    that you know the prediction is BS and your belief
                    really only amounts to paranoid delusion. -jrleek
                    \_ I believe in a totally anymous motd.  Part of the
                       reason for that is that I think anonymity helps remove
                       ego from discussions.  I find claims by people like you
                       that the only reason people don't sign is cowardice
                       to be childish and stupid.  If you really care, I'll
                       just email you.  Do you care?
                       \_ I didn't say the only reason people don't sign
                          is cowardice.  I often don't sign myself, and I
                          would appreciate a completely anonymous motd, so
                          people wouldn't get "outted" by lamers.  But
                          in this case you not only made a specific
                          prediction, but bragged that you'd come back and
                          rub it in any flamer's faces when it came true.
                          This suggests that you want the "benifit" of
                          being right, but don't want to pay the "price"
                          of being wrong. That actually does sound like
                          cowardice to me.  I don't really care who you
                          are, I just suggest that if you're going to
                          "call people out" you should have the guts to
                          sign your name.  That said, I'm sure not going
                          to remember this in a year. -jrleek
        \_ okay, if i was a  poor person and my children flunked out
           of highschool i would start sueing schools for them not
           having provided special education and ruining my childs life.
           I would start sueing every school and get poor people to sue
           school after school. it's the only way for the poor to make
           money.
        \_ I want to go kill the fucking parents, piece of shit.
           \_ Yeah, me too. Evil manipulative fuckers.
        \_ Um, when did Woodside become part of San Francisco?
           \_ 1. SFUSD is a recent favorite motd target.  2. SFUSD is
              probably an easier mark with deeper pockets.
        \_ Hey, I was a frustrated youth too!  I should sue for a million
           dollars as well.
        \_ The State of California is required to provide education to
           all children. Unsurprisingly, special needs kids are not often
           catered to. It's not uncommon for those parents to sue to get
           the education their child needs. Maybe these parents took
           advantage of that or maybe not. It's not clear the what extent of
           services their child may need.
           \_ How would you ever legally decide whether a child actually
              "needs" a service? Horseback lessons? It's patently obvious
              that while all children could benefit from that, no child
              actually requires it. Same goes for a private schooling
              across the country. The school they chose had no special
              services, it was just away from home and small.
              \_ Things like that can make a big difference. With children
                 who have special needs, class size is a huge factor,
                 for instance. As someone else said below, an army of
                 therapists, doctors, teachers, and so on must all be
                 involved in deciding that a child has special needs. I
                 am surprised at the callous and uninformed responses in
                 this thread. It's possible this couple manipulated the
                 system. However, what evidence do we have of that?
                 \_ I am a bit confused.  You say "an army of therapists, etc."
                    are involved in deciding a child has special needs?  An
                    army?  11% of all students 6 to 13 receive some special
                    ed (http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/research/rb2txt.htm  And
                    an army is required to certify each child?  I fail to see
                    how that army scales to 11% of the student population.
                    Ref please.
                    \_ Don't take the word 'army' literally. The point is
                       that parents can't just make this stuff up. There
                       are a lot of people involved in the process. My
                       nephew is 9 and autistic. Each year he gets evaluated
                       by at least 3-4 different people in addition to
                       his own doctors and teachers. He has probably been
                       seen by 30-40 different professionals by now. It's
                       not like his parents can just make stuff up. In fact,
                       in my experience they tend to score him as more
                       functioning than he really is, probably for a
                       combination of financial and practical reasons.
                       (It's easy for him to fake being 'normal' for an
                       hour session, but it's quite eye-opening to spend the
                       weekend with him.) One social worker can handle a
                       lot of cases, for instance, so don't worry about
                       the numbers game. Just rest assured that the government
                       (including school districts) doesn't easily cough up
                       wads of cash to any dipshit parents who claim their kid
                       has issues. From what I see, for the most part kids
                       who should be receiving services are not and not
                       the other way around.
                       \_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole.  Now have
                          you read the sfgate article?  There, the Woodside
                          parents are doing "'unilateral placement--enrolling
                          a child in a private school, then billing the
                          district for tuition".  IOW, they bypassed that
                       \_ OK, so the "army" was just hyperbole, and you
                          extrapolated from your experience with one nephew.
                          Now have you read the sfgate article?  There, the
                          Woodside parents are doing "'unilateral placement--
                          enrolling a child in a private school, then billing
                          the district for tuition".  IOW, they bypassed that
                          "army" and hired their own special ed expert to find
                          a prep school, and then the Woodside parents hired
                          a lawyer to sue the school district so the district
                          would pay for tuition and family travel cost to
                          visit the child in Maine.
                          a prep school in Maine.  Then the Woodside parents
                          hired a lawyer to sue the school district so the
                          district would pay for tuition and family travel
                          cost to visit the child in Maine.  In fact, according
                          to the artcle, of 3763 special ed kids who filed
                          complaints last year, the distrcits had secret
                          settlements with 90% of them.
                          cost to visit the child in Maine.  Nor does it seem
                          that the Woodside child was all that disabled.
                          Even the mother said "He's a model child".  His
                          problem?  "[H]is frustration and anxiety were so
                          high that [he could] turn to drugs...".
                          \_ Actually, I am not using just one data point.
                             I met a psychology professor whose specialty
                             is 'special education' and he referred me to
                             a private practice attorney who deals with
                             filing suits against school districts. The
                             way it works is that the district drags its
                             feet until confronted with parents who are
                             willing to do something about them. Then they
                             pay up because it's actually cheaper to pay
                             the parents than to solve the initial
                             problem. They don't do so until there has
                             been a mountain of evidence amassed against
                             them (i.e. they feel they will lose the
                             case). This is where the expert testimony and
                             evaluations come in. I don't know if these
                             parents were full of shit or not, but I am
                             appalled at the responses nonetheless.
                             \_ Did you read the article? It's obvious
                                they are full of shit. If you don't know
                                then you're an idiot.
                             \_ Why are you appalled? Did you read the
                                article? It's obvious that things like
                                horseback riding aren't needed. And in
                                this case of the small school across
                                the country, that's complete bull also.
                                From the article, the parents put the
                                kid there WITHOUT having any specific
                                reason, just the mother's whim basically.
                                If you think that's fair to the taxpayers
                                then you can fuck yourself.
                             \_ Now, 90% of complaints are settled by the
                                school districts.  It seems difficult to
                                settle 90% of the time and at the same time
                                require "a mountain of evidence amassed
                                against them".  In fact, the only way I think
                                90% settlement can be explained is if the
                                school district bends over like a cheap whore
                                on speed.
                                \_ If you don't know anything about the
                                   process then just say so.
                                   \_ Given a choice between anonymous motd
                                      assurances from someone with a vested
                                      interest in the system or sfgate,
                                      interested in the system or sfgate,
                                      I'll run with sfgate.
        \_ Thanks for posting this. What a ridiculous ass story. I bet
           that kid doesn't have a single thing wrong with him, except
           that he has a psychotic bitch of a greedy mother. No wonder
           he has "anxiety".
           \_ I know who this family is.  Is anybody prepared to terrorize
              them if I provide the name?
                \_ Do you mind if I ask how you know it's them?
              \_ I don't have the time, money, or personal bandwidth to do it,
                 but I think it would be poetic justice to bring civil suit
                 against them for extortion/theft of public services or the
                 like. -dans
                 \_ It doesn't even matter. Technically speaking you don't have
                    standing to sue anyway.
                 \_ Gee, isn't this vigilantism?
                    \_ Yup. -dans
                       \_ No vigilantism would be if you firebombed their
                          house. This is using the legal system to bring
                          about justice.
                          \_ It's vigilante use of the courts.  Of course, I
                             don't really mind this since I'm not opposed to
                             all vigilante acts (eg the Billboard LIberation
                             Front is non-violent, usually thought-provoking,
                             and makes good art).  Using the courts for
                             vigilante justice is much safer than the street
                             variety since the formal bureaucratic procedures
                             of the courts provide some level of check against
                             the chance of `bad' or unjust acts being
                             successfully completed.  Then again, there's
                             always the possibility for abuse.  Many
                             organizations (eg the RIAA) use the legal system
                             the way a corner street thug uses a gun or
                             baseball bat. -dans
              \_ So is their kid really a 'tard or just a typical
                 underachieving teen?
        \_ So how do children get certified as needing special ed?
           \_ doctor's evaluations, state and/or private, administrators,
              teachers, etc., etc.
              \_ In addition to the above, the process also hinges on an
                 advocate willing to badger and harrass. This is true both
                 for legitimate and illegitimate cases.
                 \_ It would be interesting to see what percentage of special
                    ed application is rejected.
                    \_ Probably not as many as you would think. More likely is
                       that an application without an active advocate will
                       simply be set aside.
                    \_ It's easy to get approved for 'special ed' (usually
                       just a diagnosis). It's hard to get approved for
                       special ed outside of the district and/or to get
                       money from the district to pay for additional
                       services. Also, as someone above said, without a
                       strong advocate your case will languish for years.
                       Many parents cannot afford such a person/people
                       (usually a social worker, a doctor, and an attorney).
                       Districts will otherwise practice a policy of
                       appeasement, giving in here and there over time to
                       avoid actually doing everything they should be.
                       Note that there are some good districts. I am
                       referring to the bad ones, which are most of them in
                       California.
                       \- You know I think one of the "right' outcomes
                          would be for the reporters in cases like this to
                          give the names of the parties involved. Journalists
                          makes sometimes make wild claims based on the
                          "public's right to know" but often they or their
                          editors filter it through a bit of an agenda.
                          For example in union strike coverage they often
                          dont list the salaries involved. The recent
                          muscisian strike was an interesting exception.
                       \_ Now, this is what confuses me.  At first the poster
                          above says "an army of therapists, doctors, teachers,
                          and so on must all be involved in deciding that a
                          child has special needs."  Now you tell me it's
                          easy to get approved.  OK, so you say certification
                          as needing special ed is easy, it's getting approved
                          for outside resources that's hard.  But isn't the
                          original articl all about parents skipping the
                          outside special ed process altogether, and then
                          sueing afterwards for the expenses?  If the system
                          is set up so that certification to be eligible for
                          special ed is easy (your claim), and then sueing for
                          outside services rendererd is easy (sfgate's claim),
                          isn't that just asking for trouble?
                       \_ OK, so you say certification as needing special ed
                          is easy, it's getting approved for outside resources
                          that's hard.  But isn't the original articl all
                          about parents skipping the outside special ed
                          process altogether, and then sueing afterwards for
                          process altogether, and then suing afterwards for
                          the expenses?  If the system is set up so that
                          certification to be eligible for special ed is
                          easy (your claim), and then sueing for outside
                          non-preapproved services rendererd is easy (sfgate's
                          easy (your claim), and then suing for outside
                          non-preapproved services is easy (sfgate's
                          claim), isn't that just asking for trouble?
                          \_ You will only win a suit if there is evidence
                             supporting your case. You can send your kid
                             to boarding school in Switzerland and bill
                             the district for it, but you will lose unless
                             you have built a good case. Therefore, suing
                             for outside services (preapproved or not)
                             is not easy unless your case might win. It is,
                             however, easier than actually getting the school
                             district to provide those services themselves.
                             This is what the professor told me in so many
                             words. Keep asking the district for what you
                             need and let them tell you 'no'. It works out
                             better for everyone that way. If they say
                             'yes' and then half-ass it it becomes much
                             more difficult to prove that the program is
                             substandard and the school pays as much or
                             more money in the end anyway while your kid
                             fritters away in useless classes for 2-3-4-5
                             years of valuable time while the case goes
                             through the legal process. This is why many school
                             districts would rather pay kids who genuinely
                             need special help to go where they can
                             receive it. It's better for the kids and
                             cheaper/easier for the district.
2006/2/17-19 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:41911 Activity:nil
2/17    Here's what REALLY happened. After watching Bareback Mountains
        Cheney and the attorney dude decided to go get some loving in
        the woods. The attorney dude started fondling another man and
        that got Cheney jealous, who fired towards them but not directly
        at them. Cheney totally forgot that he was using a shotgun instead
        of a rifle and a few pellets hit the dude. The above is the
        actual event and everything else we see on media is just
        peppered up by Carl Rove.
                       \- is that a cheep sweedish knock off of Karl Rove?
2006/2/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:41826 Activity:kinda low
2/13    On http://www.bbb.com it lists Capital One and LexisNexis as its sponsors.
        Doesn't accepting sponsors cast doubt on its fairness?
        \_ BBB is fucking bullshit.
           \_ Yes. http://csua.com/?entry=39518
              No.  http://csua.com/?entry=11856
              I am the op for both of these posts.
        \_ Maybe, but complaining to the BBB is a great way to get
           unscrupulous merchants to remove charges.
           \_ How does this work?  What power do they have over a random
              unscrupulous business?
              \_ PR.  Good businesses don't want a bad BBB record.  Bad ones
                 don't care.  So before any large purchases check with the
                 BBB.  Bad record?  They suck.  Go elsewhere.  If they're
                 that bad someone will eventually sue them and the BBB record
                 will work against them in court.  True fly by night criminals
                 don't care at all of course, buyer beware.
              \_ I honestly don't know, but twice rental car companies have
                 tried to rip me off and charge me for a full tank of gas
                 when I returned the car full and both times the BBB got
                 the charges removed. The first time I tried all kinds of
                 things before hitting on them, the second time I just went
                 straight to them. Someone told me that the BBB has the power
                 to fine its members, but I don't know if that is true or not.
                 \_ Which rental car companies by the way?
2006/2/8-10 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court] UID:41770 Activity:low
2/8     I just got a traffic ticket and I intend to fight it all the way.
        Step 1-- I just activated my one time extension from Feb to April.
        To plead not guilty I need to write them a check and on top write
        NOT GUILTY, then a new court date will be assigned. Should I write
        a check now, or wait until it's closer to April? I've been told
        that the longer I wait, the less likely the cop will show up.
        Any other advice? Thanks.
        \_ Be sure to do your legal research.  I suggest starting with
           Marbury v. Madison.
        \_ There's a social engineering way to find out what days the cop
           who gave you the tickey has off.
        \_ I went to fight a ticket and I'll be damned if the cop didn't
           show up. Surprised the hell out of me, since it was LAPD and
           not some hick police force. However, I won anyway. Woo hoo!
           \_ So you thought he was gonna stay at the donut shop? Cops get
              paid extra $200-300 a day for showing up at the courthouse,
              as it is one of the biggest revenue sources at the CHP.
              \_ I thought LAPD would have bigger problems than my stupid
                 ticket, which I won anyway.
2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41743 Activity:nil
2/7     Who gave this guy a nano?
        http://tinyurl.com/b525g - danh
        \_ That looks like a cell phone to me
        \_ Is this an in-jail pic? 'Cos that looks like a knife handle to me.
           \_ It would be funny if we have a picture of Bin Laden listening
              on the iPod.
           \_ without a blade ... http://csua.org/u/ex6 (yahoo.com)
              \_ Good eye. Thanks
2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:41469 Activity:nil
1/21    Partner's death ends happy life on ranch
        http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342
        \_ that's sad.  I think a majority of Oklahomans would support
           Beaumont.  I'd like to think a majority would even if he didn't
           have the will, but I'm not sure, esp. with the constiutional
           amendment.
        \_ The cousins are trying to sue him for past due rent!?  That's just
           fucked up.  BTW, I assume where it says the ranch is worth $100,000,
           they meant $1,000,000.
           \_ No, this is Oklahoma, $100,000 for 50 acres is about right.
              \_ But the guy said he put $200k into it...
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    

2006/1/9-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:41306 Activity:nil
1/9     "The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's
        request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or
        sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial."
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060109/ap_on_go_co/delay_indictment
2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:40976 Activity:low
12/12   http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/07/WILLIAMS.TMP
        "The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the
        testimony of witnesses 'whose credibility was highly suspect,' U.S.
        District Judge Stephen Wilson wrote in 1998."
        ... while upholding the jury's verdict, because the jury >> appeals
        judges, unless you find a technical problem in the trial, new evidence,
        or persuasive evidence the jury was on crack, etc.
        \_ And?
           \_ "Four years later, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voiced
              similar qualms, saying the prosecution had relied on witnesses
              with 'less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie' to win
              lenient treatment for their own crimes." (also upholding the
              conviction)
              \_ And he loves animals and writes children's books, found
                 Jesus on death row and is a 5 time Nobel Peace Prize
                 Nominee!  Free Tookie!
                 \_ And at 12:01 he'll meet Jesus.
                 \_ strawman
                    \_ it isn't a strawman.  it is mockery.  and i fart in
                       your general direction as well!
                       \_ strawman + mockery
                          \_ a strawman is a lame debate method.  i'm not
                             debating or attempting to score points by
                             saying you said those things and then knocking
                             them down.  i am mocking you.  mock, mock, mock!
                             we are the knights who say mock!   mock!  what a
                             great word!  mock!  say mock! 10 times, fast.
                             \_ whatever you say ...
                                \_ here's an example of a different yet
                                   equally lame debate method.
                                   \_ no, it is not a debate method.
                                      i am mocking your attempt at mockery.
                                      \_ you're attempting but failing.  go
                                         look up "mock".  perhaps if you knew
                                         what mockery is you'd be able to do
                                         it.  thanks for joining us today.
                                         \_ It must be strange to take so much
                                            joy in the death of another human
                                            being. One that did not even do
                                            anything to you personally.
                                            \_ No it mustn't. Justice is good.
                                               \_ Last I checked, eye for an
                                                  eye is a crappy basis for
                                                  justice.
                                               \_ I can understand a sort of
                                                  grim satisfaction, but so
                                                  much overwhelming joy.
                                                  \_ Well I'm a different
                                                     poster and I wouldn't
                                                     call it joy. I think the
                                                     pp's mocking doesn't
                                                     necessarily == joy either,
                                                     he just doesn't care about
                                                     it enough to not joke.
                                                     Personally I know very
                                                     little about this guy but
                                                     he doesn't seem worth
                                                     caring about. Their
                                                     strategy was to turn his
                                                     case into a political
                                                     hurdle for the Gov.
                 \_ In fact he loves animals so much that he called the three
                    victims he killed "three oriental pigs".
        \_ You know, in an abstract way I am opposed to executions, but I don't
           think there's any reason to get especially incensed about this
           execution.  Becoming a cause celebre should not get you special
           treatment under the law.
           \_ I agree.  I am not especially incensed, but I am generally pissed
              off whenever someone is executed and there is some doubt that
              the guy did it or not.
              \_ What doubt was that in this case?  Have you read anything
                 that doesn't have an agenda?  The SF Comical is definitely
                 agenda territory.
                 \_ The idea that the SF Chronicle is a left-wing paper
                    is so completely out of touch with reality and history
                    that there's really no way to respond to it.  -tom
                 \_ SF Comical on Tookie:
                    http://csua.org/u/ea4
                    Not everything in the world fits into your little boxes.
                 \_ I read the DA's summary of events, and I read Ah-nold's
                    3-5 page statement.
                    3-5 page statement.  I'll give 12 jurors thought it
                    enough to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but to me there
                    remains doubts.
2005/12/9-11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40943 Activity:moderate
12/9    Hey, I'm looking at Tookie's case right now, and it really looks like
        he's being convicted of circumstantial evidence -- and where there are
        witnesses who said he did it, they're all bad people as well and/or who
        are in a position to get something out of testifying against Tookie.
        Tookie had been a thug at the very least, but like I said:  on the
        murder convictions, circumstantial, and questionable witnesses.
        I know that's the way Americans like it -- you can be convicted and
        executed based on circumstantial evidence if a jury makes the
        conclusion that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
        The crimes themselves are heinous:  Shotgun blasts to a guy lying face-
        down on the floor, and one- and two-shot blasts to two defenseless
        elderly folks and their daughter.
        \_ but he wrote children's books and found jesus on death row!  Free
                                   \_ Which no one has read!
                                      \_ You wouldn't read Tookie's books to
                                         your kids (assuming you had any)?
                                         Why do you hate Tookie?  Free Tookie!
           tookie!  tookie for the nobel peace prize!  nominated 5 times
           already, maybe this is his year!
           \_ that doesn't matter.  this American thinks it's fine to lock him
              up forever no matter how much good he does, but it's not fine to
              execute him if it's a circumstantial case.
              \_ what good has he done?
                 \_ some people say he's a different person and he writes kids
                    books, but I think that hardly is enough for letting him go
                    free based on the evidence provided.  like I said, lock him
                    up forever.
                    \_ some people?  you forget he found jesus on death row and
                       writes children's books and is a 5 time nobel peace
                       prize nominee!  free tookie!
        \_ "Tookie is a very bad man" sounds like you're admonishing your cat.
           "No you can't have my chicken pot pie!  That'a bad Mr. Tookie!"
           \_ MEOW!
           \_ post updated.
        \_ It's very frequent that there is no direct physical evidence, but
           circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming.
           \_ I've seen CSI!  If the glove don't.. oh wait... nevermind.
           \_ I'd by happier if it was "death = no doubt", and "life
              imprisonment = beyond a reasonable doubt".  yeah, this means I
              think you can be executed based on circumstantial, as long as
              there is "no doubt" he did it all -- yeah, you leave it up to the
              jurors to decide what "no doubt" means (but you're already
              leaving it up to them to decide what "reasonable doubt" means,
              which is a tougher concept)
           \_ overwhelming enough to make one certain! ... but not as "a matter
              of fact".  anyway, that's the system, and people like it that
              way.
              \_ the standard isn't "certain".  it is "beyond a reasonable"
                 doubt.  feel free to change the entire justice system to one
                 of "certainty" if you'd like.  it'll suck to be a civilian
                 but at least the jails won't be full anymore.
                 \_ http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/anthrax/8482.html
              \- what i think is sad is that people like aldridge ames,
                 robert hanssen, eric rudolf etc have managed to cook up
                 deals to avoid the death penalty. the lesson we learn from
                 the eric rudolf case is "hide a bunch of explosive in the
                 hills before you go on your killing spree so you have
                 something to tradeto have the death penalty taken off the
                 table." i think arguably that is a reasonable use of
                 torture. --psb
              \_ sorry guys, I was being stupid.  I deleted this post but
                 someone restored it for some reason.  New one below:
              \_ sorry guys, but that post was flawed.  stop responding to
              \_ sorry guys, but this post is flawed.  stop responding to
              \_ sorry guys, I was being stupid.  stop responding to
                 it.  I deleted it and someone restored the post for some
                 reason.  New one below (which I wrote before noticing any
                 of the responses):
                 reason.  New one below:
           \_ I'd by happier if it was "death = no doubt", and "life
              imprisonment = beyond a reasonable doubt".  yeah, this means I
              think you can be executed based on circumstantial, as long as
              there is "no doubt" he did it all -- yeah, you leave it up to the
              jurors to decide what "no doubt" means (but you're already
              leaving it up to them to decide what "reasonable doubt" means,
              which is a tougher concept)
              Also, to address what another person wrote, I support "beyond
              a reasonable doubt" on convictions, but "no doubt" on capital
              punishment.  The only thing you change is the sentencing part
              for capital crimes, not "the entire justice system"; you are
              still convicted on "beyond a reasonable doubt".
        \_ how could you execute a man with such soft lips?
           \_ MEOW!  FREE TOOKIE!
2005/12/6-7 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court] UID:40890 Activity:nil
12/6    Law's Quandary Reviewed by Antonin Scalia
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535100/posts
2005/12/1-4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40803 Activity:nil
12/1    The lies about "Tookie".
        http://csua.org/u/e4y (Debra J. Saunders)
2005/11/18-19 [Reference/Law/Court, Recreation/Media] UID:40643 Activity:kinda low
11/18  "Tom cruise won't come out of the closet!"
        \_ How long before Scientoligy takes Trey and Matt to court?
           \_ WWXD?
              \_ Don't you mean WWLRHD?
                 \_ I work for the loyal opposition.
        \_ The end credits were great.
        \_ Link?
           \_ ???
           \_ http://cnn.com has a 3 minute video blurb about this weeks episode.
              \_ episode of what?
                 \_ South park, duh. Sadly probably the best political/social
                    commentary on TV today.
        \_ My DVR cut out the end.  What happened in the last two minutes
           of that episode?
           \_ Basically kyle or stan or whoever it was said scientology was
              a big scam then all the scientologists said they were gonna
              sue stan or kyle or whichever one it was for bad mouthing
              scientology then the credits ran and everyone in the credits
              were jan smith or john smith.
              \_ thanks.  it might be john smith - Mormons.  Did the
                 three celebreties get out of the closet?
                 \_ It was John and Jane Smith as a joke, so the scientologists
                    don't know who to sue.
                 \_ Um, the LDS founder was Joseph Smith, not John Smith.
                    -emarkp
        \_ Was the whole part about "This is what Scientologists actually
           believe" really what they believe?
           \_ Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
2005/11/11-13 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40546 Activity:kinda low
11/11   Make sure not to get caught in the subway train doors (work safe)
        http://csua.org/u/dzm (latimes.com)
           \_ something similar happened to a friend in nyc. her bag got
              caught in the door w/ her arm in it. she got her arm out
              but the bag kept going. some nice person at the next station
              grabbed it and waited for her. someone told MTA authority
              about it and "they did an investigation". dont think anything
              ever came of it ... she didnt bother to try and sue.
              definitely conductor negligence though
        \_ Gee.  I'll make sure I pick up my son from the stroller first when
           we board a train next time.
        \_ That woman in dark dress was a hero.  And she's fast too.
        \_ In America this would be instant lawsuit.
           \_ In Hong Kong this would be lawsuit too, since it's not equipment
              failure but train operator negligence.  The operation is supposed
              to look at the CCTV outside the train to make sure nobody gets
              caught by the doors before he starts the train.  Don't know about
              in Korea.
           \_ something similar happened to a friend in nyc. her bag got
              caught in the door w/ her arm in it. she got her arm out
              but the bag kept going. some nice person at the next station
              grabbed it and waited for her. someone told MTA authority
              about it and "they did an investigation". dont think anything
              ever came of it ... she didnt bother to try and sue.
              definitely conductor negligence though
        \_ Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the mother would
           just let the kid drop on the floor while trying to wrestle the
           stroller off the train door?
           \_ watch the video again
           \_ I think the audio said she was caught by the stroller.
              \_ Thanks :)  No sound card on my work PC.
2005/10/26-28 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:40282 Activity:high
10/26   Grand jury composition:
        "Like the jury's forewoman, the majority are African American women
        who appear to be middle-age or older. The jury includes at least two
        black men, two older white women and three white men. One trim,
        agile retiree with white hair often entered the grand jury room with
        his bicycle helmet in hand."
        ROVE, LIBBY == FUCKED
        \_ Why do you think the jury composition completely determines outcome?
           -emarkp
                \- well teh grand jury is not the same as a jury in a criminal
                   trial, but for the latter, havent you heard of the
                   Twinkie Defense ... do you know the history behind it?
                   \_ The Twinkie Defense is an urban legend.
                      \_ How so? I might call the term "Twinkie Defense" an
                         exaggeration but the testimony is public record, I
                         would think. -- ulysses
                         \_ http://www.snopes.com
                            \_ Thanks. That was a good read. I basically have
                               no problem with it except one thing - do juries
                               necessarily ignore parenthetical remarks?
                               \- ok fair point. my point was really jury
                                  consultants are used in high $ high profile
                                  cases for a reason. "old school" jury
                                  selection was sort of bogus [people who
                                  cross their arms are stern, pro-prosecution
                                  types] but "scientific" jury selection
                                  really can help you tailor your challeges
                                  to get a pool that will more much more
                                  inclined to buy various claims a "random
                                  selection" or peers would not. the dan white
                                  case was one of the cases that put jury
                                  consultancy on the map. and more generally
                                  there is certainly forum shopping both for
                                  legal rules but also jury composition.
                                  consultancy on the map.
                   \_ FYI, the "twinkie defense" would not be possible
                      today b/c ca has abolished both diminished capacity
                      and the ability of experts witnesses to testify re
                      the mental state of a defendant at the time he com-
                      mitted the crime (Cal. Penal Code Sec 29).
           \_ because they're guilty as fuck, so they'd only have a chance with
              Texas republican rednecks.  -tom
        \_ The grand jury is utilized only for indictments. Just because you
           are indicted doesn't mean you are guilty.
2005/9/29-10/3 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39925 Activity:nil
9/29    I was rearended by someone, his insurance company admitted guilt
        and is going to pay, but now he wants to sue me in small claims.
        What can I do to make him go away?
        \_ Show up in court and ask for a directed verdict because the
           OP doesn't have a prima facia case.
        \_ Tell him you'll countersue for your lost wages, emotional
           distress, court fees, and the wear and tear on your vcr because
           you had to tape a few shows because you were wasting time on his
           nonsense.  If you're in school tell him you're suing for lost
           future potential because you lost study time.
        \_ countersue
           \_ For malicious prosecution?
                \_ for the pain in your back and neck..
        \_ inform your insurance company.
           \_ they know, and said they can't go with me to small claims.
              \_ AAA?
                 \_ Nope USAA.  I think the reason why is that I'm supposed
                    to represent myself in small claims.  Don't know though.
                    \_ This happened to me as well (also a USAA customer).
                       If he takes you to small claims court, you must
                       represent yourself, but USAA will help you prepare
                       your case. In my case, he threatened small claims but
                       never went through with it. When he called me at home,
                       I informed him that all communication must occur through
                       USAA  (as instructed by my agent); never heard from him
                       again. As noted below, a police report with his guilt
                       is invaluable. Email me if you have any further qs.
                       --erikred
        \_ Sue you for what?
           \_ too hot and too sexy, he was asking for a rear-ender
           \_ I think most of the answer is that he is a retired attorney
              with problems controlling his temper, but officially for
              his insurance deductible, and the increased cost of insurance.
              \_ Uh, what?  How does that work?  That's like suing the person
                 you robbed for lost wages for the time you spend in prison.
                 \_ Maybe the other driver is betting that the OP doesn't show
                    up, which means the other driver wins the claim by default.
                    If the OP shows up, the other driver has nothing to lose,
                    I think.
                    \_ Can't the op sue for "you wasted my time, jerk."
              \_ Tell him you will see him in court.
        \_ Get a copy of the police report. Ask your insurance people for
           a copy of the paperwork from rearender's insurance admitting guilt.
           \- i think you need to decide if you would like for this to go away
              or go to court and win and then potentially smack him down for
              the frivolous proceeding. however the second plan does open up
              some risk of get a crazy judge/mediator who decides to split
              teh difference for some reason ... also it is probably a stress-
              ful process. but it will proably generate more hassle for him.
              after you win, send him a thank you note and antagonize him more.
2005/9/16-17 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39716 Activity:moderate
9/16    Hmong hunter convicted after 3 hours of deliberations by all-white jury
        http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/archive/local_22619727.shtml
        \_ It's Wisconsin.  Of course it's an all-white jury.
        \_ Saying your victims deserved to die won't earn you any sympathy.
           And he basically admitted shooting an unarmed girl for inscrutable
           reasons.
           http://www.startribune.com/stories/467/5616664.html
           \_ Well I applaud Vang. I have this secret wish that someone
              like Vang the hero would kill off all fucking whitie KKK bigots
              in the midwest. I support Vang for killing Crotteau, I hope he
              rotts in hell. However I feel bad for the 2 other innocent
              whities.
              \- does anybody have a Vang Barrel?
              \_ bad troll!  no cookie!
        \_ You mean, "Admitted mass murderer convicted after telling jury his
           unarmed victims deserved to die for making him feel bad after he
           trespassed on their land carrying a firearm".
2005/9/8-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39567 Activity:low
9/8     http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5260715,00.html
        I would have real trouble being an objective juror in this case.
        Would you be able to be a good juror?  --PeterM
        \- YMWT read about "jury nullification".
        \_ I can't say that I'll be more bothered by this than any other
           murder case.  The murder victoms had served their sentences.
           I don't think there is any suspicion that they've become criminals
           again, and, even then, that should be dealt with by the police
           and not some vigilante.  There are other, more correct solutions
           if the child molesters' original sentences were too short or if
           law enforcement were too slow to respond to their current crimes.
           \_ Actually, both offenders were so-called "Level 3" sex offenders,
              characterized as 'those most likely to commit more crimes'.  Yes,
              they had served their sentences, but according to the penal
              system, these guys were likely to do it again, and weren't
              'rehabilitated'.  There's a very good chance that this vigilante
              saved a couple of kids from being raped and/or murdered.  --PM
              \_ You think it's appropriate for some random guy to look
                 up convicted criminals in crimes that had no relation to him,
                 show up at their door and shoot them?  Including a 68-year-old
                 guy whose offenses were 15 years ago?  -tom
                 \_ Appropriate?  No.  This vigilante is obviously guilty of
                    something.  I think I'd have a hard time convicting him
                    of full 1st degree premeditated murder, however.  --PM
                    \_ What else would looking up a stranger's name in a
                       database, going to their house with a gun and shooting
                       them constitute?  -tom
                    \_ either he did it or he didn't.  Maybe the circumstances
                       may come into play during sentencing, but if he did it,
                       he did it.
                    \_ Why, do you know there's no Minority Report?
              \_ That you are likely to do something does not mean that you
                 will do something.  We punish people for what they do, not
                 what they will likely do.  And even if the child molesters
                 were guilty of some new crime, it would be the court system's
                 place to determine guilt and punishment, not the killer's.  I
                 would likely be open to the argument that child molesters'
                 original sentences should have been longer and that they
                 should not have been released from prison.  But once they are
                 released, they not be punished further for their old crimes,
                 and they have done nothing to warrant being killed.
                 \_ Exceptions to this are conspiracy charges and DUI.
                    Both assume you will do something, but you have yet to
                    actually do it.
2005/9/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39518 Activity:nil
9/6     I filed a small claims, and upon receiving the small claims, the
        asshole^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDefendant decided to give me a full refund
        today. However my court date is next Monday. How do I cancel my
        small claims? Thanks.
        \_ Make sure the check/payment clears. If there is doubt, call the
           court and ask to have your case postponed (reason: possible
           settlement). If it does clear and everything is okay, call the
           court and let them know you settled out of court.
           \- if you have incurred significant extra costs, you can
              ask for those too. if you have done all your prep and you
              can get him on the phone, you might say "you need to pay me
              $X extra in costs otherwise see you on monday" ... if he doesnt
              show up you should get a judgment against him. at his point
              detail matters ... is it a business or somebody judgment proof,
              are we talking $20 or $500 etc.
        \_ Hello, I'm the op. If you want more info, here:
           http://csua.com/?entry=33294 2004-09-02
           http://csua.com/?entry=39006 2005-08-04
           I wrote several letters and even complained on BBB but nothing
           worked. The manager was a dick, and kept saying "refund denied."
           Then when I filed for Small Claims they did a 180. They had some
           other guy giving me a lengthy apology apologizing. They gave me
           a full refund with 2 free nights at Holiday Inn Express. I learned
           my lesson: talking and complaining is a waste of time. Just sue
           the SOB.
           \_ Two letters and two phone calls should be the base. I find SCC
              better as a last resort. Postpone your court date, make sure
              the check clears, then call the court up to say they settled.
              Congrats. Victory is yours!
           \- i dont think your "lesson" is correct for two reasons:
              1. i think many many cases can be resolved by a complaint
                 letter. you might have to make some compromises but it
                 will take a lot less of your time and you can "move on"
                 without it hanging over your head. in fact there is some
                 chance if it is a company that has long/repeat customer
                 relationships, they will throw yo a bone. obviously you have
                 to normally keep sane and cant ask for the person who pissed
                 you off to be asked to lick your ball or somesuch.
              2. if it goes to court, IT WILL LOOK BAD if you didnt attempt
                 to settle. a big part of the court system are practical
                 issues designed to bring trials to an end and a specific
                 conclusion and not to end up in jardyce v. jarndyce land.
               3. certainly a case against a sole proprietor who is being
                  unreasoanble and who has already lost your business is a
                  different matter than a large corporation where there is
                  an appeal chain.
                  \- BTW, i suspect what is useless is the BBB
                     \_ The BBB has gotten me action in three cases
                        where complaint letters did not. -ausman
2005/8/27-29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39307 Activity:nil
8/27    How's this for a frivilous lawsuit?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/ap_on_re_us/creationism_lawsuit
        \_ i still want credit for the 5 on my AP Christianity test
2005/8/18-19 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/RealEstate] UID:39172 Activity:low
8/18    A refrigerator box under the bridge: The
        Kelo Seven prepares for the worst
        http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
        \_ It's not chutzpah, but it's a definite case of sore winners.
2005/8/4-6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:39006 Activity:nil
8/4     http://csua.com/?entry=33294
        Hello I'm the guy who tried everything to get my money back
        from Holiday Inn where they charged me $140 even though I
        returned the cardkey within an hour. I filed small claims
        2 months ago and the court date is 9-12-2005. Today, I just
        got a call from Holiday Inn asking me to call them back.
        The guy told me he needs more information. Should I bother?
        \_ Is your time worthless? Hell yeah call them back. If they
           give you your $140 (or more) you've saved yourself a lot of trouble.
           One thing they always ask you in court is if you tried to
           settle out of court first.
2005/7/19 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38703 Activity:high
7/19    Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
        http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
        \_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
           tonight at 9pm EDT!
           \_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
              a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
              sensitive and confidential.
              \_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
                 be fired? Look!  Over there!  A supreme court nomination!
                 \_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
                    (was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
                    should be fired"?
                    \_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
              \_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
                 they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
                 say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
                 reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
                 wife the CIA agent" to him.
                 \_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
                    \_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
                       on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
                       investigating this.
                       \_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
                          reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
                          can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
                          \_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
                             lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
                             believe R. Kelly is guilty.
                             \_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
                                wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
                                legally guilty.  I am a fan of fairness and
                                logic, and I try to point out claims that are
                                unsupported by fact.  -pp
                             \_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
                                would you accept that?
                                \_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180?  What is
                                   he hiding?
                                   \_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
                                      \_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
                          \_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
                             "a plausible theory".
                             I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
                             Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
                             It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
                             likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
                             collect on any bets.
                             \_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
                                sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
                                but really isn't.
                                \_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
                                   probably shouldn't be disclosed to
                                   unauthorized individuals".
                                   \_ If you mean "classified", which has a
                                      clear legal definition, use that.  It
                                      sounds like you're trying to carve out
                                      a category of information that occupies
                                      the space between legal and illegal to
                                      disclose.
                                      \_ Actually, I'm just using the words
                                         in the article.  I'd be hesitant
                                         to bet on "classified" though.
                                         To a layperson, "sensitive and
                                         probably shouldn't be disclosed
                                         to unauthorized individuals" has a
                                         very clear meaning -- and I could
                                         bet on that.
                                         \_ Bush I probably thought the fact
                                            that he didn't like brocoli was
                                            "sensitive" and shouldn't be
                                            disclosed to the public.  And I
                                            will repeat my claim that you are
                                            trying to carve out a space between
                                            what is legal and illegal to
                                            disclose.
                                            \_ Yes I am carving out a space
                                               between what is legal and
                                               illegal, but what is my
                                               purpose in doing that?
                                               It is what I would be willing
                                               to "bet" on, rather than
                                               legal criteria for putting
                                               him in jail.
                                               \_ I think it's because you
                                                  suspect Rove won't be found
                                                  legally guilty but you're
                                                  not willing to let him off
                                                  the hook, so you're trying
                                                  to invent a standard whereby
                                                  he is guilty even when he
                                                  is not.
                                                  \_ /Everyone/ suspects that
                                                     Rove won't be found
                                                     legally guilty.
                                                     Listen, all I wrote was
                                                     that I would put money on
                                                     the fact that Rove and
                                                     Libby knew Plame's
                                                     identity was sensitive and
                                                     probably shouldn't be
                                                     disclosed to unauthorized
                                                     individuals.  I also
                                                     acknowledge that Rove
                                                     probably won't be
                                                     convicted.  I also
                                                     acknowledge that the terms
                                                     I would bet on probably
                                                     don't meet the legal
                                                     requirements for
                                                     conviction.
                                                     So what's the big whoop?
                                                     \_ Nothing at all.  But I
                                                        am encouraged to see
                                                        you admit that Rove's
                                                        action "probably don't
                                                        meet the legal
                                                        requirements for
                                                        conviction."
                                                        \_ "Admit" is not the
                                                           right word.
                                                           I always had the
                                                           distinction between
                                                           what I wrote and
                                                           legal requirements
                                                           in mind, and I
                                                           don't see how
                                                           I implied I wasn't
                                                           aware of the
                                                           distinction.
                                         For legal purposes, "classified" has
                                         a very clear meaning as you pointed
                                         out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
                                         Libby knowing it was "classified".
                                         I'm definitely not betting on whether
                                         Rove will be convicted or not, but
                                         the smart money of course would be
                                         on no conviction.
                                         \_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
                                            ultimately exonerates Rove, would
                                            you accept that?
                                            \_ If by exonerate you mean "not
                                               convicted of breaking the law",
                                               I'm not sure I would be happy.
                                               If by exonerate you mean
                                               convincingly shown that Rove
                                               behaved ethically, then I would
                                               accept that.
                                               But what I said above is all
                                               very obvious, I think.
                                               \_ Does "not sure I would be
                                                  happy" mean that you do not
                                                  accept Rove was innocent,
                                                  despite Fitzgerald to the
                                                  contrary?
                                                  \_ Look, O.J. was found "not
                                                     guilty" / "innocent" of
                                                     killing his wife.
                                                     Do you accept that?
                                                     \_ BTW, I take it that
                                                        you will not accept
                                                        Fitzgerald's conclusion
                                                        if it is counter to
                                                        your position.  Who has
                                                        the closed mind here?
                                                        \_ How do you translate
                                                           "I may not be
                                                           happy" to I "will
                                                           not accept F.'s
                                                           conclusion if it
                                                           is counter to [my]
                                                           position"?
                                                           \_ I asked the
                                                              question, and I
                                                              took your silence
                                                              as acquiescence.
                                                              Mea culpa.  Will
                                                              you accept Rove's
                                                              exoneration?
                                                              \_ See oddly
                                                                 shaped
                                                                 post [below].
                                                     \_ Nope.  But then I am
                                                        not trying to invent
                                                        a standard by which
                                                        OJ could be punished
                                                        despite his legal
                                                        innocence.
                                                        \_ Where did I EVER
                                                           say Rove should
                                                           be punished under
                                                           my criteria?
                                                           \_ So if Rove were
                                                              exonerated, you
                                                              would not clamor
                                                              for his removal?
                /--------------------------------------------/
                If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
                behaved ethically, I would accept that.
                \_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald?  So you're still
                   saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
                   him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
                   want to see him removed?  And that is not "punished despit
                   his legal innocence" in what sense?
                   \_ What does convicingly mean when used without
                      qualifiers?  It means convincing to an informed observer
                      who can be persuaded both ways.
                      This thread has deviated way off course.
                      You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
                      thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
                      as being factually true (but probably never practically
                      verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
                      my political beliefs.
                      Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
                      UNENDINGLY.
                      \_ I think your politics are abundantly clear.  The
                         question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
                         if he is found legally innocent?
                         \_ It depends on who you ask.
                            I'm too tired to answer myself.
                            \_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again?  If
                               you've made up your mind, admit that.  Being
                               intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
                               having a closed mind.
                               \_ Oh god, I've been trolled.  Fuck you troller.
                                  If you were an innocent motd poster, I
                                  apologize.
                                  \_ Hardly.  You have been shown to be a
                                     charlatan though.
                                     \_ <roll eyes>
                                        Who are you dude?
                                        I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
                                        \_ But apparently you're not willing
                                           to answer the question whether Rove
                                           should be punished depite his legal
                                           innocence, but that might cause you
                                           to contradict yourself again.
                                           \_ I would like to know that I am
                                              not being trolled.  Please
                                              identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
                                              \_ Heh.  Show a little
                                                 intellectual honesty.  It's
                                                 not like we'd be surprised by
                                                 your answer.
                                                 \_ Okay, anonymous dude:
                                                    You see contradictions
                                                    where I do not.
                                                    You see intellectual
                                                    dishonesty where I do not.
                                                    Your jump to these two
                                                    claims are indicative of a
                                                    troll, though not proof.
                                                    You've been called out, and
                                                    you have not come out to
                                                    back up what you've
                                                    written. -jctwu
                                                    \_ Re "sensitive": carve
                                                       out space between legal
                                                       and illegal?  "Actually,
                                                       I am just using the
                                                       words in the article".
                                                       Well, later, "I am
                                                       carving out a space"
                                                       after all.
                                                       \_ Both facts are
                                                          true at the same time
                                                          \_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
                                                             \_ same to you,
                                                                buddy
                                                       Will you accept F's
                                                       judgement?  "How do you
                                                       translate [not happy] to
                                                       [will not accept]?"
                                                       As it turns out, you
                                                       want Rove to be
                                                       convincingly ethical.
                                                       To whom?  F?  Well, not
                                                       F after all, but an
                                                       informed observer.  So
                                                       you don't accept F's
                                                       judgement.  How about
                                                       \_ This is a jump in
                                                          logic
                                                       punishing Rove?  "Where
                                                       did I EVER say Rove
                                                       should be punished
                                                       under my criteria?"  So
                                                       would clamor for his
                                                       removal?  Or are you
                                                       going to contradict
                                                       yourself again?
                                \_ Non-sophisticated:
                                   What are you talking about?
                                   Faux sophistication / aloofness:
                                   "Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
                                   meaning but for some reason really isn't
                                   here.
                                                       \_ troll! or coward!
                                                          one or both may
                                                          be true.
2005/7/7-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38473 Activity:nil
7/7     Can someone with some more legal experience clue me in to why
        Berkeley theatres aren't open to anti-trust violations?  They
        actively try not to compete.  This is in my mind today because
        I intended to go see "Fantastic Four" tommorow, but it is not playing
        in any of the 6(?) local theatres.  The closest is like 20 blocks
        north.  -mrauser
        \_ Oh no, you might have to go all the way to OAKLAND
        \_ I like this quote from a "positive" review: "It's not great but it's
           not utter crap either." Which leaves room for being mostly crap.
           People should be more selective and not support shitty films.
           \_ I appreciate the extent to which you both have not answered
              my question at all.  And as for it being crap, I'm not supporting
              a shitty film, but a hot actress.  I still think there is
                                   \_ Mr. & Mrs Smith!  -John
                                      \_ Ug.  Miss Worm lips really turns
                                         me off.
              something very wrong about how berkeley theatres decide to show
              or not show movies. -mrauser
                 \- the answer to your question is indeed "drive to oakland".
                    you dont understand the basis of anti-trust. i dont think
                    "the motd" needs to give you a lecture on the framework.
                    years ago a roll of kodak film was $8.50 at the top of
                    the empire state bldg. the vendor there indeed had a
                    local monopoly. but clearly there was no public policy
                    reason to bring anti-trust action agaisnt him. a more
                    interesting challege might be to the "no bringing in your
                    own food" for ballparks [?] and movie theaters.
                    the FF movie might not have been offered to one of the
                    ass theaters in berkeley. --psb
              \_ Why don't you get the city to flex their ED might to put in
                 a 30 screen multiplex?  Seriously, just take the BART to
                 Eville.
        \_ Anti-trust has been gutted by 2 decades of neglect.
           \_ Dear vladimir, dear comrade, why do you hate Capitalism?
2005/6/23-25 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38272 Activity:nil
6/23    Thought you won 100 grand but got a Nestle 100 Grand Bar instead?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candy_bar_lawsuit
        I wonder if she is related to the women who filed the Toyota
        Toy Yoda lawsuit:
        http://www.sptimes.com/News/072801/State/Dream_car_is_a__toy_Y.shtml
        \_ So who is right in the eye of the court? The radio station that
           deceived the woman, or the woman too stupid and gullible?
2005/6/21-23 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38227 Activity:nil
6/21    Regarding the Killen trial.  He was tried in the 60s and the jury
        deadlocked (11 for and 1 against conviction).   How come we can
        try him again?  Is it because there are new evidence?
        \_ Was it declared a mistrial for the hung jury?  If so, there's no
           statute of limitation on murder.  The plaintiff can refile. IANAL
2005/6/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38174 Activity:nil
6/17    Okay, wait, lemme see if I got this straight.  A lesbian couple in
        Vermont gets a civil union.  Later, they get a divorce.  An entirely
        unrelated heterosexual married couple in Iowa then SUES the couple for
        harming their marriage?  HUH?  Have we entered BIZARRO-WORLD?!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_re_us/lesbian_divorce
        \_ I read this and didn't see a single mention of vermont. Granted,
           it's still a retarded case and thus a funny article.
           \_ "[...] The two were joined in March 2002 in Bolton, Vt.,
              according to Brown's divorce petition."
        \_ Welcome to the country of lawsuits.
2005/6/13-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:38109 Activity:nil
6/13    So MJ is not guilty on all counts.  Pedophiles rejoice!
        \_ Idiot.  Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was not proved.  The
           verdict was correct.  This is how the justice system works in
           this country, if you can afford a decent lawyer that is.
           \_ Hey, just remember if you're going to get kids drunk and yank
              their wang, be sure to make sure there aren't any (well, very
              many) witnesses!
              \_ And if you're a witness, remember to go to the police instead
                 of the tabloids!  Oh wait, they all went to the tabloids
                 first.
                 \_ Um, no they went to the police first.
                        \_ Actually I think they all sued him first for various
                           bogus reasons.
                           \_ No, that was the particularly interesting thing.
                              They DIDN'T try to sue him first.
                                \_ Wrong, almost every witness against him is
                                   /was involved in some lawsuit, unrelated
                                   to molestation (pay dispute, etc.) against
                                   MJ.
           \_ More so if you can afford a decent laywer *and* you're black,
              like OJ Simpson.  (Doesn't apply if you only are black but
              can't afford a decent laywer.)
              \_ Yeah, Black people get off way too easy in this
                 country.
                 \_ No.  Rich black people get off too easy by using poor
                    black people's misfortne in this country.
                    \_ Wow.  +5 Idiot/troll.
                    \_ I think a more accurate statement would be that
                       "Rich people get off too easy", regardless of
                       creed.
                        \_ An entirely different way to look at it is that
                           our justice system is just broken for poor people.
                                \_ Gee just like everything else in life!
              \_ MJ is white, you moron.
                 \_ This just goes to show that white women always get off
                    easy.
                    \_ I thought they are lucky to get off at all.
        \_ Hooray for Cal grads http://www.cmrylaw.com/frame_Yu.html
           </troll>
2005/6/11-13 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:38088 Activity:nil
6/10    For the fellow who bought the bad ram a week or two ago and was
        bitching or moaning about how it had an "as is" disclaimer
        on it buried somewhere on the product description on ebay,
        you can still take the guy to court on the basis that the
        disclaimer was not conspicious.
        \_ Just contact EBay complaint resolution service. Much cheaper
           than a lawsuit and just as likely to get you satisfaction.
2005/6/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37979 Activity:nil
6/6     Looks like you can't refuse a feeding tube if you want to.
        http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297397_fast03m.html
        \_ The article describes it as a "hunger strike," but that isn't
           how I would describe it.  Usually you would have to be
           striking for something to call it a strike, not just staving
           yourself because you feel guilty.
                \_ You know the sep between church & state is alive and
                   well when the judge has "the sanctity of life" in his
                   ruling.  Why don't they just provide cyanide capsules
                   to prisoners -- think of the cost savings!
2005/6/3 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37952 Activity:nil
6/2     Don't know enough about watergate... why Mark Felt didn't
        go to Grand Jury instead?  What is the risk of going through
        the grand jury?
        \_ When your boss is involved in the incident...
        \_ Why be known as the whistleblower when reporters can do all the
           dirty work, get some credit as well, and it won't look like he
           did it just to screw Nixon.
           \- Do you know what the "saturday night massacre" refers to
              w.r.t. to watergate? also see united states v nixon. ok tnx.
              [btw, the two legacies of the SNM are BORK and STARR]
2005/5/15-16 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37695 Activity:kinda low
5/15    Interview with Intelligent Design leader Phillip Johnson:  Attended
        Harvard one year early, graduated first in class at Chicago law, and
        a Boalt professor emeritus - http://csua.org/u/c2t (Post)
        \_ Gee, I always get my biological science from lawyers.  -tom
           \_ Indeed, those do seem to be odd qualifications. -emarkp
        \_ Lawyers should stay out of science, scientists have always
           voluntarily stayed out of law.
           \_ munson@csua graduated cum laude in astrophysics, went to law
              school, worked as an attorney, and is going back to get his
              astrophysics doctorate.  So much for that theory :-)  -John
           \_ Lawyers and empirical scientists are both interested in
              causation (the former to determine responsibility, the latter
              to determine laws of nature).  The business of law and science
              is not that different.  -- ilyas
              \_ Lawyers are interested in winning, regardless of the
                 truth. Scientists are interested in winning too, but
                 at least the data has to stand up to empirical truth
                 \_ Some lawyers.  Just like there are some good politicans.
                 \_ You are thinking about litigators, most lawyers
                    don't litigate.  So far what I've learnt is that
                    being a lawyer is a lot like being an engineer,
                    you try to design solutions that will keep your
                    clients out of trouble and make thier lives
                    easier.
              \_ I think it's a matter of knowledge not principles.
2005/5/5 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:37530 Activity:high
5/5     Missed this one.  Canadian court says you don't have religious
        freedom:
        http://csua.org/u/byr
        \_ Hey whoever edited this:  reply, don't mangle my words.
        \_ It's just part of Canada's culture of life!
2005/5/3-4 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37462 Activity:nil
5/3     Is the blond lawyer on the right wearing flip-flops?
        http://tinyurl.com/b997c
        (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ How should I know?  I can only see her head.
        \_ What the hell are you talking about?  I went through all the
           pictures and didn't see anything related.
        \_ What's it too you? The law says there shall be no blond lawyer?
2005/4/18-20 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37249 Activity:high
4/18    Defender of Earth, Destroyer of Big Fat Ugly Hummer, sentenced to 8
        years. It's a sad sad day.
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/18/suv.vandalism.reut
        \_ 8 years? He should have gotten more! Get real. Destroying
           SUV does NOTHING to save the earth. Neutering people will,
           starting with people like you and him.
           \_ Yes sir! Damn the Yankee Rebels who threw our pretious tea
              into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her Majesty
              into Boston Bay. They all should be punished. All Hail Her
              Majesty
              \_ This stupid fool is on par w/ the patriots of the
                 Boston Tea Party? WOW. After years of being deprived
                 of their fundamental rights w/o representation the
                 patriots took to violent protest. This guy chose
                 violent protest as a FIRST resort. Show me how the
                 sovereign (ie US gov) has deprived this man of any
                 rights w/o representation.
                 \_ Do we get to vote out the Saudi prince, the sheik and the
                    ben ladens, who walks all over us?
                    \_ This has something to do w/ Hummers how? I hope
                       you realize that most of the crude does not end
                       up in the belly of a hummer.
        \_ I'm sure he'll become real familiar with Hummers while in jail.
        \_ I disagree with his message and certainly don't condone his method,
           but I am bothered by the hypocrisy behind it.  Years ago it caused
           an outrage when Singapore gave a mere 15 symbolic caning to an
           American playboy who damaged private cars for thrills and then let
           him walk.  Now a political act in the American tradition of Boston
           tea lands one in Sodom for 8+ years.  What's wrong with America?
           \_ Gee, spray painting is a different crime than arson; how
              hypocritical!  Moron.  -tom
              \_ 2 seditious aliens who fled did the arson; at least the
                 prosecution did not (bother to) prove otherwise.  Where does
                 your notion of justice go?  And how is arson better than
                 shipjacking and destruction of 45 tons of public property?
                 As for the insult, you are what you are.
                 \_ I think you need to do a little research about how any
                    sane or reasonable court system works.  It's not the
                    prosecution's job to prove the innocence of the guy
                    they have in custody...that's the defense's job.  The
                         \- not all countries use the adversarial system
                            used in the US. e.g. the german system is very
                            different. practically nobody else uses juries
                            any more. --psb
                            \_ True, but this divergence rather misses my
                               point.
                               \- in the case of some systems the judge
                                  is not passive but actively participates
                                  in establishing the "truth of the matter"
                                  including the guilt or innocence of the
                                  defendant. while that doesnt make it
                                  the prosecutions job, the state does
                                  play a role on his behalf. i'm just
                                  suggesting the "a reasonable ct system"
                                  is not code for "the us style adversarial
                                  system". BTW, martin shapiro's book
                                  courts is pretty interesting. well done
                                  "scientific study" in the social sceinces.
                    they have in custody...that's the defense's job.  The
                    prosecution's job is to put a malicious arsonist behind
                    bars.  *Of course* the defense is going to make the
                    claim that 'it was someone else that did it, my client
                    was innocent, blah blah etc'.  A jury didn't agree or
                    he chose to plea bargain.  I have very little sympathy
                    for an idiot that chooses to attack the property of his
                    fellow citizens because of an obscure and noncritical
                    political point (which, if you're really an educated
                    reader, should show up *at least* two major differences
                    from the Boston Tea Party).
                    \_ The accused is presumed to be innocent.  The prosecution
                       should prove beyond reasonable doubt that he took part
                       in the arson or has full knowledge in advance.  He is
                       guilty of spray-paint, but that doesn't mean he is
                       guilty of arson because he is a fool and cannot afford
                       a lawyer who can "prove" one's innocence.  Is your
                       freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or provided by a
                       lawyer for a hefty fee?
                       guilty of spray-paint, but convict him of arson just
                       because he is a fool and cannot afford a lawyer who can
                       "prove" one's innocence?  Is your freedom guaranteed by
                       the Constitution or provided by an expensive lawyer?
                       \_ What you've basically just said here is "I don't
                          agree with the verdict, so the whole justice system
                          must therefore be broken".  Uhm, yeah.  This
                          conversation has no future.
                       \_ A person need not be charged w/ commission of the
                          substantive crime in order to be found guilty of
                          it. Ex. the dude could have been charged w/
                          conspiracy to destroy property, which means the
                          people only have to show that he agreed to this
                          conspiracy and that someone else who agreed to
                          it committed the arson. Alt. he could be found
                          guilty on accomplice liability theories also.
                          The motivation for this type of liability is
                          obvious, society has an incentive to deter
                          these type of crimes to ensure everyone's safety
                          and welfare.
                          This is not about needing a "expensive lawyer",
                          this is about not being STUPID and committing
                          crimes.
                          Perhaps you forget, but every man who signed
                          the declaration (and many of those who dumped
                          tea into Boston Harbor) was a traitor to his
                          majesty and would have been hanged if caught.
                          Most lost their homes, businesses, assets, &c.
           \_ the american boy in spore only got 3 strokes of the cane.
              originally it was 6, but they reduced it to 3 after
              bill clinton pleaded for the boy.  He was 18 years old
              at that time.
              \-he was more of a bratty kid than "playboy" as suggested above
                but there are a number of interesting details ... in a new
                yorker kind of way ... to the story not mentioned here (like
                one of the cars painted belonged to a judge). YMWTGF "michael
                fay". an interesting double standard is women are not subject
                to caning in SIN. --psb, pro-beating
                \_ Yeah, I'll bet you're pro-beating.
                \_ I think I'd rather be caned 3 times than be raped and get
                   HIV in jail.
                   \_ Well, of course.  But comparing the Singaporian incident
                      and the corresponding sentence to the SUV guy...man,
                      it's comparing apples to oranges -- just in terms of
                      property damage *alone*.
                      \- a better comparison is to vandalizing protestors
                         like anti-nuke people, animal rights freaks etc.--psb
2005/4/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/Rants] UID:37114 Activity:moderate
4/7     Yay outsourcing!  Indian call center employees use customer banking
        information to steal $350,000.
        http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1070986,curpg-1.cms
        \_ I'm sure that would never happen in the U.S.  -tom
           \_ Yeah, but the money would be easier to recover.
              \_ In the Bay Area there was recently a couple of people who
                 worked for BofA who embezzled millions over the years.
                 They're going to jail, but $5 million is still unaccounted
                 for, and very little of the money was recovered.
  http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/15/BAG73BPFIJ1.DTL
                 http://tinyurl.com/69dq9 (sfgate.com)
                   -tom
                 \_ Any theft that goes 5 years undetected will be hard to
                    recover.  If they were busted after a month like the
                    Indians I bet most of the money would be found.
                    \_ Maybe if we'd outsourced to India they would have been
                       caught faster.  -tom
                        \_ are you actually pro-outsourcing or just poking
                           holes in her arguments?
                           \_ I am neutral on outsourcing; I think blaming
                              embezzlement on outsourcing is ridiculous.  -tom
                              \_ Not necessarily. Trusting sensitive data to
                                 a 3rd world country is a problematic concept
                                 \- apparetly it is also problematic to
                                    trust ucb.
                                 in itself. The above data point does not prove
                                 it either way, nor does your counterpoint,
                                 but your assertion is plainly just dumb.
                                 \_ There was a previous case where a local
                                    hospital outsourced their medical
                                    transcription to some company, who
                                    outsourced it to another company, who
                                    outsourced it to India, and then stopped
                                    paying their employees, who threatened the
                                    hospital with publicizing medical records
                                    unless she got paid.  While that could
                                    still happen in the US, there's *way* less
                                    recourse when the person is in another
                                    country with a different set of laws.
                                    \- two words: "union carbide"
                                       \_ While that's a local downside of
                                          outsourcing, they got to run the
                                          plant cheaply and with lax safety
                                          procedures, and then ended up paying
                                          way less in damages than if they
                                          had killed Americans.
                                          \- well ok more than two words:
                                             how do you think some indians
                                             feel about foreigners being
                                             outside the law. anybody have
                                             relatives in canada? what do
                                             they think about congressmen
                                             saying "we cant trust crazy
                                             unsafe canadian pharmaceuticals".
                                             \_ *cough*BEXTRA*cough*
2005/3/29-31 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:36949 Activity:nil
3/29    http://csua.org/u/bim (cnn.com)
        For some reason I think the Supreme Court would have let the decision
        from the appeals court stand, since the law on this is so obvious --
        but the Court is just hearing the case to help them research the latest
        iPods they could buy for themselves or something similarly stupid.
        \_ anyone have a Rio Karma? Recommended?
        \_ "There's never the intent to break the law when the guy is in the
           garage inventing the iPod," added Justice David Souter.
           Haha, that's funny, I don't think the ipod was invented in the
           garage, hahahaha.
        \_ The law is not obvious. It is not clear that Sony directly
           applies to this case for several reasons: (1) Sony dealt w/
           an actual product that could be used to violate copyrights,
           but could not be used for distribution, (2) Sony's revenue
           did not depend mostly on copyright infringment, while arguably
           Grokster's revenue does (they get there money from ads in the
           pgm), (3) Sony did not intend that the VCR be mostly used for
           infringing uses as Grokster arguably did, (4) the "substantial
           non-infrining uses" was borrowed from patent law by the Sony
           decision (which actually was the dissent after the 1st argument,
           and became the opinion after re-argument) and there isn't any
           clear direction from the USSC re this standard (given that only
           about 90% of Grokster's users use it for infringing uses, is
           it enough that 10% of the users are legit?)
           My understanding is that most of the questioning today was
           about aiding and abetting copyright infringing which would
           take this completely out of Sony territory.
2005/3/19 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36764 Activity:nil
3/18    How chaotic can Florida's (or America's) court system be? One
        \- Florida is a little different. See e.g.:
           http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
        court rules to keep the feeding tube in, and 10 minutes later
        another rules to remove it. Isn't there a hierarchy? It's already
        gone to the State Supreme Court; how can little florida courts
        keep overturning their decision?
        \_ The Senate Health Committee has subpoenaed her and her husband.  She
           can't do that if she's starving to death.
           \_ That is what I mean. This entire situation is quite chaotic.
              Which ridiculous congressman is subpoena'ing a woman in
              a persistent vegetative state? Is he trying to be symbolic?
              \_ Short answer, yes.  I'm sick of hearing about this case.  If
                 she told her husband that she wouldn't want extreme measures
                 to keep her alive, she probably also told her parents.  If
                 they're not respecting her wishes, it's out of selfishness.
                 I think left to their own devices they could have worked
                 it out.  But since we've apparently got nothing else for
                 Congress to do than steroids and this, it's ended up center
                 stage.
                 \_ Congress is going to do steroids and remove a feeding tube?
                    Awesome!
                 \_ Congress loves shit like this.  Keeps them from having to
                    deal with real problems.  I bet they'd have Michael Jackson
                    hearings too, if they thought that they could get away with
                    it.
2005/3/18-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36754 Activity:nil
x3/18   Can small claims be used to get judicial orders. I mean, say some
        company has some information that I believe I am legally entitled to
        but will not give me that information, can I sue them in small claims
        for it.  If not there, the what is my recourse?  It seems that small
        claims court is geared more towards "this person ows me money".
        \_ Original jurisdiction of small claims courts is usually limited
           to rewarding monetary damages. However, theoretically they could
           order this. Check with your local jurisdiction on the matter.
           If you really want to do this cheaply, I suppose what you can
           do is sue the company for something related to that information
           and then issue a subpoena for it. You can issue a subpoena
           after the OP has been served. What kind of information is
           it?
        \_ You can also request a Subpoena Duces Tecum through the Court
           Clerk. However, the OP may move to quash it and you have
           to show a valid reason for the Subpoena. If OP claims the
           information is priviliged and has no bearing on your case
           then it may be quashed. If the information falls under
           the statutory jurisdiction of a freedom of information act
           within your state or under federal law then the OP is
           compelled to produce the documents. If they fail to do so
           OP is in contempt and will be sanctioned as such.
           A SDC requires the following:
           1. shows good cause for the production of the records
              described in the subpoena
           2. specifies the exact records to be produced
           3. fully details the relevance of the records requested to the
              issues involved in the case
           4. States that the witness has the desired records in his/her
              possession or under his/her control
           OP can squash under 3 if it challenges your prima facia case.
           \_ I thought that you could only get a Subpoena Duces Tecum
              once the judge approves your discovery plan (haven't covered
              this yet in civ pro)
2005/3/18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36749 Activity:moderate
3/18    How chaotic can Florida's (or America's) court system be? One
        court rules to keep the feeding tube in, and 10 minutes later
        another rules to remove it. Isn't there a hierarchy? It's already
        gone to the State Supreme Court; how can little florida courts
        keep overturning their decision?
        \_ The Senate Health Committee has subpoenaed her and her husband.  She
           can't do that if she's starving to death.
           \_ That is what I mean. This entire situation is quite chaotic.
              Which ridiculous congressman is subpoena'ing a woman in
              a persistent vegetative state? Is he trying to be symbolic?
              \_ Short answer, yes.  I'm sick of hearing about this case.  If
                 she told her husband that she wouldn't want extreme measures
                 to keep her alive, she probably also told her parents.  If
                 they're not respecting her wishes, it's out of selfishness.
                 I think left to their own devices they could have worked
                 it out.  But since we've apparently got nothing else for
                 Congress to do than steroids and this, it's ended up center
                 stage.
                 \_ Congress is going to do steroids and remove a feeding tube?
                    Awesome!
                 \_ Congress loves shit like this.  Keeps them from having to
                    deal with real problems.  I bet they'd have Michael Jackson
                    hearings too, if they thought that they could get away with
                    it.
2005/3/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36734 Activity:kinda low
3/17    Is Peterson that stupid? Why doesn't he show some emotion to get
        the jury's sympathy? Is there a good reason for not showing
        any emotion?
        \_ And why is his lawyer also so stupid as not to tell him to fake some
           emotion?  I thought his laywer is a high-profile one.
           \_ Maybe he his lawyer knew he was guilty and wanted him to
              fucking get the death penalty so he could represent him through
              15 appeals.  --PM
              \_ But I thought that lawyer of his is more into fame than money.
                 And losing Peterson's initial trail brings no fame even though
                 all the appeals will bring lots of lawyer's fees.
                 \_ 1. A different lawyer will handle the appeals.
                    2. His attorney *is* famous just by handling the case,
                       win or lose.
           \_ Over a long period of time, nearly everyone can spot faked
              emotions. As for Peterson, who knows?
2005/3/12 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:36657 Activity:high
3/12    So when are they going to catch this guy?  From how it sounds, he took
        the Grand Theft Auto strategy and won't be killing himself; he sounds
        determined and focused, and wants to survive.
        Jury foreman: "He seemed like a pretty logical, intelligent, articulate
        person."
        Neighbor: "He walked around with no T-shirt, and didn't come off as a
        9-to-5 guy. Some of the women liked him, but I didn't trust him at all."
        http://CNN.com: He was accused of binding his ex-girlfriend -- an executive
        at a Fortune 500 company -- with duct tape and assaulting her over a
        three-day period last fall. ... Nichols had claimed the sex was
        consensual. His first trial began two weeks ago, but ended in a
        hung jury. ... Nichols' last known job was as a computer technician
        for a subsidiary of UPS.
        Prosecutor: "I really believe that this was a random situation. This is
        not a defendant who has demonstrated violence in the past. The violence
        in his past was specific to his victim."
        \_ Already have:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050312/2005-03-12T165131Z_01_N12307752_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-SHOOTING-ATLANTA-DC.html
           http://tinyurl.com/5zd3k (reuters.myway.com)
           \_ Yeah, I thought he would go to a friend's house.  He would have
              needed to have surfaced to buy food if he really slept in his
              car.  Guess he gave up.
2005/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36615 Activity:high
3/10    Hey ilyas, take your philosopher kings and blow 'em out your nose
        with a rubber hose!
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050310.shtml
        \_ Intelligently written, but horseshit.  Imagine a world where
           legislation is so thorough as to leave absolutely no gray areas?
           The fact that lawyers can exploit this is not a failure of the
           way our legal system works, but a failure of the way lawyers work.
           No matter how clever a restriction you put into place, you'll
           always find some smartass who'll take advantage of it.  -John
           \_ Then legislators can correct the problem.  That's not the role of
              a judge.
              \_ interpreting the law is exactly the role of the judicial
                 system.  -tom
                 \_ There is a huge difference btwn interpreting the law
                    and making it. No one objects to interpretations of
                    the law, but when judges base their decisions on the
                    current prevailing views (as Kennedy recently did)
                    the foundation upon which the law is based becomes
                    quite unstable.
                    The whole idea of separation of powers comes into
                    question if you allow judges to "interpret" the
                    legislative schemes to fit into their notion of how
                    the scheme should work (look at the reluctance of
                    the USSC to allow judges to fashion soln to the
                    asbestos mess)
                    WRT to the posted article the comparison of fixed
                    speed limits to no undue speed is a poor analogy.
                    In many cases the law needs to be flexible so that
                    various factual situations can be handled. Things
                    "undue" and "prudent" are not just arbitrary, they
                    have specific meanings that judges and lawyers
                    know and adhere to.
                    In many ways the flexibility of modern law is a
                    reaction to the common law writ system which had
                    specific (but arbitrary) requirements on what a
                    person must plead, &c. which forced people to
                    distort their facts to fit into one writ or the
                    the other.
              \_ Nowhere did I say "correct".  The law is deliberately
                 ambiguous in a lot of areas.  The EU has a famous statute
                 governing the curvature of bananas, as well as one about
                 the positioning of light fixtures--something like 600,000
                 pages of random shit that their legislators use to try and
                 regulate things they have no business with, which is what
                 legislators do given the opportunity.  This breeds a culture,
                 all too pervasive in a lot of countries, that everything not
                 explicitly permitted is forbidden--innovation and personal
                 accountability are stifled.  I am arguing against the
                 extremes that the approach taken by Sowell's article would
                 create implicitly.  That said, striking down laws judged to
                 violate the constitution (created by legislation) is a form
                 of "correction", no?  Would you ban that?  -John
           \_ In our system a lawyer has a duty to represent the best
              interests of his client. If the clients interests means
              that he has to be creative in his interpretation, then
              it is not really his fault, he is doing what is required
              of him.
2005/2/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:36379 Activity:high
2/23    So, the Supreme court is going to examine the Oregon euthanasia laws.
        170 people have used since it became legal in 1997 to end their lives
        prematurely, mostly cancer patients, who I assume were in horrendous
        pain or discomfort.  I can sympathize with the arguments of the
        prolifer, even if I don't agree.  I am totally baffled by the Bush
        administration's meddling with the Oregon law -- I thought Republicans
        were for states rights (or is that states rights only if we agree
        with those rights?).  This law is not being abused (20/year?),
        doctors are not "killing off their patients" -- Is the Bush
        administration in favor of suffering? Or is their religious zeal
        clouding their judgement?
        \_ The latter.  Suicide is a sin and this law opens the door to stuff
           like late-term abortions of severely abnormal fetuses.
           \_ "opens the door"?  Abortion is a legal choice (thankfully) for
              women with severely abnormal or terminally ill fetuses.  At least
              for now.  In my eyes, legally forcing someone and their loved ones
              to endure a painful illness that can only end in death is about
              as un-loving as you can get.
              \_ Bush and company want to live in a black-and-white world
                 with clear delineation of good and evil, no gray areas,
                 no exceptions, (and also little room for thought,
                 compassion, and mercy).
        \_ The bottom line is that doctors will help patients end their
           lives no matter what the law says.  Doctors have always helped
           their patients with this and they always will.
2005/2/10-11 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:36131 Activity:kinda low
2/10    Lokitorrent is dead.  Long live lokitorrent!
        \_ Do you have more info about the outcome of the lawsuit?  Did the
           court force them to put up the index.html page they now have at
           http://www.lokitorrent.com ?
           \_ I wonder when they'll go after bittorrent downloaders instead of
              sites.
           \_ http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=661
2005/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:36005 Activity:high
1/31    I got called for jury duty today. If I'm a student, what can I
        do to delay this summons? Thanks.
        \_ Most jury summons by mail will allow you to postpone your duty due
           to student obligations (school, etc).  Just set your postpone date
           to something after school is out for the semester and check the
           "student" box in the postponement section.  They even accepted a
           late postponement request from me (postmarked after the deadline)
           due to school obligations (they wanted me during finals).
           - jvarga
        \_ From what I understand you're not excused, but they'll take into
           account the fact that you're a student by assigning you a short
           (1-2 day) case if selected.  I'm not sure whether you can pick
           another day to show up.  The Orange and L.A. County web sites say
           full-time students can postpone jury duty to "school breaks".
        \_ As a teacher once told me. Write them and tell them that you
           can't come in during the stated times, but that you can make
           it up during a school break. Whatever happens, don't show up in
           person because once you do "they gotcha" (i.e., you may have to
           serve on a jury). Usually they are pretty reasonable with this
           kinda thing, they certainly don't want to arrest ppl for not
           showing up unless you are really trying to evade your civic
           duty.
        \_ Did you get the letter in the mail or were you notified that
           you would have to be available this week and were selected?
           If the former, you can get a letter from the dept saying
           that you are a full time student until may, which will get
           you out of service till summer.  If the latter, you will
           have to show up and tell them that you a full time student
           and would like to have your service postponed b/c of a mix
           up re dates for winter break.
        \_ or you can do what I do and just ignore it.
                \_ I don't mind postponing it, but the problem is that
                   they amazingly picked the first day of my spring break.
                   I'd like to postpone it until summer. Should I just
                   lie and say I'm in school that day, or would they
                   actually check up on my school's schedule?
                   \_ Don't lie, just tell them that b/c you only have
                      a week off, you probably won't be able to serve,
                      and you would rather do it during summer when
                      you can server.
        \_ In Alameda County, you can take care of all of this online, and
           you get two postponements per Jury Duty notice no questions asked.
           Read your notice carefully.
                      \- tell them you are a law student
        \_ ObJoke: "I believe I'd make an excellent juror.  I can tell if
           someone is guilty just by looking at them."
2005/1/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35823 Activity:nil
1/20    dump truck = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144951,00.html
        \_ "At the time, a band spokesman said that Wohl had said he was
           not involved with the incident."  What Wohl said,
           "Dude, I was smoking out behind 7-11, and some bum came up and
           stole the bus!  He came back 10 minutes later and the tank was
           empty.  Seriously, I have no idea duuuude."
2005/1/14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35726 Activity:nil
1/14    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html
        Ok, now when he wins the Presidency (as if an atheist could), he
        can kick out the holy man. (I'm an atheist but even I found this
        ridiculous)
2005/1/8-9 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35607 Activity:very high
1/7     Before you people start mouthing off about the law, i.e.
        PSB, I suggest you pick up a copy of "American Courts" by
        Daniel John Meador. It's put out by West Group, probably the
        same people behind Westlaw. It's required reading at some
        law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
        the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
        Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
        \_ FYI, West Group is the same people behind Westlaw.
        \_ FYI, West Group are the same people behind Westlaw.
        law schools for entering 1Ls, and it's short and simple enough for
        the layman. And no, you can't go and find a pdf copy of it online.
                          \- it's amazing what PDFs you can find via google...
                             http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/tmp/Texts1.jpg
        Unfortunately you can't become a lawyer by googling. Now STFU.
        \- You know for the legal topics that interest me, I think I
           have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the vocational
           practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack about civil procedure
           but I do know a little about Constitutional Law, Law and Economics,
           Antitrust Law [but I have more background in Econ ... but I have
           read a reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
           philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you do,
           unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It would also
           be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... face your accuser
           and all that. I think it is poor form to talk about background in
           a public forum but would be happy to do so by email. --psb
           have a reasonable background. I'm not interested in the
           vocational practice of law ... so no, I dont know jack
           about civil procedure but I do know a little about
           Constitutional Law, Law and Economics, Antitrust Law [but I
           have more background in Econ ... but I have read a
           reasonable amount of Posner Redbook]. As for legal
           philosophy, I guarantee I have a deeper background than you
           do, unless you are at Yale, but clearly you are not. It
           would also be helpful if you deanonymized yourself ... with
           these anonymous conversation you never know if you are
           speaking to the same person as before ... and then there is
           facing your accuser and all that :-). I think it is poor
           form to talk about background in a public forum but would
           be happy to do so by email. Somewhat ironically, my entire
           legal educatation, for what it is, esentially predates google.--psb
           \-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book
             mentioned above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was
             surprised to see that for what I assume is a classic,
             there was only one review ...  allthought a 5star one. So
             then I looked up a number of famous law books [Martin
             Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo: Nature of the Jud. Process,
             Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol Proc, Posner: Econ
             Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously, HLA
             Hart: Concept of Law] and not a single one had more than
             10 reviews ... it sure seems like law people spend a lot
             less time writing reviews than say math people ... (Baby)
             Rudin has 73 reviews. A lot of the std math/phyiscs
             textbooks have 20-40 reviews. Oh Rawls: Theory of Justice
             has 46 reviews.
           \_ I was in a law class with PSB.  For the Mock Trial he was the
              best attorney by far.  His only problem was he was a bit
              impatient with a dumb judge during oral arguments.  That hurt
              his case when we voted.  He would probably be a better law
              professor than lawyer.
           \-Tangential comment: I am not familar with the book mentioned
             above and looked it up on AMAZONG. I was surprised to see
             that for what I assume is a classic, there was only one
             review ...  allthough a 5star one. So then I looked up a
             number of famous law books [Martin Shapiro: Courts, Cardozo:
             Nature of the Jud. Process, Choper: Jud Review and Nat Pol
             Proc, Posner: Econ Analysis of Law, Dworkin: Taking Rights
             Seriously, HLA Hart: Concept of Law, Bickle: Least Dangerous
             Branch] and not a single one had more than 10 reviews ... it
             sure seems like law people spend a lot less time writing
             reviews than say math people ... (Baby) Rudin has 73 reviews.
             A lot of the std math/phyiscs textbooks have 20-40  reviews.
             Oh, Rawls: Theory of Justice has 46 reviews.
                \_ psb, why do you specifically single out yale in your
                   response? out of curiosity, where did you learn all
                   your legal knowledge?
                        \- in political science, philosophy, and econ
                           departments. the one law class i took in
                           the business school was the worst class i
                           ever took at berkeley. it was taught by a
                           visiting prof who was i believe a second
                           rate practicing attorney who didnt know the
                           subject well from an academic perspective
                           and was just dull (e.g. he didnt know and
                           could not understand anything about "the
                           economic analysis of law" ... "i dont want
                           to consider the availabilty of insurance"
                           "what do you mean about the evolutionary
                           efficiency of the common law"). has anybody
                           else had really bad experieinces with a
                           visiting prof? it was my theory that he
                           wanted "taught at berkeley" on his resume
                           and learned on some friend here to get him
                           a job for the term.  when i talked to prof
                           muir with a number of specific example of
                           what was wrong with him [like his scantron
                           exam], muir sighed and i believe indirectly
                           hinted he'd seen a lot of problems with
                           visiting people.
                   \_ Funny. I've been at Yale for the last five years and
                      know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy. I guess
                      the osmosis theory of learning doesn't work after all.
                      I'm pretty sure the engineering undergrads I've TA'd all
                      also know exactly jack shit about legal philosophy; this
                      comment is mystifying.
                      \_ not really. i think he's talking about, say, the
                         people in the law school. yale's law program has a
                         reputation for a relatively high focus on theory.
                         \_ Well, that's even stupider.  So if someone is
                            in law school at some other top-tier school,
                            they must automatically bow the might of the PSB?
                            Of course given the near infinite idiocy of the
                            op's pompous rant, I guess it all cancels out.
                            \- sigh, it was sort of a jokey-reference to
                               yale law schools reputation for abstractness.
                               there is a joke that goes something like:
                               3 law student friends are waiting to take the
                               bar exam in boston. the harvard student asks
                               the umass student "what is the MA law on torts?"
                               and the yale law student asks the HLS student
                               "what is a tort?" only after i started meeting
                               people who went to or were in law school i
                               learned how "vocational" even good law programs
                               were. you spend a lot of time on "how to be a
                               lawyer" rather than thinking about "The Law
                               and Justice". i.e you dont read a lot of Plato
                               and Kant. --psb
                               \_ Why shouldn't it be vocational?  I'm
                                  not going to pay someone three
                                  hundred bucks an hour to talk about
                                  Kant.
                                  \- that was not a criticism. it was an
                                     observation. i mean to get at something
                                     like if you start up a conversation
                                     about something like "what do we owe
                                     each other" or what is a rationale for
                                     progressive taxation, a lawyer may little
                                     more to say than say an english major
                                     who has relfected some on a classist
                                     society upon reading Dickens.
                                \_ If all our lawyers talk about Plato and Kant
                                   from now on there would be no frivilous
                                   lawsuits and our health insurance cost
                                   would come down.  Everyone except the
                                   lawyers would be better off.
                                   \-SPARTAN LAWYER!
                                     O xein angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede
                                     keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi
                                     (Tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
                                      that here obedient to their laws we lie.)
                                          --Simonides in honor of the
                                            Spartans who fell at Thermopylae
                                \_ I think "theory" is just a code word
                                   for leftist.
                                   \- That applies maybe to something like
                                      "Critical Legal Studies" but a big area
                                      is Law and Economics [sort of the
                                      Chicago approach] so that is not really
                                      true. Plenty of this philosophy is
                                      libertarian in flavor [contract and all
                                      that]. I think Plato is sort of like
                                      Lincoln ... everyone wants a piece of
                                      him. Well except maybe whackos like
                                      racialists.
                                      racialists. --psb
2005/1/8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35602 Activity:moderate
1/7     psb are you a lawyer or trying to be?
        \- no, i want to be a judge. a hanging judge.
           \_ Yeah! Chief Justice Partha! - #1 psb fan
        \- motion to kiss my ass.
           http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Kiss_my_Ass.txt
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35584 Activity:high
1/7     Anyone has any luck suing a person/business outside of California
        through small claim court?  How can the court order the defendant
        to appear in this case?
        \_ The same way that they order people in the state to appear.
           Just because a person is out of state doesn't mean that he/she
           can't be sued and required to show up in court. The only issue
           here is whether the court will uphold that it has jurisdiction
           over the case.
           \- this is not strictly correct. a business has to have
              "dealings" in california to be sued in a CA court.
              in the case of a person, this is more unlikely unless
              possibly the suit is over some issue that required being
              in CA ... like say a car accident or some tort involving
              such a physical act. there are things called "long arm
              statues" which is how corts can compel non-residents/remotely
              incorped busness to appear, but i am not sure if small claims
              courts have differnt long arm statues. for a real/large business
              it is highly likely that they have enough business presence
              in CA .. in which you can probably check with the sec of state's
              office who the califnornia agent is for process service/summons.
              for somebody who runs a hotdog stand in louisiana, you probably
              cant sue them for food poisioning in CA court. on an amusing note
              on the jurisdiction question you may want to look at Mayo v.
              Satan and His Staff. --psb
              \_ Yes, psb, we know this. What do you think "jurisdiction over
                 case" means? It is strictly correct. If you don't know what
                 \- as someone i know used to say "i dont mind tautologies;
                    they're always true!". saying you can sue in court X
                    if court X has jurisdiction i suppose is meaningless and
                    unhelpful more than true/untrue. "the court feels" ...
                    is driven by guidelines such as the ones i discuss.--psb
                 "jurisdiction over the case" means don't comment. Also, you
                 don't need a business presence in CA to be sued in CA. All
                 that is required is that the court feels that it has original
                 jurisdiction on the matter involved. Under the UCC this means
                 the place of business, and if the business was conducted
                 in CA then the court will find it has original jurisdiction.
                 If all fails, you can go file a suit in Federal Court, and
                 there will NOT be ANY questions about original jurisdiction,
                 but for a small claims matter it's not worth the money.
                       \-mr. d. ass: you also misuse the term "original
                         jurisdiction" ... that is in contrast to appelate
                         jurisdiction, not geography or "diversity juris-
                         diction". as you suggest, federal ct may be an
                         option, but whether it is worth the money is not
                         fully up to the plaintiff, but there is a minimum
                         specified in the USC and USCA. See e.g.
                         http://csua.org/u/amm
                         \_ Uhm, no, there is really only the concept of
                            "original jurisdiction". It encompases what you
                            refer to as "geographic jurisdiction", which in
                            reality is a fiction. So STFU dumbass. Original
                            Jurisdiction always comes from the lower courts,
                            and appellate courts have original jurisdiction
                            in certain types of cases. There also isn't
                            really a term caled "appellate jurisdiction,"
                            which is a fiction also. However, since it's
                            unfortunately come into common usage I suppose
                            that it can be considered as such.
                            Read up on some Prosser/Keaton.
                 \_ I belive the problem here is that the two of you
                    are confusing two separate ideas: personal jx and
                    \- i'm not the one confused. the OP is the one
                       specifcally asking about the geographic/diversity
                       issue.
                       \_ Sorry. The guy who was responding to you is
                          a doofus, and I should be doing hw instead of
                          writing about jx...
                          writing about jx on the motd...
                    subject matter jx. A ct must have both in order
                    to hear a case. SMJX is sometimes refered to as
                    "original jx" in the context of fed cts.
                    In order for a ct to hear a case, it must first
                    have SMJX. In general state cts are cts of general jx
                    and have original jx over all cases. Fed cts are cts
                    of limited jx and have original jx only over two types
                    of cases, federal question (USC Title 28 Sec 1331) and
                    diversity (USC Title 28 Sec 1332). The jx of the fed
                    cts are limited by Article 3 of the Constitution.
                    In order for a case raise a fed question the complaint
                    must arise from the constitution, treaties of the US
                    or laws of the fed gov.
                    In order for a case to be in diversity two requirements
                    must be met: (1) the claim must be greater than $75K (if
                    you are trying to sue in small claims, you can't meet
                    this) and there must be complete diversity in citizenship
                    "across the v". Complete diversity means that no plaintiff
                    and no defendant must be citizens of the same state. A
                    corporation is considered a citizen of 2 places, the
                    place where it is incorporated and the place where it has
                    its primary place of business. The primary place of bus.
                    can be determined using one of two tests: (1) the nerver
                    center test (where are the admin offices located) or (2)
                    the muscle test (where the manufacturing occurs).
                    Personal jx is a different idea. It is refers to the
                    power of a ct to compel a person to appear before it and
                    defend a suit. PJ is proper in a state if the defendant
                    (1) resides there or (2) was personally served with
                    process in the state. PJ may also be proper over non-res
                    defendants IF the state has a long arm statue authorizing
                    the exercise of PJ over non-res defendants. Almost all
                    states have such statues. Some states (ex NY) enumerate
                    the circumstances under which PJ may be properly exercised
                    by the states cts over non-res, while others (ex CA) say
                    that any exercise of PJ consistent with Due Process is
                    okay.
                    Even if there is a statue that says that PJ can be
                    exercised by the ct, that exercise must be consistent
                    w/ the requirements of Due Process which according to
                    the USSC means that that the defendant has to have min
                    contacts w/ the state AND the exercise of PJ must be
                    consistent with traditional notions of fair play and
                    substantial justices (see Intl. Shoe)
                    If the case is related to some specific action of the
                    defendant w/ or in the state, then even a single
                    contact may be enough (specific jx). If the case is
                    unrelated to the contacts of the defendant in the
                    state, then lots of contacts are need.
                    There are lots of factors that a ct considers when
                    figuring out if PJ is fair: (1) the burden on the
                    defendant to defend in the state, (2) the interest
                    of the plaintiff in efficient resolution, (3) the
                    interest of the state, (4) interests of other states
                    and (5) shared interests of many states.
                    I'm sure this was WAY more than you possibly wanted
                    to know. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that if
                    you are suing a non-resident corp in small claims
                    ct you will probably not have any basis for being
                    in fed ct and you will probably have a hard time
                    compeling the corp to appear.  However, you may be
                    able to get a judgment by default and then via
                    Full Faith and Credit get a lean on the corp's
                    property in its home state. Then you can show up
                    at the annual shareholders meeting and say that
                    you are not leaving the bldg until the deadbeat
                    corp makes you whole. This is an effective way
                    to get your money and your ass kicked in one go.
              \_ http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cases/humour/mayo_v_satan.htm
                          \_ Sorry, you're wrong. If you actually understood
                             substantive law instead of merely googling for
                             stuff you'd understand what
                             "original jurisdiction":
                             really means. And PSB, stop junking up the motd
                             with your google transcripts. I'm sure we can
                             all cut and paste from the web. That doesn't mean
                             you know shit about the law.
                             \- are you the person whose orginal contribution
                                [sic] was the tautology above?
                                \_ My friend, if you actually knew anything
                                   about law you'd realize that it is filled
                                   with tautologies. Res ipsa loquitur.
                                   An example of this include the following:
                                   the description of cause-in-fact or
                                   actual cause
                                   the description of proximate cause
                                   the concept of what a reasonable person is
                                   the concept of what negligence is
                                   the definition of intent
                                   the definition of voluntary
                                   Take a 1L course in substantive law,
                                   see if you can pass it. Then come back
                                   and we'll talk.
                                   \_ First time poster, long time listener
                                      here.  The description of 'actual cause'
                                      is not as simple and tautological as you
                                      may think.  Email me for technical
                                      details. -- ilyas
                                   \- the law may be filled with tautologies
                                      but your first respose was totally
                                      useless. Well 99% useless. You claim
                                      1. you may be able to reach out to
                                      someone in another state 2. and you can
                                      do so if the court decides you can.
                                      while i suppose point #2 is sort of a
                                      "legal realist" answer [the law is what
                                      courts say it is ... as opposed to some
                                      metaphysical body of a priori principles
                                      of justice], it's not helpful to the OP.
                                      if you are an attorney and gave me
                                      advice like that, i'd not only think the
                                      "law's an ass" but my lawyer was too.
                                      some tautolgies ... or "analytic
                                      statements" are trivial, some are
                                      merely uninteresting and some are
                                      useful or insightful. 1=1 is trivial.
                                      x^23+x^5+x+5=8 has solution x=1 is
                                      a useless factoid. sum 1/2^x from 1
                                      to infinity = 1 is "interesting" ...
                                      so all of these are "tautologies across
                                      the equal sign", but only one is a
                                      valuable observation.
           \_ Thanks.  I am doing this for someone.  I have sent two
              emails to the debtor and I was never able to reach the
              debtor by phone.  Small claim court is the next logical
              step?
              \-email is pretty worthless. send a demand letter by registred
                or cert mail or whatever it is called.
              \_ If the person you are trying to sue is a non-resident
                 the ct may not have any effective way to compel them
                 to appear and defend (provided PJ is proper in the
                 state in which you bring your suit). Since the cap on
                 small claims is $2,500, many non-residents will just
                                 \_ Not neccesarily true, certain
                                    districts allow you to sue up to
                                    $5000. It depends on the district
                                    and the state.
                 decide that it is not worth the hassle and won't appear.
                 You will be given a judgment by default, but in order
                 to enforce this judgment you will have to travel to
                 a state where the defendant resides and ask a ct in
                 that state to enforce the judgment (the ct has to b/c
                 of Full Faith and Credit).
                 Enforcement is a bit easier if the non-resident has
                 property in the state in which you sue. As part of
                 your suit you can ask the ct for a pre-judgment
                 attachment of the property. If the defendant is a
                 no-show, then you will be awarded judgment by default
                 and you can ask the ct to order a sheriff's sale of
                 the property to satisfy your judgment.
                 \- law person: for a good time you may wish to look up
                    789 F. Supp. 395 ... also avail at:
                    http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Humor/Noble-v-BradfordMarine
                    Last line is sort of funny, w.r.t. jurisdiction.
2004/12/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35475 Activity:nil
12/29   http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/29/hunters.shot.ap/index.html
        Hmong hunter to use the insanity defense. I guess they didn't
        want to use the "Damn 4 eyed chink can't see and can't shoot,
        therefore you must acquit" defense as suggested by O'Reiley.
2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:35470 Activity:nil
12/29   Jerry Orbach RIP:
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/29/obit.orbach/index.html
        \_ That man singlehandedly made Law&Order fun to watch.
2004/12/14 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/RealEstate] UID:35277 Activity:very high
12/13   When I moved recently, the manager inspected my apartment and told
        me that I cleaned it well enough so that I do not have to pay for
        cleaning the kitchen and bathroom.  However, 2 weeks later I received
        a letter from the company owning the property that I owe $85 cleaning
        fee in addition to the carpet cleaning that I knew I should pay.
        I also found that on the move-out checklist that the manager and I
        both initialed she checked neither the clean nor the not-clean column.
        I am away and traveling and cannot (afford to) fight them in small
        court even if I have ground to win.  What can I do?
        \_ Send them a copy of the checklist and demand the $85.  Ask your
           former manager for help.
        \_ whoa, the exact same thing happened to me earlier this year.
           Basically verbal agreements mean... nothing. Did you record the
           conversation? If you did, you'd have a case. Otherwise, :(
           I learned my lesson, I hope you do too.
           \_ Recorded conversations are not admissible as evidence w/o the
              consent of those being recorded. What you need is statements in
              writing.
              \_ Why is that? So we recorded the terriorists conversation but
                 cannot use against them because we don't have their consent?
                 If we cannot apply the same kind of laws to our so called
                 enemy, then the law we think is so great, isn't so.
                 \_ Just so you're aware, there's a little leap from damage
                    charges on a rental to fighting int'l terrorism.
                 \_ That's a provision of civil law, not criminal.  For
                    wiretaps occuring in this country, you need a warrant, but
                    outside of this country, I don't think so.
                    \_ But why do we need their consent? If you overhead Simpson
                       said, "Yeah, I killed that bitch", but you can't use it
                       because obviously you don't have his permission? What about
                       all those movies where the agents are wearing a tap?
                       It sounds silly if the otherside knows that you are
                       recording, what the fuck do you expect to get?
                       \_ Re-read what I just wrote.  In criminal law, you need
                          a warrant, not permission from the other party.  In
                          civil law, it's meant as a reasonable safeguard of
                          privacy and free speach.  Otherwise you could just go
                          privacy and free speech.  Otherwise you could just go
                          around recording everyone all the time.
                          \_ Further clarification: You CAN go around recording
                             everyone all the time. Some people do. You cannot
                             submit any of it as evidence unless you have the
                             consent of those being recorded, though, acc to,
                             as pp above says, civil law.
                             \_ Actually in some cases (phones for one)
                                recording someone without telling them
                                is illegal.
                                \_ Not in New York! (but in CA, illegal, yes)
        \_ Call the manager, recall the conversation, and ask her to contact
           the company owning the property on your behalf.  While this may get
           you nothing, and everyone may be out to screw you, it's equally
           possible that this charge is something they hit everyone with
           reflexively; they may not even realize they've mistakenly hit you
           with it.
           \_ I once lived in a shitty apt. in the ghetto which got bought by
              some evil corporate real estate speculating fucks.  I spent months
              calling them every other day or so to try to just get a fucking
              lease to no avail.  It was literally impossible to talk to a
              real, competent human at this company, so with no lease, we just
              moved out(after giving them written notice a month in advance).
              I then spent weeks again trying to get them to give me the
              security deposit, again getting blown off, trying to call people
              who have pager numbers only and never call back.  After weeks
              and weeks of that, a check showed up for exactly twice what it
              should have been.  Fuck 'em.  If it had been a real human landlord
              I would have given them half the money back in a second, but
              I just kept the money, and i'm positive that they'll never know.
              I think they actually lost all the paperwork, and ended up just
              guessing an amount for the check.  Sometimes what looks like
              malice is in fact just stupidity.  In other words, I agree with
              you.
2004/12/13 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35273 Activity:nil
12/13   Whoa, I just heard the interview with the 3 jurors in the Peterson
        case. Unlike the "dude man you gotta acquit OJ" jurors in the OJ
        case, the Peterson jurors actually seem coherent and semi-intelligent.
2004/12/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35265 Activity:high
12/13   REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- A jury today recommended that 32-year-old
        Scott Peterson should be executed for the murder of his wife when she
        was eight months pregnant with their first child.
        \_ obTurnOffFoxNews
        \_ So does anyone thing he actually didn't do it?  I don't care if you
           think he should have been acquited.
           \_ He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  He didn't testify, with
              everything that happened.
              \_ I think it would be a bad idea to testify.  Having had the
                 affair and all the stupid shit he did after Laci disappeared,
                 the prosecution could have made him look very bad on the stand
                 \_ Not to disagree with you, but do you remember him ever
                    having stood up and said, "I had an affair but I didn't,
                    honest to God, kill Laci".
                    \_ No, but he wouldn't have to testify in court to say that
              \_ Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  Based on circumstantial
                 evidence?  Look, I think he did it, too, but the trial's
                 been a horrible miscarriage of proper judicial procedure.
                 The lesson for you would-be murderers out there: don't be so
                 damn public about it all.
                 \_ A lot of murder cases are circumstantial.  It's actually
                    rare thet you have an eyewitness or incontravertable
                    physical evidence.  'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just
                    that:  That any doubts in the case are unreasonable.  The
                    defence theory was that some strangers would kidnap a woman
                    walking a golden retriever in broad daylight, and then go
                    to the trouble of driving her body 100 miles away to frame
                    the husband, yet also attempt to keep the body sunken.
                    That strikes me as not very reasonable.
                    \_ The burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the
                       defense.  Given that the prosecution's case seemed to
                       be, well, he could have done it, there seem to be plenty
                       of reasonable doubts.
                       \_ Certainly the defense does not have to prove their
                          case, but they must offer an alternative explanation
                          for the evidence that is at least plausible.  I saw
                          no plausible explanation for the evidence other than
                          the one the jury believed.
                    \_ Ah, I've been thinking that it might be framining, until
                       you mentioned the "yet also attempt to keep the body
                       sunken" part.
                       \_ Kidnappings of strangers are rare.
                          Kidnappings in broad daylight are rare.
                          Kidnappings of someone with a large dog are rare.
                          Framings are rare.
                          \_ Married men killing their expectant wives are
                             rare. What's your point here?
        \_ Even if he didn't do it, his actions after his wife's death
           were so stupid that he probably deserves to die.
        \_ Scott should have tried to relocate to Los Angeles with the
           mostly sympathetic and uneducated jury. "Dear homies, senors, y
           senoras, que fish baits don't hook, you must acquit!!!"
          \_ help also if Peterson were a famous/heroic football
             legend who won the Heisenfuck award.
             \_ Or if he's African American.
                \_ racist!!!
                   \_ I'm still looking for the Real Killer with every round
                      of golf I play!
                \_ Yeah, clearly the problem with the criminal justice system
                   in this country is that blacks have it too easy.
                   \_ For cases under the media spotlight, it seems so.
          \_ That's why I don't agree with the Jury system. In this country
             we leave the jobs to the professionals. But like everything that's
             set in stone, it's hard to change.
                \_ the problem is not the Jury system, but the African
                   Americans in the Jury system.
                   \_ If you're going to say something blatantly racist, why
                      use politically correct language to do it?
             \_ Most Napoleonic/continental European justice systems rely
                on cases handled exclusively by professionals (i.e. judicial
                panels--the more serious the case, the more judges.)  It works
                more often than not, leading to fairly common-sense verdicts,
                but has resulted in some pretty horrendous travesties.  Does
                this sound familiar at all?  -John
                \_ Has anyone done a comparison between these systems?
                   I am sure you can find bad examples in each, but I would
                   trust professionals more than a bunch of idiots. Yeah,
                   sure, a stupid guy smoking with cancer deserves some
                   billions of dollars, give me a break.
                   \_ These are the idiot examples of US justice.  Someone did
                      a study a while ago comparing US handling of, say,
                      corporate responsibility vs. European--their findings
                      were that the Euros do a nanny act up front, with tons
                      of regulations, while the Americans rely on the threat
                      of lawsuits after the fact to keep companies in line.
                      The upshot?  While it's possible for an cretin to
                      disavow personal responsibility in the US and go for an
                      insane payout, the average Joe also tends to have far
                      easier access to the law.  I'm not claming either system
                      is better, but it's something to think about before
                      completely discounting common/English law as a
                      defective system.  -John
                      \_ You forget that there are now multiple efforts
                         underway to reduce or remove people's ability to
                         sue companies.  -tom
             \_ The biggest problem IMO is the large number of CSI-style
                programs that people watch and the increasing legalese invading
                normal culture.
        \_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga!
2004/11/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:35051 Activity:very high
11/23   How do you prove who shot the gun first, and if you can't prove it,
        how do you convince an all white jury to believe Vang? My guess is
        that this is going to be a he-says-she-says court and Vang is going
        to lose, easy as that.
        \_ http://latimes.com now has a good article.  Vang speaks excellent English
           and waived his right to a lawyer in making his http://twincities.com
           remarks.  I believe it will become clear who fired first, but ALL
           the shootings will still be at least 2nd degree or manslaughter.
           Vang never said he felt in danger for his life; he was probably
           pissed as hell.  The legal reaction would have been to not do
           anything in response to the guy trying to scare you by firing a
           bullet near you, and file a complaint which would be subsequently
           ignored.
           anything in response to the guy trying to put the fear of God into
           you by firing a bullet near you, and file a complaint which would be
           subsequently ignored.
           \_ Uhm, no. If you get shot at, you have a right to fire back.
              In fact, you don't even have to be shot at to have a have
              a justification to shoot first if your life is in danger.
              Vang's problem is that he shot and killed half a dozen people.
              I don't know if anybody can reconcile that with reasonable
              force. The best he can hope for is manslaughter, as he may
              be able to prove he lacked the mens rea for first degree and
              he was provoked to such an extent that he had a reasonable
              heat of passion response. If he lacks mens rea and cannot
              reasonably prove heat of passion killing then he'll get
              2nd degree. 2nd degree is like 25 years, so he'll be in
              prison a long, long, long time.
              \_ We are arguing about the guy he shot first, right, because
                 it sounds like you are repeating my position for everything
                 else.  Anyways, the jury will be talking about
                 how Vang had the time, after he was shot at, to take the
                 scope off his rifle, aim, and shoot.  I do not see him
                 talking about how he felt his life was in danger at all
                 in the http://twincities.com statement; actually, I think the jury
                 will think he was pissed as hell with his first shot and
                 subsequent ones.  C'mon, Vang was talking about how
                 one guy was calling him "gook, chink, fucking Asian", not
                 how he was in mortal fear.  He even managed a taunt of,
                 "You're not dead yet?" to one guy and shot at him again.
        \_ I bet most of the white men are more surprised that a slanty
           four eye Oriental chink can actually see and shoot his targets
           more so than the fact that 6 men got killed.
        \_ look, it's just like the OJ case. Most of the Mid-west
           white ppl think Vang is guilty regardless of evidence, and
           most of the Asians think he may or may not be guilty,
           regardless of evidence. It is as easy as that.
           \_ I think Bernhard Goetz is the better comparison here.
              I'm interested to see how various pundits (read partisan hacks)
              handle this and compare with the Subway Vigilante.
        \_ I have to say Vang reminds me of tpc. The guy has quite a gun
           collection and is not the most mentally stable guy I know
                        -guy who knew tpc when he was still kind of sane
2004/11/16-18 [Reference/Law/Court, Academia/StanfUrd] UID:34929 Activity:high
11/16   http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/16/abercrombie.lawsuit.ap/index.html
        "The lawsuit was filed last June in San Francisco by Hispanic and
        Asian groups charging that Abercrombie & Fitch, known for its
        "classic casual American" clothing styles, hires a disproportionately
        white sales force, puts minorities in less-visible jobs and cultivates
        a virtually all-white image in its catalogues and elsewhere"

        I don't get this. A&F (or any company) doesn't isn't obligated to
        use minority models and faces in its catalogues. Can't they do
        whatever they want in their catalogues?
        \_ hispanics already have shitty clothes.. - hispanic
        \_ What's the point of this, from a business standpoint?  Aren't they
           just losing money by not catering to non-white buyers?  It seems
           that they are screwing their shareholders  as well as their
           workers (as usual with shitty companies.)
        \_ "The original lawsuit was brought on behalf of nine young
           minorities, including students and graduates of Stanford
           University and the University of California, who were
           denied jobs or fired based on their race."  -tom
           \_ If you went to Stanford or Cal and you are working
              at A&F instead of shopping there, there is something
              seriously wrong with you.
              \_ why do you say that?  Like all major companies, A&F has
                 programmers, business managers, board members, etc.  It
                 doesn't say anything about the jobs being in retail.  -tom
              \_ I'm sure they worked there while still in school.
        \_ They can.  The point is that the all white image filtered down
           to the sales force, which is illegal.
        \_ so who gets the settlement money? hispanics or the fake
           hispanics w/ fake concern?
           \_ Trick question.  It goes to the lawyers.
           \_ don't forget the asians and fake asians w/ fake concerns.
              \_ What is a fake asian? Or a fake hispanic?
        \_ It's located in OH, a fucking red neck state with a lot of
           white supremacists and racists.
        \_ It's located in OH, a fucking red neck state who put an idiot
           back into the White House.
           \_ Why blame OH and not the other 30 states that voted for him?
        \_ um, yeah. I just searched their web site for about 8 min, could
           not find a single minority looking person in the catalog.
           HEIL AYRIAN RACE!!! KKK R3WLS! HEIL!
           \_ ?  I didn't even say anything... -John
           \_ Does Ayran include Indian and Iranian?
           \_ Does Aryan include Indian and Iranian?
                                  \_ depending on your caste.
2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Law/Court] UID:34812 Activity:kinda low
11/10   I think that Scott Peterson is guilty, but I am disturbed that
        the judge can just replace jurors who seem to be holdouts. What's
        up with that? The person was just too smart with a law and
        medical degree and so they get booted for a 'hang 'em high' type?
        I didn't realize our justice system provided for a trial by 'your
        peers, except for that guy and that guy'.
        \_ So you're surprised for some reason to find out we have shitty
           judges in CA?
        \_ When you're a shit salesman, your peers do not hold advanced degrees
        \_ my friend works at the same bank as the pink haired tattooed
           jurist. - danh
           \_ Radio said she has 7 tats.  How do they know?
              \_ maybe they asked the 90 people she works with? - danh
                 \_ Sigh.  I was hoping for a more titilating answer.
                   \_ yeah i know you were but sometimes there is a really
                      easy explanation - danh
        \_ Juries are supposed to deliberate. The judge is allowed to remove
           jurors if they are preventing that from happening. For example, if
           a juror declares they are voting guity/not guilty, but declines to
           participate in discussions to persuade others or if one juror is
           preventing others from discussing elements of the case. Think
           debate vs. pundits yelling at each other.
2004/11/9-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:34785 Activity:low
11/9    What's wrong for a Juror to do a little research on her own?
        I don't see what the big fuss is about.
        \_ check out http://www.fija.org  The judge can tell you wheever they want
        \_ check out http://www.fija.org  The judge can tell you whatever they want
           but it's pefectly legal for a juror to base their decision on
           anything.  Its a dirtly little secret they dont want you to know.
           \_ Yeah, but jurors can't conduct independent research.  You will
              get kicked off the jury, every time.
              \_ What's wrong with independent research? Can you call your
                 family member when you are a juror?
                 \_ Sure, but you can't talk about the case.
        \_ Technically, the point is that the jurors are required to examine
           and weigh only that evidence which is brought into play by one of
           the two sides.  Otherwise, a perp may not be guaranteed a fair
           trial.  In reality, jurors rely on their own personal knowledge
           all the time; however, since this is an inherent feature/bug of
           the system, it can't truly be corrected. Independent research and
           experimentation, however, can be prevented and usually are.
           \_ I'd say it's also a flaw that jurors can't ask the attorneys
              questions.
              \_ I agree there.
        \_ Well, the judge is always there to say "You can't present that
           evidence", or "Objection overruled!", or "Objection sustained."
           If jurors conduct independent investigations, there's no judge
           to tell them you can't consider some evidence, the attorneys aren't
           there to tell you exactly why you're being stupid.
2004/10/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33910 Activity:nil
10/4    I have 'proof of residence' in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
        Can I continuously duck jury duty by requesting disqualification from
        each county by claiming to live in the other county? -- bad citizen
        \_ sure, and vote democrat a couple of times in each
           while you are at it.
2004/9/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33725 Activity:insanely high
9/23    Dear motd law God, earlier this summer I finally collected the
        money that this school  bus driver owes me from the lawsuit we said. He
        was pretty pissed and said he would retaliate, and I've since
        then moved twice to avoid him. However, lately I've been getting
        a lot of fax/prank calls, with caller ID that says 'bus services',
        which I presume come from his work place. Is there any basis
        for me to sue him again, and is it a good idea?
        \_ Make him an offer he can't refuse.
        \_ You deserve each other.  You really, really do.  What did you
           expect was going to happen when you pursued this vendetta to the
           lengths you did against this asshole?
           \_ Did you follow the original saga?  The guy was uninsured, gave
              false contact info and basically tried to duck responsibility
              every step of the way.  He lost any chance for sympathy as
              "poor guy in a bad situation" and became "jerk who's trying to
              screw me"  Suing him and garnishing his wages was really the only
              reasonable option aside from taking the whole thing as a loss.
              Really, put your self in the OP's situation.  What would you do?
              \_ I wouldn't sue - especially not after hearing about the
                 crap he's gone through. I hope the money was worth it.
                 Frankly, he's lucky he even got any money from the suit.
        \_ Document averything, and ask for a restraining order.  When he
           violates it, document that.  Consider suing again in small claims
           for intentional inflinction of emotional distress or somesuch.
           Also, if he's using his work resources to harass you, you can
           complain to his employer.
           -!lawgod
           \_ Yes, document. Get a lawyer. File complaints with the police.
              Also, start making some mob friends.
              \_ I'd also like to add that if you get him fired, he suddenly
                 has a lot more time and motive to harass you.  If you get
                 another judgement or get him arrested, he has less time to
                 harass you and it cost him money.
        \_ Is this really worth it to you? I am reminded of an
           acquaintance whose Bentley got rear-ended by 4 illegal
           immigrants with no insurance. It cost $10K to fix. The guys
           gave him $200 cash and he took it no problem. You can't squeeze
           blood from a turnip.
           \_ If I read it correcly, OPs goal is more to stop the harassment,
              and is considering suing as one way to do that.
              \_ It's why he got harrassed to begin with. Karma, baby. You
                 can't sue these problems away. You just create more.
                 \_ If the jerk has a wife and kids, getting arrested or sued
                    again because of harassment might induce the wife to get
                    him to stop "for the good of the kids"
              \_ His solution to problems created by a lawsuit is to file
                 another one? You might not be a lawyer, would you be....?
        \_ I hope you don't have wife or kids to worry about.  Good luck.  BTW
           if you move again, you can ask SBC to not list your address or phone
           number in phonebooks.  And don't use USPS's mail forwarding service,
           because they'll release your new address to anyone who knows your
           old address.
        \_ Buy a gun.
           \_ Use this as a reason to approach you county sheriff to request a
              concealed carry weapons license. Believe me, it's very hard to
              get in California if you live in Bay Area/LA counties.
           \_ Right, so next time he calls you can shoot that noisy little
              fucker into oblivion!  Take that, PacBell!
              \_ Down, Bronco, he's mine!!!
        \_ Are you a Jew or a Chinese?
           \_ Why do you hate Chinese Jews?
              \_ Because if he's part of a minority, he could pass this
                 off as a hate crime.  As it is, the guy is just a jerk.
                 \_ Only if he can prove that the hatred is racially motivated.
                    But in this case it's hard, since it's apparent that the
                    hatred is financially motivated.
        \_ this is like trying to exterminate the terrorists by killing
           all suspected terrorists. There may be peace for a while but
           when the fatherless children grow up, they'll want nothing but
           bloody revenge (suicide bombers). The concept of "an eye for
           an eye" just does'nt work. Hate begets even more hate.
           Peace.                               -philosopher
           \_ So make sure you sue his kids too. And his children's children.
              Get 'em all. But be prepared to defend yourself, frontier-style
           \_ Ok, I'll just wait here for them to attack again.
              \_ No, just abandon all you believe in and fuck over your allies
                 and give them everything they want and some of them will stop
                 attacking you in exchange for even more others who will
                 continue and make newer even greater demands.
              \_ No, just go and shoot him.  When they arrest you, say that
                 you were acting under the Bush doctrine of preemption.  You
                 might want to accuse him of harboring WMD and terrorists to
                 strengthen your case.
                 \_ Oh I like this one the best. Claim he's an terriorist!!
                    \_ "Your Honor, the deceased was terrorizing my client."
2004/9/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:33281 Activity:very high
9/1     Kobe's statement to the court:  "I want to apologize to her for my
        behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the
        past year. ... Although I truly believe this encounter between us
        was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view
        this incident the same way I did."
        \_ GUILTY!!
           \_ those fans of Kobe's who think what happened in court means
              he's innocent are fooling themselves -- have you read about
              the blood evidence?
              \_ More URL now! ty.
              \_ The case was dismissed b/c the woman didn't want to
                 participate right?
                 Anyway, based on what I've read Kobe would have been
                 found guilty of rape since his conduct satisfied all
                 four criteria for rape.
           \_ He's accused of rape right? Rape is a general intent crime
              in CA, so some mens rea must be shown. Claiming that you
              believed that there was consent is an effective defense.
              \_ her mouth said no, but her body said YES!
                 \_ was there an actual refusal on her part?
                    \_ They say she said no twice. Read the very end:
                       http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Sports/ap20040901_2585.html
                       \_ ic. Kobe would have lost if that last
                          paragraph is true.
                       \_ In the preliminary hearings, the investigating
                          detective who interviewed her said under oath
                          that she told him she never at any point said
                          no.
                          \_ Hearsay.  There should be an official record and
                             transcript with recordings of what she said.
2004/8/19 [Health, Reference/Law/Court] UID:33006 Activity:very high
8/18    More evidence US healthcare system is broken:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/business/19care.html?hp
        "Rising Cost of Health Benefits Cited as Factor in Slump of Jobs"
        \_ login: csuatroll
           pw: csuasucks
        \_ Can someone please fix csuamotd's password?
        \_ I recently saw some additional evidence that California's
           educational system is broken and that the earth is round.
           Is anyone arguing these points? -phuqm
        \_ Yep.  Trail lawyers destroyed it, and now people want to elect
           one to fix it.  THAT makes sense...
           \_ It's been shown that rising HMO and drug company profits (and
              marketing expenditures) have a lot more to do with it than rising
              malpractice insurance.  Also, FWIW, malpractice premiums are
              rising faster than the volume of jury awards.  Perhaps you should
              be blaming greedy corporations in stead.
              \_ The malpractice insurance market wouldn't be able to bear
                 the rising cost if not for the trail lawyers.  The fact
                 that someone with a false claim and an evil lawyer can,
                 with little cost to themselves, potentially destroy a
                 doctor's whole life, tends to make doctors a bit nervous.
                 Hence the rising rates.  Would you like some nice
                 stories about doctor's getting screwed?
                 \_ I'm saying the insurance companies are raising rates more
                    than they have to to reap extra profits.  Would you like
                    some nice stories about patients getting screwed?
                    \_ Ummm.. duh.  Ever hear of economics?  Charge what
                       the market will bear?  That's a fact of business.
                       I'm saying that we've created a legal enviornment
                       that breeds legalized extortion, which results in
                       a legalized protection racket.  Making laws to
                       fight the symptoms isn't going to fix the problem.
                       It's not good for doctors OR patients.
                       \_ Surely you realize the necessity of the possibility
                          of large court judgements to curtail the rate of
                          doctor error.  If court judgments are not large
                          enough to make a lawyer want to take the case,
                          there's not much incentive for a doctor to do a
                          competant job.
                          \_ I was concentrating on the "little cost to
                             themselves" problem.  What does it cost
                             someone to make false accusations?  What
                             is the cost of losing to the accusor?  And
                             are you arguing that the lawyer fees in these
                             cases AREN'T excessive?
                             \_ The lawyer fee comes out of the judgement and
                                is between the lawyer and their client.  If
                                they bring a clearly meritless claim, the
                                doctor (or their insurance company) can sue for
                                *their* lawyer fees.  The patient has no
                                disincentive to bring a possibly-meritorius
                                case, but they still have to convince a lawyer
                                that is has some chance of winning.
                                Answer this question:  What would the ideal
                                legal system be for this case.  You have an
                                indigent patient who had an unsatisfactory
                                outcome to their treatment.  They think their
                                doctor screwed up, but it is a matter of
                                debate.  What would they have to do before they
                                can sue?  If they win, should they recieve just
                                compensatory damages, or enough to make it
                                worthwhile for their lawyer.  If they lose,
                                who should have to pay either party's legal
                                fees?
                                \_ I'm not sure what you mean by this:
                                If they win, should they recieve just
                                compensatory damages, or enough to make it
                                worthwhile for their lawyer.
                                \_ Say, $5,000 for being out of work a few
                                   months (which is not enough damages to make
                                   a lawyer interested), or $50,000 for pain
                                   and suffering or punitive damages, which
                                   is enough that the case can procede.
                                   \_ Can't the plantiff sue for Medical
                                      damages, being out of work, and
                                      legal fees?
                                      \_ Well the question is what kind of
                                         damages *should* we let people sue for
                                         should there be a cap, and should
                                         there be another disincentive to sue
                                         too readily.
                                \_ Ok, niether.  All legal fees must be
                                   predifined.  Loser automatically pays
                                   legal fees for both parties. Plantiffs
                                   and Defendants must have this
                                   explained to them before any fees are
                                   charged to the "case account." For that
                                   party.
                                   \_ Alright, that might be a sane system, if
                                      contingency lawyers start agree to cover
                                      the fees in the event of a loss.  The
                                      current proposed solutions "make it very
                                      hard to sue" and "make the damages small"
                                      ignore the side effect that doctors
                                      would be able to get away with being
                                      major fuckups.
                                      \_ I certainly agree with you there.
              \_ Malpractice insurance costs are rising rapidly. My
                 neighbor is doctor. His insurance went up 5% last year
                 and just about every year. He can't charge his patients
                 more, because he has a contracted rate with the HMO/PPO
                 plan he is a member of. What does he do? See more
                 patients? Take a 5% cut in salary every year?
                 \_ Some people blame the lawyers.  I think they're a necessary
                    evil and blame the malpractice insurers and the HMOs.
                    If we went to a NHS system we wouldn't have malpractice
                    insurers because the 'defendant' would be the NHS, and we'd
                    still have buearocrats (sp?) making decsions about levels
                    of care, but at least they wouldn't be motivated by a
                    profit motive.
        \_ "A centerpiece of Mr. Kerry's plan would be to reduce health
            insurance premiums by having the federal government pick up 75
            percent of the cost of catastrophic medical care. That would
            reduce the cost to employers and employees about 10 percent,
            or $1,000 a year, according to campaign officials."
           How the heck does this make any sense at all?  Where do people
           think government money comes from?  Money Mines?  It's freakin'
           taxes!  The Employees and Employers will still be paying for
           the care, it will just get a percentage taken off by some
           bearucrats first!  And we all know bearucrats make things
           cheaper, right?
           \_ And he has said already where he would get that tax revenue
              from, and unless you're considerably better off than me, you
              won't be touched.
              \_ Soak the rich!  Oh wait, Kerry IS the rich.  Something's
                 fishy...
              \_ Except when I lose my job because Kerry took my venture
                 capitalist's money.
                 \_ But what if your venture capitalist is no longer paying
                    out the ass for HMOs for employees at the companies
                    he invests in?
                    \_ Ummm, whatever.  You've never been close to venture
                       funding, have you?
2004/8/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Law/Court] UID:32735 Activity:very high
8/6     My dad just got biten by a neighbor's dog (maybe some kind of German
        Shepherd) that was not on a leash when my dad went outside to our
        driveway.  It was unprovoked.  The paramedics and police arrived.
        We've a police report.  Is there anything that we can do?  Would
        lawyers take up such small cases?  Can we at least get the owner to
        cover for all of the medical expenses incurred?
        \_ just say put the dog down or i put you down
        \_ Most likely the owner will volunteer to pay for the medical expenses
           for fear of further legal action. And unless your dad sustained
           some serious or permanent injuries, don't bother suing them; it's
           just not worth it.
        \_ Call John Edwards.
           \_ Can you believe that shyster might actually help someone get
              money for their medical expenses!  Has he no sense of decency?
              \_ <Replying to myself>  And to the inevitable "channeling a
                 dead girl" reply:  Yes, he was manipulative.  That's what good
                 lawyers do: manipulate the jury to get a favorable verdict
                 for their client.
                 \_ Tucker Carlson characterized a teenage girl having her
                    intestines sucked out by a faulty pump as a "Jacuzzi case".
                    \_ That reminds me of the clip someone posted a while ago
                       where a crab gets sucked into a hole much smaller than
                       its body, and exploded instantly.
                       \_ You mean?: /csua/tmp/crabvspipe1.mpg
                          \_ Yup.  Disturbing.
                   _/
             For those looking for context here (like me):
             http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/27/tucker/?source=RSS
        \_ You should contact animal control.
        \_ Judge Judy awarded someone with $3000.  He was bitten by an
           unleashed dog in a park and sustained some relatively minor
           injuries - scratches and bite marks on the side of his body
           and hands.  So: you can take your neighbor to small court.
           It would be helpful if you had a witness who is not family.
           \_ Nice to see the motd has no morals.  Go motd!
              \_ Hey, he asked about lawyers, which implies he's already
                 interested in suing.
              \_ No morals? are you f'ing serious? If your unleashed mangy mutt
                 *attacks* and injures me, damn right you deserve to pay
                 compensation for your negligence.
        \_ Small claims court is made for this kinda stuff. But make sure to
           try and get a settlement from the guy before taking him to court.
        \_ Before you think about suing and lawyers and so on, why don't
           you talk to your neighbor and work something out. It is much
           better to be on good terms with your neighbor than to get a
           few hundred dollars out of him/her. On the otherhand, if your
           neighbor is a jerk, maybe you need to sue.
        \_ His insurace may cover it, which is probably better than a lawsuit.
2004/7/21 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:32404 Activity:very high
7/21    Has any sodan had a stint in prison?  Is it really as bad as the
        stories say, that rape is rampant and if you are not in a gang you
        are totally doomed?
        \_ this is your butthole: o
           this is your butthole in prison: O
           any question?
           \_ my butthole looks more like this: *
        \_ so, not just stuck in jail for holding, but actuall convicted
        \_ so, not just stuck in jail for holding, but actually convicted
           of something and incarcerated?
           from /etc/mail/aliases:
           jail: blojo,dougo,seidl,oj,jwang,sky
           \_ According to some movies, even holding can be risky.
              \_ According to some movies, computers need 9-track tape drives.
        \_ Not to mention that about half of all prisoners have HepC.  Don't
           know the statistics for HIV but I'm sure its bad.
        \_ Why is it that no prisons have been held liable for the abuse that
           goes on in prisons?  Prisoner safety is obviously the jail's
           responsibility, it would seem obvious that raped inmates could sue
           the prison for megabucks.
           \_ Primarily because convicts have little or no credibility, and
              because, in general, the spirit of anti-authoritarianism is so
              strong, you'd have a bitch of a time getting anyone to testify.
              I mean, seriously, who's going to want to bring down the wrath
              of a fellow inmate that's willing to rape another man?  An it's
              more than just the rapist's wrath -- it's the entire community's
              code of silence that you'd be up against...and the entire
              community's reprisals.
           \_ Because nobody cares about prisoners, and nobody cares about
              rehabilitation.  The overwhelming public attitude is "prisons
              as punishment only" and "lock em up and throw away the key."
              Pretty much all the lessons of Attica and others have been
              forgotten.
              \_ what's Attica?
                 \_ what's google?
                 \_ Sigh.  http://www.talkinghistory.org/attica
                    \_ Dang. I thought you meant GATTACA
        \_ I have not been in prison, but a family member has been in LA
           County. Anything can happen in prison, but nothing is
           guaranteed to happen. The uncertainty is scary. What happens
           to any given individual depends on who they are, how tough they
           are, and what their personality is like. I'm sure luck plays
           a part, too.
           \_ So if you're a short Asian guy with smooth skin in LA County,
              what's the best personality to have to avoid trouble?
              \_ sucky sucky $5!
                 \_ I think they like those with milky white cheeks
                    better though.
        \_ Why can't they just put a fucking bullet into the rapist's head?
           Oh that's right, prisoners have rights too. Right my ass. You make
           trouble, a bullet awaits you. It'll end the rape.
           \_ It'll end a lot of things in Oakland and SF too.
           \_ RACSIST!
           \_ Are you kidding?  It may be easy to smuggle certain things into
              a prison, but gun is not one of them.  And if it is smuggled,
              guess who is more likely to get it?  Prisoners have no right,
              and the law of the jungle applies there.  The strongest gets
              access to every thing, including the ass of their fellow imates.
              \_ I think he was talking about the justice system putting a
                 bullet, not other inmates doing it.
                 \_ Why would it be in the interest of the justice system
                    to do that?  If the situation is really that bad, the
                    system probably prefers it that way.
                    \_ Bullets are cheap and you can send the bill to the
                       family anyway.
                    \_ Hey, kill the ruined humanity that rape people in prison
                       and you don't have to feed them anymore.  And they're
                       definitely out of society.
                       \_ I thought the purpose of prision rape is deterence.
                          Like the joke about the size of asshole before and
                          after, people would have to think twice before doing
                          anything that could possibly lead them to jail.  The
                          ruined humanity is actually employee of the state.
        \_ just learn from my country Singapore and use caning.  Very
           effective!  Hardcore criminals also scared to death.  Would
           rather go to prison then get caned.  Criminals become tame
           like pussy cats when you show them the cane.
           \_ I wish the system here is as practical.
        \_ mitch igusa was my cs250 ta back in the day.  no horror stories
           from him.
           \_ Who is igusa?  And why would he tell?
              \_ there's this thing called google...
                 \_ Which explains who he is but not why he would tell.
        \_ I have not, but I have a step-brother who has been in. I can
           ask him if you like. I understand that it really depends on
           where you end up. If you are in a Federal prison, you are
           basically safe unless you piss off the guards. If you are in
           a state prison, you are safe if you are in a rehab or CRC
           unit, not safe at all in maximum security. As for county jail,
           it depends on the county. If you piss off the guards in any
           prison, they will "set you up" for rape, so you have to walk
           a fine line between avoiding the wrath of the guards and
           not looking like a snitch or kissup, in which case you
           will get beaten up at the least.
           As for prisoners suing, well they have tried. This is the
           worst case I know of, and the jury let the prison guards off:
           http://www.spr.org/en/pressreleases/2003/1022.html
           http://www.spr.org/en/news/2003/0923-1.html
           http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/23/prisons
2004/7/15-16 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court, Reference/Military] UID:32304 Activity:low
7/15    Help, I just bought an 8 year old Cherokee Archer and now AOPA
        wouldn't stop spamming me (snail mail and email) unless I joined their
        organization. I called them up to get it stopped but it's not
        working. What should I do?
        \_ Autoforward all their email back to one of their own addresses
           with a rewritten header telling them to stop sending this stuff to
           you.  Whether or not they stop won't matter since you won't see the
           email.  Snail mail you burn.  It's free firewood.
        \_ Send a certified letter demanding they cease all postal and email
           contact or you will sue for harassment.
           \_ Does that work? Under what conditions can you sue for harassment
              based on annoying letter and email spam?  How hard is it to
              actually win something like this?
              \_ While it would be a PITA to sue them, thet'd probably take the
                 hint.
        \_ That's a $140K airplane. How often do you use it to justify the
           cost?
           \_ And that's any of your business because...?  Maybe one flight
              was enough to justify it to him.  There IS a wider world outside
              your own head, you know.
              \_ I am just curious. Maybe *I* want to buy a plane, too.
                 It's none of your business to ask why I want to know.
                 \_ *shrug*  fair enough.
           \_ And do you have a Middle Eastern last name?  Get the DHS on this
              one stat!
           \_ EIGHT year old plane costs $140K? How about a new one?
              \_ $205K + options, which can reach $235K+
                 \_ Options?  Can you get dubs on an airplane?  Preferably with
                    spinners?  How about custom exhaust?
                        \_ Don't forget random Azn characters. Each one
                           adds hp +5.
                           \_ How much for an NO2 sticker?
                              \_ And a clear case with neon lights?!  I want
                                 plane m0dz!
2004/7/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:32263 Activity:high
7/12    How do some cases go all the way to the Supreme Court, and not others?
        What's the deciding factor there?
        \_ It's appealed, and four justices grant or deny a writ of certiorari
           depending on constitutional scope.
              \- the USSC has original jurisdiction in a couple of areas
                 see 28 USC 1251. these dont "go all the way to the sup ct"
                 but start there. --psb
                 \_ this response is irrelevant to the question asked, as
                    well as the reply it is replying to. --aaron
                    \- this wasnt a "reply to the reply" but an elaboration.
                       by any reasonable criteria, since the person didnt
                       specifically ask about the appeals process or how
                       cert. works, the OP was asking "how do cases arrive
                       at the sup ct". one means is the fed and state appeals
                       process. the other are the OJ cases. didnt take your
                       medicine today? as for the deeper question of when/why
                       to the justices grant cert, given the first part of the
                       Q,i didnt think that was what was being asked, at least
                       at first cut. --psb
        \_ my question is what prevents Supreme Court Justice, who is
           appointed for life, accepting bribe and doing other nasty things
           for personal gain?
           \- Not just SupCt judges have life appointments. You may wish
              to google for "Abe Fortas" --psb
2004/6/29 [Reference/Law/Court, Science, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:31059 Activity:nil
6/29    Supreme Court rejects Internet porn law
        "Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if
        any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for
        them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.
        Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and
        Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy"
        (There's no pubic hair in Justice Thomas' Coke!)
        \_ Given that he has heard so many trials, he must have shaven it all
           while in the courtroom.
2004/6/29-30 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:31058 Activity:low
6/28    In Scalia's dissent on the ruling that people in Gitmo have access to
        the courts:
        "The court's unheralded expansion of federal-court jurisdiction is
         not even mitigated by a comforting assurance that the legion of
         ensuing claims will be easily resolved on the merits."
        Is he suggesting that the court should be less willing to consider a
        case if it is difficult?   Gosh, we shouldn't allow lawsuits from all
        these people detained indefinitely in case their suits are not an open
        and shut case.
        \_ No.  "On the merits" means they won't be resolved "on the merits".
           It's English.  He is afraid the courts will be clogged with cases
           that have no merit and hope to get off on technicalities and dumb
           luck.  If the courts weren't so impacted you wouldn't need an
           expensive lawyer to get justice from one because they'd have time
           to deal with each case properly.  The less time a judge has for
           each case the less justice each gets and the more expensive your
           lawyer has to be to be good enough to get your 2 bits in before
           the judge falls asleep.
        \_ Apparently Justice is blind _and_ on a short fuse.
           \- i havent read the dissent but i suspect what he is saying is
              the process isnt well defined enough. for example in the case
              of death pentalty cases, after your first round of "free"
              appeals, what should the threashold be for go to a second round,
              third round, a fourth round ... if you have 5 claims, do you
              have to raise them all at once or can you do it one by one,
              can you conider new evidence or just "reversible errors" ...
              must you have raised an objection at the original trial to
              appeal on a certain issue. another example if the rodney king
              case where after the initial acquittal in a weird end run
              aound double jeopardy, the cops were re-tried under a federal
              statue ... so there are some concerns about trying the case
              as a class, worrying about jurisdiction shopping etc.
              personal comment: i think scalia's reputation is over inflated.
              and his whackoness is keeping him relatively irrelevant.
              it's sort of the flip side of the last few years of brennan
              and marshall's "pointless" dissents. i think after thomas
              he is the most tainted justice. scalia's irritated screeching
              is nothing new. again lawrence v texas, the nude dancing case
              etc. --psb
2004/6/28-30 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31050 Activity:moderate
6/28    I read this today: "the gov. may try...hold terror suspects somewhere
        other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights
        apply." What determines where legal rights don't apply... war zones?
        \_ I'd speculate that the court would rule that prisoner's have access
           to the court anywhere under American control where providing that
           access would not put an undue burden on the military.  So a brig on
           the front line, no, but a brig at a secure base, yes.
        \_ Well, given that a US court could indict Manuel Noriega in
           Panama guilty of drug offenses, and the US military could invade
           Panama (and kill lots of innocent people in the process). Seems
           like a court's jurisdiction has the whole world to play with, if
           it chooses, since a precedent has already been set.
        \_ Now at least we know why Bush wants to go to Mars.
           \_ You prefer what?  Sitting on this little rock forever or until
              the sun grows cold?  Leaving it to the future, take care of
              yourself now?  We stand on the shoulders of giants and have a
              responsibility to the future to continue progress.
2004/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Law/Court] UID:31037 Activity:insanely high
6/28    Not quite unanimous:  Three Supreme Court decisions today.  8-1,
        6-3, 5-4.  President does not get blank check for detaining U.S.
        citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing during wartime (8-1).
        Non-citizen detainees also have access to federal courts (6-3).
        Guantanamo is in U.S. jurisdiction.  Padilla case rejected on
        technicality (should have filed in S. Carolina, not New York, since
        he is detained in Charleston) (5-4).
        \_ Sad that the Rheinquist court is the last bastion of sanity in the
           Federal govt.  But three cheers for these decisions.
        \_ My opinion had been that it would have been unanimous against
           \_ Think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority of the
              court.
              \_ I think of it as the court voting to preserve the authority
                 of the constitution.  You remember what that is?
                 \_ "The constitution?  Oh, that thing."
        \_ My opinion had been that it was going to be unanimous against
           detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without a legal hearing.
           Guess who the lone dissenter was?
           \_ What's odd is that Scalia and Thomas usually vote together...it
              had to be one of them, right?
              \_ If you say to yourself, Scalia prides himself on being the
                 smartest dude on the Supreme Court and won't go into history
                 books as clearly making the wrong decision -- what do you
                 have left?
                 \-Does anyone know what STEVENS J. wrote in the where
                   he wrote a separate opinion? Also I was crossing my
                   he wrote a separate opinion? I was also crossing my
                   fingers that the Ct would be the "last bastion of sanity".
                   I think it affirms their role in the checks and balance
                   system against the executive power and i think the very
                   idea of *anybody* should *never* get a day in *any* court
                   is completely shocking to any lawyer and undermines the
                   meta-principle of the "rule of law" rather than taking
                   sides on any particular law. --psb
                   \_ The process that gave Thomas a seat does damage to the
                      "last bastion" ideal - particularly as a raft of judges
                      are headed to the SC the same way. -- ulysses
                      \_ This must also apply to O'Connor then?
                         \_ What do you mean? Was there something particular
                            about the way O'Conner was apppointed to the court
                            or her voting patterns that you object to?
                            \_ She was a Reagan judge.
                          \- The SupCt isnt responsible for Thomas being
                             there. The executive is. The OCONNOR comment
                                     \_ the legislative branch must take some
                                        share of the blame as well, for politi
                                        cizing the consent process. -crebbs
                                        \-i dont think "advise and consent"
                                          leaves them with much room. yeah i
                                          suppose it is too bad they had to
                                          go in for all the anita madness
                                          when they just should have said
                                          "you are too short to be on the ct".
                                          and i think if anything the executive
                                          cyntically used the black factor
                                          to put the legislature in an awkward
                                          position. if you decompartmentalize
                                          from just talking about thomas to
                                          the bork as well, i suppose you
                                          have a point. but that doesnt
                                          mean you float thomas to "get even"
                                          and it certainly doesnt make him
                                          well qualified. --psb
                                          \_ It's not exactly "to get even"
                                             (though...), It is simply a
                                             case of "hey, you played politic
                                             with someone who was qualified
                                             so here's one at least as conserv.
                                             but who is immune to that tactic.
                                                 \- well really to "get even"
                                                    the went with souter the
                                                    stealth candidate who
                                                    didnt have a long record
                                                    like bork. and that sort
                                                    of backfired. but nobody
                                                    is saying DS isnt qualified
                                                    to be there. --psb
                                                    \_ C.T. was chosen also
                                                       because he is immune to
                                                       the type of character
                                                       assassination that hurt
                                                       Bork.  If there had not
                                                       been so much playing
                                                       politics by the Leg.
                                                       with exec. appointments
                                                       I do not believe C.T.
                                                       would have been
                                                       nominated. -crebbs
                             doesnt make any sense. Not only is OConnor
                             super-well qualified to be on the Ct [Rhenquist
                             was 1st in his law class at Stanford and OConnor
                             was 3rd in that class] but arguably she is more
                             influential than the chief because she is closer
                             to the center. It is amazing how many of the
                             most sig decisions have been written by her.
                             See e.g. http://csua.org/u/7yq --psb
                             \_ She *is* the swing vote, but she seems to favor
                                pragmatism over principle too much for my
                                taste.
        \_ I remember when I posted that the USSC would probably declare
           that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanimo detainees and was
           that it had jurisdiction over the Guantanamo detainees and was
           mocked for claiming this and especially mocked for using the
           qualifier "probably." Well, Right Wing Nutjob, I mock you back
           for being wrong and especially mock you for being such an
           idiot extremist that you only respect people who claim
           certaintly when they do not have it. Like the entire White
           House Administration, come to think of it. No wonder you
           are so lost.
        \_ Why does the Court hate America?
           \_ Why is it a "right wing nutjob" who you think was in favor of
              us upholding our own constitution?  --conservative
              \_ Claiming that Bush is above the law is upholding the
                 Constitution? Sorry a very conservative supreme court
                 voted 6-3 against your very vocal and strenuous claim
                 that Bush could do anything he wanted to in Gitmo.
                 All your quotes from WH lawyers to naught. You and
                 the WH are both way out on a limb and you don't
                 even know it.
                                \-this is quite a simplistic comment.
                                  her equal protection approach to in
                                  texas vs johnson is quite principled.
                                  part of the jobs of the USSC is to give
                                  practical advice lower courts can apply
                                  with some consistency, such as the
                                  lemon test. do you really have any idea
                                  what you are talking about. --psb
                                  \_ hun?  url please.  I went and read this
                                     case and do not see anything by her at
                                     all, let alone anything regarding
                                     "equal protection". -!principle boy
                                     \- sorry, my mistake. the case to look
                                        at is lawrence v texas, not
                                        tx v johnson [which was the flag
                                        burning case]. there are a lot of
                                        strange departures from "principle"
                                        in sup ct jurisprudence. it's not
                                        so simple as practical vs principle.
                                        like how to blanace sep powers,
                                        federalism, legis intent, article i
                                        powers, orig intent, stare decisis,
                                        process vs. substance, disparate
                                        impact ... see e.g. Benjamin Nathan
                                        Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial
                                        Process, A. Bickel: The Least
                                        Dangerous Branch etc. i assume that
                                        is the case you are asking about,
                                        not the "lemon test" case, which
                                        is lemon v. kurtzman interpreted by
                                        oconnor in various "establishment
                                        clause" cases like lynch v donnelly
                                        to define govt endorsement. --psb
2004/6/24-25 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30992 Activity:nil
6/24    If you get a parking ticket and the court makes it practically
        impossible to get a hearing, would you have standing to sue on the
        grounds that there has been a constructive denial of access to the
        courts?
        \- if it is because you are handicapped and have to crawl up the
           stairs to the courtroom without handicapped access, probably.
           YMWTS: Tennessee v Lane. --psb
           \_ I already know that case, that's why I'm asking. -op
              \- well that opinion should give you a sense of how to
                 think about the issue. anythign more specific to your
                 circumstances will need localized facts, naturally.
                 parking offenses with trivial fines/consequences may
                 involves some shortcuts. --psb
2004/6/24-25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30991 Activity:high
6/24    In the "I can't make this shit up" category:
        Judge getting dismissed for using a penis pump, shaving his
        pubic hair and "pleasuring himself" behind the bench while presiding
        over court cases: http://csua.org/u/7wi
        \_ Maybe he was hearing rape cases.
        \_ I suspect he was pre-shaved.  It's unlikely he actually shaved
           while court was in session.
           \_ I reject your use of the word "unlikely."  Have you been
              building up statistics on the genital-shaving practices of
              judges in and out of the courtroom?  I didn't think so.
              \_ idiot.  have you ever shaved yourself or another?  he'd
                 either gash the hell out of his dick and balls or he would
                 get caught.  keep your anal retentive self where someone
                 cares.
                 \_ he did get caught.
                    \_ not shaving himself.  go away anal boy.
                       \_ He's not anal, he's just fuck-stupid...and not
                          nearly as funny as he thinks he is.
              \_ As a likely male, he can attest to the difficulties of
                 male genital shaving.  Even pervs don't want to nick their
                 winkie.
2004/6/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30697 Activity:insanely high
6/9     Why is a piece of Laci's hair on the fishing boat evidence of anything?
        If Scott owns the boat, isn't it normal that Laci would've boarded the
        boat several times either at home or on water?
        \_ If neither his nor her family knew about the boat, that suggests
           Lacy didn't know about it either.  Since it's such a small dinghy
           it's pretty unlikely she would have wanted to go out sailing on it
           unless she likes going fishing.
        \_ Another point is that I'm sure some of her hair was on his clothing
           and could have fallen off in the boat.  I find my girlfriend's hairs
           at my work now and then.
           \_ Yeah, but how likely would a loose hair stay on a boat
              after spending the day out on a windy bay?
              \_ If it falls under the seat or gets wet... maybe.
              \_ shit, how do pieces of 2lb test line stay on a boat for
                so long?
              \_ Would you *really* send a man to lifelong imprisonment or
                 possible death because you're certain beyond a reasonable
                 doubt that any of his wife's hair found on his boat would
                 have to have been there only because he killed her and
                 used the boat to dump her and the hair stayed there afterwards
                 for investigators to find, but if she had been in the boat
                 for innocent reasons or her hair simply fell off his clothing
                 then it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the wind
                 would have blown it off?  You're saying that the hair of
                 dead people is somehow immune to being windblown in a way that
                 the hair of those alive is not immune to being windblown.  I
                 hope I'm never in front of a jury with people like you on it.
                 \_ remember that particular logic train next time *you* get
                    jury duty.
2004/6/9 [Finance/CC, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30692 Activity:very high
6/9     http://www.captain-obvious.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=466
        The popeye pic about halfway down had me in tears.  The site is mostly
        work safe but it might draw someone's eye so be careful out there.
        \_ The only things more retarded than the Keith guy are the person
           egging him on and the people who enjoy reading it.
2004/6/2 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30550 Activity:nil
6/2     To you sceptics out there... after 1.5 years, I finally got paid
        from San Diego Unified School District. They deducted his paycheck
        till it's all paid for. The court is slow (takes several months to
        schedule, delay, serve, receive, and what not), but it works. Justice
        is slow, but there is justice after all.
        \_ So, how much are you getting, over how many months?  Does it
           cover the damage to your car in the original accident?
           What were the total costs of bringing the suit (not including
           the value of your time)?
           \_ Damage was $1700. I spend $300 on a private investigator (did
              I tell you he's very very clever and evasive?) I'm getting
              $2000 total, and he ended up paying for the PI. As for how long,
              I got the full amount 1 month after I served the Wage Withhold
              Order. That is amazing considering that he only gets paid
              $1600 a month, so I guess they deducted his future earnings
              or something, I don't know. The judge didn't reimburse me for
              mileage driving to the court house (took at least 8 trips to
              get forms, etc etc), pictures ($20), photocopy of documents
              ($5), parking meter, numerous phone calls, and misc fees
              which I did itemize but the judge didn't take them. -op
              \_ Maybe he had a retirement fund you got to raid?
           \_ oh, I forgot to say that I had the Sheriff serve the
              Wage Withhold Order to a department called "San Diego Unified
              School District, Department of Court Orders and Wage Earning
              Withhold". So, yeah, I guess they deal with scums all
              the time.                                         -op
                \_ one last thing to add. After getting the paycheck I no
                   longer have this hatred for Vietnamese people        -op
                   \_ ob the driver was Vietnamese?
        \_ What, no opening for a class-warfare flame-fest?
2004/6/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:30533 Activity:high 57%like:34808
6/1     Why do I get the feeling Scott Peterson's trial will turn out to be
        just like the Simpson's? Is the guy rich too?
        \_ No weapon found, no clear cause of death, no witnesses.  Tried
           to run.  Circumstantial case.
           \_ The glove does not fit!
              \_ Next time when you plan to kill and bury someone, make sure
                 you buy a pair of gloves of the wrong size.  Did the police
                 bother to test the inside of the gloves for OJ's DNA?
                \_ in the famous demo, oj was wearing a thin plastic glove
                   under the ill fitting leather glove.  try wearing your
                   gloves with saran wrap on next time, they won't fit either
                   \_ First I've heard of this, Link?
        \_ Instead of a wronged black community supporting the defendant, we
           have wronged angry white males.  Both groups think their guy is
           guilty, but also think the evidence is not sufficient.
           \_ I think he did it, I think the evidence is insufficient, I think
              he'll go to prison for it, I think he should go to prison for it,
              I think he'll go to prison for it for the wrong reason.  Justice
              isn't perfect but as long as the guilty get punished, even if for
              the wrong reasons it's headed in the right direction.  -awm
        \_ The American justice systems, much like everything else,
           are for the rich and the true scumbag. If you are rich, you
           can hire a good enough lawyer and you can get away with
           anything. If you are true scumbag, like those black mother
           fuckers in Oakland, then you can get away with pretty
           fuckers in Oakland, then you can get away with pretty [much]
           everything too, because the law is so protective of the
           supposedly innocent that it basically can't touch you. It
           is the middle class that gets fucked up. It is so fucked
           up, that when we deal with terrorists, we need to drop all
           these bullshit and deal with them the correct way. If we
           deal with criminals the way we deal with terrorists, a lot
           less innocent lives will be killed by criminals that the
           \_ fewer
           law fails to bring to justice. If our justice system is so
           fucking great, then deal with terrorists the same way.
           \_ Wow, nice little rant.  Did you lose $50 in small claims court or
              something?  I'm certain my experience with the legal system is
              much worse than yours (since it continues on after 5 years and
              isn't even half over) but I'm not that frothing and bitter about
              it.  Get laid, get drunk, get over it.
           \_ I am the Law!  Put down your weapons and prepare to be Judged!
              \_ Great comic.  Shitty movie.  Too bad they ruined it.
           \_ You know that guy who spray painted a bus in Singapore?
              He'll never spray paint a bus in Singapore in his life
              again, and will surely spray paint more buses in the US
              while chanting "God Bless America!!"
              \_ It wasn't a bus.  It was several people's personal vehicles,
                 but we get the idea.
           \_ This is a crock. Poor get totally shafted by the justice
              system.
              \_ Then why does the system fails to clean up Oakland? East
                 Palo Alto?
                 \_ I don't know but the answer is not because the poor
                    don't get punished for crime. California has a larger
                    percentage of its population locked up than any
                    place on earth. Talk to a DA or PD or any criminal
                    lawyer and ask them about justice and the poor.
                 \_ Shafting poor != cleaning up crime.
2004/5/26-27 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30437 Activity:very high
5/26    Have any of you ever gotten a ticket for riding your bike on
        campus?  I just entered a plea of not guilty at Berk. Traffic
        Court and want to hear anyone's stories.  If you know someone
        who got one, please have them email me, or give me their
        address.   -maxmcc
        \_ where on campus were you riding?
        \_ had come from Lower Sproul, was parked at bike rack in front
           of Wheeler.  -maxmcc
        \_ Q. Are you guilty?
           \_ I was stationary with my bike lock in hand when he rolled
              up.
              up.  -maxmcc
              \_ Since this is not a court of law, I'll take your evasive
                 non-response as a "yes."
                 \_ Actual guilt has nothing to do with whether or not someone
                    gets punished.  This is true in any legal system.
              \_ I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
              \_ I am more or less trying to figure out the following,
                 given that I plead not guilty:
                 1) if the cop shows up, how the fuck is he going to
                    remember a ticket he wrote last October, and what
                    is the practical upshot of that?
                 2) let's say the judge returns guilty verdict: am I
                    going to end up paying more than what the fine ended
                    up at after I avoided paying it and shit?
                 3) wtf goes on when the guy who gave you the ticket
                    shows up anyways?  what if he doesn't show up?
                    \_ I know the officer can simply submit an affadavit.
                        \_ An affadavit saying what?  This was last
                           October, and I can't imagine he would have
                           taken notes that he has lying around detailing
                           what happened...
                           \_ Most cops actually do take notes specifically
                              for situations like this.  Your odds of beating
                              the rap this way are fair, but don't get too
                              hopeful about his lack of notes.
                                \_ so I wonder how I can find out when
                                   exactly the DISMOUNT ZONE laws came
                                   into being...
                                   \_ I am pretty sure they came into being
                                      in 1989. Want me to ask a few other
                                      old timers to make sure?
                                        \_ that would be wicked. -maxmcc
2004/5/22-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30368 Activity:very high
5/22    Update on the bus driver lawsuit. I won and submitted the Writ
        of Execution, Earning Withholding Order to the Sheriff who served
        it to his employer. He makes $1600 a month as a bus driver. How
        pathetic.
        \_ Um, what was this "bus driver lawsuit" about?
        \_ You're really cool for calling him pathetic because of his
           monthly salary. What do you do for a living, hotshot?
           \_ And then stealing what little he makes from him.
             \_ The guy gave me a bogus address/insurance info/etc. He
                threatened to counter sue me with injuries that he didn't
                even have, and changed his phone number so that I couldn't
                call him anymore. I didn't want to raise my insurance
                premium and certainly didn't want to pay for damages outa
                my pocket money so hired a private investigator, who had
                a really really hard time tracking him down since he is so
                clever and elusive. But hard work prevailed and now he will
                pay. PAY PAY PAY YOU FRIGGING LOW LIFE FORM! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA
                \_ You're disgusting.
                  \_ You didn't let me finish. After the private detective
                     served the paper, he filed for delay. So 3 months passed,
                     he lost the case, and filed for appeals via mail. But
                     that's not it. He wrote a check for $1-2 more than
                     necessary to the court clerk, and being government and
                     all they had to cash, refund, etc before they could
                     proceed with the appeals. So that delayed it by another
                     4 months. Just because he's poor and uneducated doesn't
                     make him less guilty for being a lying scumbag. That's
                     pretty much what both of the judges told him in court.
                   \_ Out of curiousity, why do you say this?  Being poor
                      doesn't automatically make you good. -- ilyas
                      \_ Apparently, neither does being educated.
                         \_ No, really, what am I missing?  It's one thing if
                            the guy agreed to pay, and then the op
                            realized the bus driver was a poor guy, and forgave
                            the debt.  But this bus driver was not acting in
                            good faith, and was trying to avoid his obligations.
                            If I was in op's position, I would do the same
                            thing. -- ilyas
                            \_ What you are missing is that this moron
                               says that $1600/month is pathetic and feels
                               superior because of it.
                               \_ Hey, he can feel superior to me too, that's
                                  about how much grad students make... which
                                  is kind of depressing. -- ilyas
                                  \_ if the bus driver is poor and uneducated
                                     then the op should have more sympathy
                                     for him because that's probably how he
                                     was taught to do to survive (lying,
                                     cheating, evading, etc). So yes I still
                                     think the op is a loser and should at
                                     least have given the bus driver a break
                                                        -guy who grew up poor
                                     \_ So you hold people with less money to a
                                        lower moral standard?  I'm sorry but
                                        \- Those of you motivated to reflect
                                           a little deeply, in these times,
                                           on wealth, on justice, "the good",
                                           means and ends, and most of all,
                                           "might and right", ought to read the
                                           Republic. From a quick look, this
                                           looks fair: http://csua.org/u/7f2
                                           One of the first bits is on
                                           "wealth and morality". I suppose
                                           you can wait for the MEEL Gibson
                                           and Brad Pitt version. --psb
                                           \_ Oh look, the cliff notes, web
                                              edition.  -- ilyas
                                              \- i'm obviously not suggesting
                                                 this is a substitute. but then
                                                 again not all of us read
                                                 ancient greek. if you want
                                                 "the real thing", penguin or
                                                 grube. i havent read jowitt.
                                                 --psb
                                                 \_ I like Allan Bloom.  Penguin
                                                    sucks as a general rule.
                                                    Everything with a penguin
                                                    for a mascot sucks!  Stupid
                                                    penguins.  -- ilyas
                                                    \- dont be an idiot.
                                                       penguin classics are
                                                       usually pretty good
                                                       as a default. --psb
                                                       as a default.
                                                       off the top of my
                                                       head, the main thing
                                                       for which penguin is
                                                       not one of the standards
                                                       is homer. --psb
                                                       \_ Listen, partha...
                                                          when I buy a
                                                          translation, I usually
                                                          go to the kind of
                                                          store where there are
                                                          lots of them side by
                                                          side, and usually
                                                          read at least a
                                                          chapter out of each
                                                          right there in the
                                                          store.  In my
                                                          experience penguin
                                                          is inferior to almost
                                                          any other edition, if
                                                          one exists.  Penguin's
                                                          cheap though, I ll
                                                          give it that.
                                                            -- ilyas
                                                            \-i have a lot of
                                                 penguins that are from sylla-
                                                 bus recommendations. you want
                                                 to put your assessment of
                                                 greek or latin or italian
                                                 over the berkeley classics
                                                 faculty, be my guest.
                                                 in individual cases there
                                                 may be better options, like
                                                 say one of the recent
                                                 "pedagogic thucydides", based
                                                 on your particular
                                                 background and interest, but
                                                 penguins do have a good
                                                 general reputation. i should
                                                 clarify when i mean classics
                                                 i mean Classics with a Big C.
                                                 --psb
                                                 \_ You can find faculty
                                                    somewhere to recommend
                                                    almost every translation
                                                    there is.  I trust my own
                                                    language sense. -- ilyas
                                                    \-do you know ancient
                                                         greek? --psb
                                        this is so stupid I don't even have the
                                        words to begin.  Instead of being a
                                        total piece of crap, maybe he should
                                        have spent 1/10th as much time learning
                                        to drive, getting an education, or any
                                        number of other things that would
                                        improve his life instead of putting all
                                        his time and effort into being a piece
                                        of total garbage.  I not only have no
                                        sympathy for the bus driver but I
                                        loudly applaud the OP for keeping on
                                        this asshole, not letting him get away
                                        with it and making him suffer.
                                        \_ He is a bus driver, he obviously
                                           knows how to drive. As for the
                                           education part, not everyone is
                                           cut out for college. Some people
                                           simply aren't smart enough, though
                                           this guys sounds pretty clever.
                                     \_ This is where I disagree.  Making fun
                                        of him for being poor is stupid.  Making
                                        fun of him (and getting payback) because
                                        he is lying scum is fine. -- ilyas
        \_ The guy got into a car accident and lied repeatedly to avoid
           paying for it.  This is different from stealing a loaf of bread
           to feed your starving family.
           \_ Sure, but why is his salary a relevant fact?
              \_ Did I say anything about his "salary"?
                 \_ Yes. Can't you read the original post?
                    \- in court someone has to win. in the judgement of
                       who is an asshole, both can "win". --psb
                       \_ w00t! -psb #2 fan
                          \- this is really a horrible expression the
                             use of which you will look back on with shame.
2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30332 Activity:high
5/20    Terrorist lawyer released.  (yahoo AP)
        http://tinyurl.com/2bxac
        \_ The fingerprints turned out to be from another guy.  But, the
           lawyer has a gag order on him.  From the story:
           Mayfield's brother, Kent, had to be pulled away from the TV
           cameras by Wax when he shouted out: "This proves it was a total
           witchhunt!"
           \_ Can there be a blanket gag order to thwart all hate-america
              anti-freedom speech and writing?
              \_ But Foxnews said that freedom is slavery.  you're not
                 pro-slavery are you?
                 \_ We should all be slaves of God, Christ, and His
                    free market on earth.  Are you a godless communist?
              \_ Good way to kill what could have been a good conversation.  Do
                 you *really* prefer that the motd is just partisan noise?
2004/5/12 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30183 Activity:very high
5/12    "The lead attorney in the case, Eugene Crew, planned to ask the
        judge Wednesday for more than $18.5 million in fees. He told
        the judge in legal briefs that he deserves about $3,000 for
        each of his 6,189.6 billable hours, "considering the enormity
        of this undertaking against the most powerful corporation in
        America."
        \_ fucking lawyers
           \_ yeah, and don't forget all the hours that they fuck the client
              for three grand, but have some paralegal do the work at 12 bucks
              an hour.
              \_ Why do you hate capitalism?
                 \- it's not capitalism, it is self-regulation ... see e.g.
                    the Texas Bar suit again Nolo Press [which fortunately
                    they lost]. --psb
              \_ they probably fuck the paralegal too
        \_ What is this about?
           \_ M$ antitrust
        \_ To be fair, it's typical that class action firms charge what seems
           like larger-than-normal hourly fees for their hours. The reasons:
           1) If they lose, they don't get paid. At all. If "Crew" had not
              won that case, that's 3 years of working for no salary.
           2) They have to pay for the costs of the case up front and only
              get paid back many years later (and only if they win).
           So usually a firm like that gets what is called "lodestar" fees
           which multiply the normal hourly rate by 2x or 3x to make up for
           the above two points. Normal hourly rates for attorneys are
           $3-400 or so, with super exceptional ones $600ish. So, by any
           metric, this would seem like an exceptionally large amount to
           charge. However, note that if the case was on contingency, he'd
           be getting 1/3 of the settlement, which is way more than $3k/hour.
           \_ $3-400 normal hourly rate!  That's 6-8 times what I'm getting for
              being a senior software engineer.
              \_ Right, but if you were working for a consulting firm, they'd
                 probably be billing you out at that sort of rate. $3-400
                 includes lots of other costs besides attorney salary, like
                 staff salary, rent, copying, couriers, etc.
                 \_ I see.
              \_ $50 an hour?  Your fully burdened cost is double that.
        \_ My attorney fiancee reports that "those lawyers did a fantastic
           job" and deserve $3k/hour. The California settlement is a really
           good one for consumers; in fact, it's a larger settlement than
           the *national* settlement. She said that basically when you take
           a case like this, if you fail, you're bankrupt; if Townsend had
           lost the case, there would have been no more Townsend. Other firms
           suffer the same problem (in the IBM toxics/cancer recent case,
           Alexander Hawes & Audet lost and is now in serious financial
           condition).
2004/4/29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13458 Activity:high
4/29    Will Chateau finally go the way of Barrington? [restored]
        http://csua.org/u/748
        \_ Finally?  It was very Barringtonesque a long time ago, just much
           quieter about it.  Then Cloyne follows.
           \_ Well sure, but what I meant was, will the lawsuit shut it down?
              That's how Barrington got closed - the neighbors sued, and the
              USCA closed the house rather than deal with the lawsuit.
              \_ Is George Proper still around?  If GP is still the general
                 manager then it is just a matter of time until the whole
                 place wears down and implodes.
              \_ It is quite a bit more complicated than that, but it
                 started with a lawsuit, yes. My guess is that the USCA
                 will knuckle under to the nieghbors demand for a manager.
                 On a similar topic, did you know the the USCA will take
                 over control of Barrington again in just 17 more years?
           \_ Cloyne may be dirty and chaotic, but we're generally pretty good
              about not pissing off the neighbors (Goldman School excluded).
              \_ Is that why the UC is requiring a full time house manager
                 before they will renew the contract with the USCA?
                 \_ I thought that was Casa Z.
                    \_ Nope, it's the CLO
2004/4/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13301 Activity:nil
4/20    Mom sues Coor's over sons death:
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/18/coors.suit.ap/index.html
2004/4/7-8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13067 Activity:kinda low
4/7     Does it make sense to do both the Writ of Execution and Court
        Order of Examination Debtor? I'm asking because Write of Execution,
        wage garnishment only takes out 25% of the paycheck per month, and
        given the defendants' job is very flexible, he may very well quit
        his job and find something else. So should I do both or just do
        Writ of Execution and hope for the best? Thanks.
        \_ I think it's safe to say that you might be the reigning champion
           of DoItYourSelfLawyering... I'd rather hear more about how this
           dude hit you, what sort of damages you're seeking, funny anecdotes
           about pumping a bus driver for money.  Did he hit you with his bus?
           That would be kinda funny.  If you entertain us, we're more likely
           to do your google legwork for you.
                \_ yes. many bus drivers are child molesters and wife beaters
                   this bastard evaded me for a very long time till my
                   private investigator tracked him down. now he owes me
                   the original amount, money I paid to the PI, processing
                   fee, AND interest. I want to see him go down!!!
                   \_ more!
        \_ I think it is obvious that you know more about this stuff
           than anyone else reading the motd.
        \_ Yes!
2004/4/6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:13034 Activity:nil
4/6     I am writing up a Writ of Execution from winning a lawsuit for
        wage garnishment and I called the defendant's employer (San Diego
        Unified School District) and found out that they actually have a
        separate department from the wage department that handles
        garnishment. Is there anything else they do, or they (SDUSD) actually
        expects a lot of unpaid lawsuits?
        \_ Garnishment is also for child support and alimony, which guys are
           notoriously bad about paying.
        \_ Just out of curiosity, is this the guy who hit you with his car?
           What a jackass.
                \_ yes! Cool someone's actually following my posts, this is
                   really cool! I feel like I should have a fan club or
                   something. Anyways he is a school bus driver and after the
                   incident I've lost a lot of respect for bus drivers. I bet
                   most of them beat their wives and fail to pay child
                   alimony.
                   \_ dood, format your post. -car-dude's #1 fan
                        \_ isn't this taken care of by croned formatd?
        \_ there's something about government and government workers, go figure
2004/3/5-6 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:12533 Activity:very high
3/5     Martha Stewart guilty on all counts.
        \_ Did anyone else besides me find that juror saying "This is a victory
           for the little guy" unsettling? -- ilyas
           \_ This is the paackage they're selling with this whole case. "Look,
              we go after evildoers.  Never mind that the SEC audit team has
              been decimated." --scotsman
           \_ No.  See comment below about "jury was all pissed off".
              I wrote that comment before I heard about what any juror said.
              I'm sure Martha's defense managed to put some manager types
              on the jury, and they still convicted.
              \_ I ll take a public statement of a juror over your guess, as
                 far as the inclinations of the jury.  The fellow whose comment
                 about Martha buying off a juror was deleted had an amusing
                 take on the situation, although it does smell of tin and
                 foil. -- ilyas
                 \_ The point behind my comment was that I guessed at least
                    what one jury member was thinking before they confirmed it.
           \_ If you read the NYTimes site, you'll see the quote is:
           \_ Martha paid the juror to say that, so that she can appeal on the
              ground of a biased jury.
        \_ Next on Marth Stewart Living: Three simple ways to brighten up your
           jail cell.
        \_ Poor Martha, I think she got prosecuted for being really bitchy.
              \_ I ll take a public statement of a juror over your guess, as
                 far as the inclinations of the jury.  The fellow whose comment
           \_ She should just be fined. Jailing her serves to do nothing
              except make her a ward of the state which ends up costing
              taxpayers more money.
              \_ Hell no bitch. She needs to do time in a cell. A fine is
                 meaningless.
                 about Martha buying off a juror was deleted had an amusing
                 take on the situation, although it does smell of tin and
                 foil. -- ilyas
              "Maybe it's a victory for the little guys who lose money in the
              market because of these kinds of transactions."
              To me this doesn't sounds prejudicial, but more like he's
              interested in seeing a guilty woman punished for harming
              investors.
              \_ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/stewart.jurors/index.html
                 Way to spin it, CNN.  -- ilyas
        \_ Poll:  What do you think the sentence should be?
           Jail > 1 year: ..
           Jail < 1 year:
           Probation/suspended sentence:
           House arrest:
           Wear polka-dots and eat McDonalds:
                    \_ Ok, so this means what in English for us little people?
           Clone Martha and have clone serve jail sentence: .
           \_ She should just be fined. Jailing her serves to do nothing
              except make her a ward of the state which ends up costing
        \_ CNN legal analyst:  "It means that, unless this is somehow undone
           on appeal, she's a felon and she's going to prison.  There's
           going to be a whole separate process in terms of what that
           sentence might be, but it's not going to be probation. It's not
           even likely to be a 'Club Fed' kind of thing.  She's actually
           going to be going to a real prison, like a real criminal."
           \_ Not 'like a real criminal'.  After she loses her appeal she'll
              be in a real prison because she is a real criminal.  And I hope
              she's only the first of many corrupt execs to follow.
        \_ Next on Marth Stewart Living: Three simple ways to brighten up your
           jail cell.
           Probation/suspended sentence:
           House arrest:
           Wear polka-dots and eat McDonalds:
           Clone Martha and have clone serve jail sentence: .
        \_ I guess the jury was all pissed off about how their bosses would
           always be telling them to do illegal things
        \_ She and Ken Lay will be playing golf together at the Federal
           Country Club for the next 18 months.
           \_ Kenny Boy is too well connected to ever to go jail. Only
              little people and Democrats get busted for white collar crime.
              \_ Oh really?  Name those Democrats.
              taxpayers more money.
              \_ Hell no bitch. She needs to do time in a cell. A fine is
                 meaningless.
                 \_ Fuck you asshole. If you want to pay for her jailtime
                    go right ahead. It costs about $100,000 per annum to
                    keep someone incarcerate. Don't fucking mouth off
                    before you know what the fuck you're talking about.
                    \_ I know exactly what I'm talking about. Fines for people
                       who are already fucking billionaires don't mean shit.
                       It costs money to enforce the law. Bitch.
        \_ I guess the jury was all pissed off about how their bosses would
           always be telling them to do illegal things
        \_ She and Ken Lay will be playing golf together at the Federal
           Country Club for the next 18 months.
           \_ Kenny Boy is too well connected to ever to go jail. Only
              little people and Democrats get busted for white collar crime.
              \_ Oh really?  Name those Democrats.
                 \_ Martha is a prominent Dem contributor.  However, with
                    repect to Ken Lay you really need to consider the
                    the time period of Enron's ascendence - the 1990s.
                    Enron received significant Federal help, in some cases
                    as it should have, during the '90s.
                    After all it was Robert Rubin, who had moved to
                    Citigroup, who called Oneil and asked the
                    Fed to bail out Enron (ala LTCM).  Citigroup, in
                    case you don't know, was one of Enron's financiers.
                    \_ Ok, so this means what in English for us little people?
                        \_ Rubin was Clinton's Treasury Secretary who oversaw
                           the bailout of Mexico, Long Term Capital Management,
                           and others.  Before this he was President (?) of
                           Goldman Sachs which made some of the Mexico loans
                           covered in the bailout.  Post-2000 Rubin moved
                           to Citigroup which had facilitated a significant
                           portion of the 'creative' financing that allowed
                           Enron to do what it did.  Rubin then had the gall
                           to call Bush's Treasury Secretary Oneill in ~Feb of
                           to call Bush's Treasury Secretary Oneill in ~Nov of
                           2001 to ask the Fed to bailout Enron (ie. act as
                           Rubin had).  All this means that the Wall Street
                           has far too much power in the Fed gov't.  When
                           people complain about the 'military industrial
                           complex' it absolutely pales in comparison to
                           the rent Wall Street (and the medical / insurance
                           BTW) extorts from the U.S. taxpayer.
        \_ She was a licensed stock broker before she became the Martha
           Stewart we know.  She knew exactly what she was doing, then
           tried to obstruct justice... she deserves her punishment.
        \_ CNN legal analyst:  "It means that, unless this is somehow undone
           on appeal, she's a felon and she's going to prison.  There's
           going to be a whole separate process in terms of what that
           sentence might be, but it's not going to be probation. It's not
           even likely to be a 'Club Fed' kind of thing.  She's actually
           going to be going to a real prison, like a real criminal."
           \_ Not 'like a real criminal'.  After she loses her appeal she'll
              be in a real prison because she is a real criminal.  And I hope
              she's only the first of many corrupt execs to follow.
2004/2/2-3 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:12076 Activity:high
2/2     Kansas court gives 18-year old 17 years for blowjob:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3689195,00.html
        \_ It was rear action, not BJ.
           \_ Bzzt. A BJ on an unwilling guy (or underage guy, in this case)
              is often legally classified as sodomy. (Props to Law & Order:
              SVU for the reference.)
        \_ they plan to appeal to kansas supreme court
        \_ it was a 14 year old.  jesus christ oh mighty!  you think it's
            wrong to protect children from sexual predators?
            \_ By tossing children in prison until they're 35?
            \_ Troll?  They were basically boyfriend&boyfriend, < 4 years
                apart in age.
            \_ In California a 18/14 year old couple is legal.
2004/1/20-21 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:11839 Activity:low
1/21    I'm looking for a lawyer who can represent me in a small claims appeal
        case. Where do I start? Thanks!
        \_ the phone book.  look under "L".
        \_ John Edwards
        \_ Generally lawyers don't appear in small claims.  That's the point.
           \_ a lawyer can't represent you in small claims court, period
              (except in very specific cases, like if you're a lawyer and
              you're representing yourself). but this guy is asking about
              an *appeal*, which is probably going to be in superior court.
                \_ EXACTLY. In appeal both sides can have lawyers, and it
                   is usually wise to do so.
2004/1/14-15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:11771 Activity:kinda low
1/14    No such thing as racism!
        http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c1gb7953-8798,00.html
        \_ Racism aside, this is messed up.  If it's consensual sex between
           two high school kids, child molestation and statutory rape should
           not pertain.
        \_ Oh my!
        \_ There may be racism in the sentencing but he did commit the crime.
           Their law says under-16 is off-limits, and he was over 18.
           \_ Maybe not even in the sentencing:
              'The latter charge, even without claims of aggravation, provided
              for a lengthy sentence, under Georgia's child protection laws.
              "The judge doesn't have an option" on the aggravated child
              molestation, Simpson (the defense attorney) told the Atlantic
              Journal Constitution. "His hands are tied. I have never seen this
              before, and I've tried hundreds of sex-related cases."'
2003/12/19-20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:11522 Activity:nil
12/18   You know, the jury recommended death for John Muhammad.  I think
        they'll recommend life in prison for Malvo, since they want the
        maximum punishment for him, which in this case would be facing
        60+ years in jail at the beginning of his life.  I figure they'll
        think kids will think it's an easy way out if they kill a bunch
        of people, receive so much attention, then get to die painlessly in
        the end.
2003/11/5-6 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:10954 Activity:low
11/5    I won in Small Claims and the Defendant filed for an appeal. I got
        the new court date which will happen on 1/2/04. However, today I just
        got a new notice titled "Clerk's Notice of Continuance RE: Hearing"
        and the date is 2/27/04. Does that mean the date on 1/2 is canceled?
        \_ Should file to dismiss the appeal. Ask opposing council why
           a court should even consider an appeal. Are they offering new
           evidence?
                \_ how can this be done?
        \_ Yes.
        \_ Call the court clerk and explain and ask what your options are.  I
           wasn't even aware an appeal of a small claims judgement was
           possible but I guess it makes sense sort of.  Anyway, see if there's
           a way to file to dismiss or otherwise squash their whole thing and
           try to get any dates moved up because it looks like the person is
           just trying to delay in the hopes you'll give up and go away.
        \_ This means that he has asked the court to move the date out to
           2/27/04. Unless you are in a hurry, just show up that day.
           IANAL.
2003/11/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:29606 Activity:high
11/3    Linda Tripp wins lawsuit for violation of privacy:
        http://uk.fc.yahoo.com/031103/325/ecy92.html
        \_ Who says the gods have no sense of humor?
           \_ hm. I didn't find it funny after learning she's getting almost
              $600k... I find it hard to believe there was that much damage.
              Of course, who knows what the lawyers take away. Are court
              winnings taxable income?
2003/10/31-11/1 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10888 Activity:nil
10/31   So I went to Small Claims Court and won. However, I'm really
        dissappointed at how it works. It is quite informal and arbitrary,
        just like politburo, and you're at the mercy of whoever's the judge
        that day. For me, I spent a lot of time organizing photos, documents,
        NOTORIZED documents, etc but the judge didn't even ask for them.
        Like I said it's really arbitrary like politburo. Court system sux.
        \_ and even after you win, how do you collect?
           \_ go to their employer and garnish their wages if they don't
              pay up.
        \_ I won by default 10 years ago when the defedent didn't show up in
           the court.  She hit me in a crash and she didn't have a driver's
           license.  That's the end of the story.  I never collected the
           money.  Oh, the judge did look at the repair estimate slips I showed
           him before setting the amount, though.
           \_ It's your own fault for not persuing it further.  The court only
              decides who wins and for how much, if anything.  There are other
              mechanisms for extracting payment.  The court system is
              excellent.  It allows little people without a lawyer to sue and
              win thousands of dollars with little time, expense, or
              expertise in the law.
              \_ How does one force the other guy to pay after winning in Small
                 Claims Court?
                 \_ There are a few ways, the best is garnishing wages if they
                    have a real job.  If they're entirely under the table it
                    will be harder but not always impossible if you keep on
                    them.  However, it is true that for a very small claim
                    you will spend way more time and effort than the money
                    involved.  Then it becomes about revenge or personal
                    satisfaction.
                        \_ you can pay a collector, $0 if no payment collected
                           but about 50% if collected. The court case is
                           a really powerful document. The paper gives you
                           rights to garnish any information on that person
                           and allows you to mess up his/her credit rating
                           and allows you to seize properties, assets, and
                           more commonly, wages. The other way is to pay
                           for a private investigator who will do these things
                           for you. You can always find one that'll charge
                           $0 if not collected.
           money.
2003/10/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10547 Activity:nil
10/8    I just won in a Small Claims court and the Defendant applied for
        an appeal which will be in another court, NEXT YEAR. What are the
        chances that the appeal will go through? Should I attempt to
        negociate with the Defendant before next year?
        \_ how could we possibly tell without knowing more?
        \_ 1) Outlook not so good
           2) Reply hazy, try again
        \_ whatcha win?
                \_ I lend him my vehicle and he crashed it and refused to
                   pay for it. However both of us acknowledged that he had
                   no license. The judge awarded me the full amount of the
                   repair PLUS money I paid to a private investigator who
                   found his address/new number because he did a pretty
                   good job evading me (moved, changed #, etc etc).
                   \_ For the sake of the motd's collective edification, can
                      you tell us how you ended up lending your vehicle
                      to him in the first place? Sounds strange given
                      what you've mentioned, and no one would want to repeat
                      whatever mistakes were made.
2003/9/25-26 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court] UID:10323 Activity:low
9/25    What does jail bait mean?
        \_ ask google, or jeeves. -- the web has all the answers you need
        \_ A hot underaged girl.
           \_ typically a girl.  could also be a boy.  age varies from state
              to state.
              \_ wait, it's not all under 18?
                 \_ here we go again...
                 \_ 'jail bait' implies by getting involved with said person,
                    you are risking breaking statutory rape laws.  Generally
                    < 18, but its a bit more complex than that.  IANAL
                 \_ http://www.ageofconsent.com
        \_ Age of Consent Laws in the United States
           ----------------------------------------
             Age 14:  Hawaii, Pennsylvania
                 15:  Colorado, South Carolina
                 16:  Alabama, Connecticut, Deleware, District of Columbia,
                      Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
                      Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
                      Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
                      Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakata, Utah, Vermont,
                      Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
                 17:  Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas
                 18:  Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Calif., Florida, Idaho,
                      Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakata, Oklahoma, Oregon,
                      Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin
                    \_ mmm.... underaged anal.
                       \_ It's pretty much the same as 18+ anal.
                          \_ Shh!  Don't spoil his fantasies with your pesky
                             reality.
2003/9/23-24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:10302 Activity:high
9/23    Court reinstates recall.  Bye Davis.
        \_ Hell-o-o-o Bustamante!
           \_ Hell, maybe.  Bustamante, no.  Not with the election now instead
              of in March when all the illegals will get to vote.
              \_ Wow.  The levels of idiocy are astounding!
                 \_ Of whom?  The Court, Davis, Bustamante, or the illegals?
                    \_ look to thyself, young sprite.
2003/9/10-11 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10141 Activity:moderate
9/10    Business school or law school. What's better for a geek's career?
        \_ porn school.
           \_ How about joining the Human Sexuality Dept.?
        \_ A real geek wouldn't consider either one.
           \_ not true
        \_ B-school. Not that you wouldn't succeed in law school, but it's
           much less useful for doing anything except, well, pretty much, law.
           \_ That's absolutely false.  I know a number of guys that went on
              to very successful business careers in the private sector (w/o
              going to B-School).  I also know a couple of guys that went into
              law enforcement with law degrees.  Knowing the law is far more
              useful than you give it credit for.
           So if you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. For anything else,
           b-school. You'll learn something and perhaps more importantly,
           meet a lot of talented motivated people with diverse backgrounds
           (depending on your b-school). And they will be thrilled to meet
           a techie person who actually understands techie things, since
           many of them will be interested in careers at technical companies.
           \_ Talented, motivated people with diverse backgrounds?  What is
              this school you speak of?  A close friend of mine went to a
              top five business school and met only idiots and middle managers
              clamoring to move into upper-middle management.  I apologize for
              my sarcasm, which is borne primarily out of skepticism.  Did you
              or someone you know have a different experience?  If so, where?
              \_ I thought the same thing before I visited a friend at
                 Harvard. He was ChemE at Cal, and I was really impressed
                 with the class I went to with him. All the students came
                 from different backgrounds ... investment banker here, govt
                 civil service person there, farmer over here, engineer over
                 there. Very thoughtful discussion, and what was neat was
                 that everyone spoke with a different perspective. So the
                 discussion was very interesting, and I completely changed
                 my mind on business school. I would have liked Harvard.
                 BTW, my understanding is there's a top-3 (Stanford, Harvard,
                 Wharton) and a all-others, and it's a huge gap between top-3
                 and all-others.
                 \- what about kellog? also the diff school have diff
                    flavors. like case approach vs. theory [uchi] etc.
                    \_ There's a number of solid next-tier schools ...
                       Kellogg is one, also Fuqua, Darden, Sloan, Haas, etc.
                       But seriously, no matter what weird ranking might
                       jumble them up, the top 3 are definitely the top 3
                       with a big gap between. You'll rarely/never find anyone
                       who turns down Stanford/Harvard/Wharton for anything
                       else at all. The other schools are consolation prizes.
                       \- ok if you say so. http://mba.eiu.com
2003/8/26 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:29471 Activity:nil
8/26    Court: State (Arizona )must cover care for illegals
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970709/posts
        \_ Check those numbers.  1.5 to 2 billion nationally, annually.
           This is hysteria over nothing.
           \_ A billion here, a billion there.  Pretty soon it adds up to real
              money.
              \_ Tell that to rummy.
2003/8/15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:29355 Activity:nil
8/15    Cracking down on Illegal Criminals
         "This past December, a man and woman sitting on a New York
         City park bench were surrounded by a gang of young men. The
         gang kicked and beat the woman before dragging her along
         the nearby railroad tracks and forcing her into the woods,
         where they repeatedly raped the 42-year-old mother of two
         and threatened to kill her."
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964613/posts
        \_ The term 'gang' has a negative connotation which prejudices the
           reader against the young men before their side has had a chance
           to be aired in an open court in front of a jury of their peers.
           I find this entire article racist, classist, and typical of
           the hatred the ultra right wing religious nuthead freepers are
           spreading.  They should be stopped.  No free speech for fascists!
2003/7/1-2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:28888 Activity:high
7/1     A witness of an accident I had refuses to come to the court house
        because he said "there is nothing in it for me." How do I issue a
        subpoena in a small claims court?
        \_ behold the power of google
           http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/subpoena.htm
           \_ All well and good, but it's pretty difficult to make a
              witness show up AND be useful if they're not interested.
              Will small claims accept an affidavit in place?
           \_ Damn this google crap. Pretty soon, I'll have no use for the
              motd! Curses!
              \_ well, it's still good as an intelligent google front-end.
                 \_ what about this resembles intelligence?
        \_ "If you show and say the right things I won't kill you, that's
            whats in it for you, you selfish stupid bastard!" always worked
            for me.  --never lost a court case
                \_ isn't this "assault" or some fancy legal term?
        \_ You better have a reaaaally open-and-shut case, because the
           testimony of a witness that you forced to show up could be worse than
           no testimony at all...
           \_ I second that. We are having to resort to an uncooperative
              witness in one of our cases (on the bright side, the opposing
              party isn't having much luck either). Your best bet is to get
              him/her to cooperate, but beware of anything that may be
              construed as creating bias. Otherwise, you'll have to go
              through the trouble of impeaching him/her on the fabrications.
        \_ Look up "Everybody's Guide to Small Claims Court in CA", Nolo
2003/6/14-15 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:28730 Activity:moderate
6/14    Can digital pictures be used in court room?
        \_ of course they can
           \_ why of course?  Can't pictures be doctored?
                \_ just because they can be doctored doesn't mean they
                   aren't allowed.  If you DO doctor photos and get caught
                   you are in for loads of trouble.
                   \_ i've just assumed "real" photos can be doctored as well,
                      albeit with a bit more effort.
                      \_ most of the techniques for doctoring digital photos
                         are emulations of well-understood darkroom
                         techniques.  -tom
                         \_ I used to use photoshop in the darkroom all the
                            time when I was on the high school year book staff
                            and you were in band.
        \_ lets say I took pictures of the apartment before and after moving
           out, gets deducted for ridiculous amounts and didn't get the
           deposit back. Can I still use digital pictures as evidence in
           a small claims court? I mean it's sooooo easy to doctor pictures.
                \_ you're supposed to have someone witness you taking pics
                        when you move in. ObGoogle.
           \_ Yes.  The small claims court judge will decide based on anything
              they feel like.  Who says they're digital sourced anyway once
              you've had them printed on kodak?  Don't tell the judge unless
              he asks, dumbass.
                \_what are the discovery rules in small claims court?  if it
                  was regular court, you wouldn't only have the judge to worry
                  about but the opposing party.  that a photo was doctored
                  would come out on cross-examination.  the opposing party
                  would very likely have the photo ruled inadmissible on lack
                  of foundation alone. even if the rules are way more relaxed
                  in small claims court, there has to be some similar
                  mechanism, i'd imagine.
                  \_ Can't you read?  I just told you small claims court
                     judges decide based on whatever they feel like.  The
                     typical case time in front of a judge is about 45 seconds
                     for each side.  You watch too much TV.
        \_ don't forget to check if this landlord has done these kind of
           things to other tenants in the past. That could be more firepower
           than any pictures, digital or not. i highly doubt that digital
           pictures would be ruled out as evidence. you can scan a negative
           and doctor it up as well.
           \_ in real court, they can ask for the negative and have
              experts analyze the negative.  Small claims court could
              have more lenient rules.
2003/4/1 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:27930 Activity:high
3/31    http://news.com.com/2100-1018-994810.html
        The patriot act at work.
        \_ You realize the patriot act was first introduced by the
           Clinton administration in 95-96 by Janet Reno, right?
           \_ who cares who introduced it?  (Although I would like
              to see documentation on that claim, it would be interesting)
2003/3/10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:27642 Activity:moderate
3/9     More on the belligerent lawyer at the mall.
        http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html
        \_ He was just looking for a lawsuit.
2003/1/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:27079 Activity:moderate
1/13    Just pray that you don't get sick (unless you like being strip
        searched by the secret police):
        http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v288n21/ffull/jlt1204-3.html
        \_ Being detained and strip searched is the least of your
           worries if you're undergoing radiation therapy, genius.
           \_ Yeah, but talk about adding insult to injury!
        \_ That guy hit a jackpot!  Now he can sue the police dept for millions
           of dollars on emotional damage.  I bet he and his lawyer are
           partying right now.
                \_ You can't sue the secret police. If you do, they come for
                   you and yours in the middle of the night.
                   \_ You of course read the article and saw it was the NYPD.
                      Little did anyone else know they're a secret org.
2003/1/4 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:26973 Activity:low
1/3     So if my idiot manager tells me my attitude is unacceptable and wants
        to know if I'm going through some sort of 'phase' and we're going to
        have a discussion about it, is that a good sign or a bad sign?  ;-)
        \_ How's your resume looking?
        \_ definitely not a good sign, but not necessarily a bad one either.
           make up some excuses and then work on improving your attitude,
           if you like your job, that is.
           \_ Tell him your hooker has skipped town right after you gave
              her rent money. So now you are broke and not getting laid
              to boot. That will ensure his sympathy.
           \_ I think it's too late for that when it's gotten to
              this point. Esp. since the manager is called "idiot".
              \_ Yeah, we're waaaay past the point of fixing anything.  Idiot
                 is so stupid I can't even read Dilbert anymore because the
                 Dilbert boss is smarter than mine.  Resume is looking really
                 damned good.  Been interviewing well.  I'm the only tech so
                 I'm unlikely to get flat out fired without enough warning to
                 bail out first.  --op
                 \_ If you're patient and like revenge, I recommend that you
                    continue interviewing, get offers, and then get fired.
                    After you get fired, get a lawyer and sue them.
                    Wrongful termination lawsuits are usually settled out of
                    court if you did your job and got fired just for
                    "attitude" problems.  You can probably milk a years
                    worth of salary out of them.
                    \_ Aren't we in an at-will state?  Does he even need
                       to give a reason to terminate?
                       \_ It's a bad idea anyhow. Why worry about revenge if
                          you're better off someplace else? They don't need
                          a reason to fire him, but it sounds like they are
                          afraid to do that.
                          \- Look for something else. Quit. Write reasonable
                             toned letter making reasonable points to boss^2.
                             Your grievance is with your boss not the company.
                             So when you retaliate you should "keep your eye on
                             the boss". --psb
2002/11/29-12/1 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Law/Court] UID:26667 Activity:very high
11/29   Has anyone used a lawyer for fighting a traffic citation? If so what
        was the outcome and how much did you shell out.
        \_ Unless you killed someone or you're up for some other sort of
           serious felony conviction you're wasting your time.  The lawyer
           fees will seriously outweigh the court penalties for a simple
           guilty plea.  No real lawyer will take your "75 in a 55 zone" case.
           \_ how about 125 in a 30 zone?
                \_ I think that falls under "serious felony".
        \_ I used the SF Traffic Clinic lawyers to fight a traffic citation.
           It was a couple hundred dollars, but I avoided a point on my
           driving record, and kept my insurance costs down too.  They
           specialize in driving citations in the bay area and are pretty
           good at arguing down a 75 in a 55 zone to a smaller offense. --chris
        \_ Be your own lawyer: http://nolo.com
                \_ thanks chris, that's what I wanted.
        \_ Be your own lawyer: http://nolo.com.  Direct(but long)URL:
           http://nolo.com/lawcenter/index.cfm/catID/8A09EBA2-DCC7-4589-9ADC0530153F4C9C/subcatid/CF015A63-6B69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E
           http://nolo.com/lawcenter/index.cfm/catID/8A09EBA2-DCC7-4589-9ADC0530
153F4C9C/subcatid/CF015A63-6B69-4EED-A34B6F4035C8BE0E
           Check out books like: Fight your ticket
                \_ I have the Nolo book, used it in court, judge loved
                   \_ me too. but I didn't do everything the book said.
                        my attempt and reduced the fine but didn't dismiss
                        the ticket. --op
                   \_ same here. but I didn't do everything the book said.
                      Since then, I've been waiting for a speeding ticket
                      to fight but haven't gotten one --poster of the book link
           \_ I used stuff from the Nolo book and totally got my ticket
              dismissed.  It really helps to know the Law here. -ERic
           \_ Ever heard of http://csua.org/u
        \_ You're doomed.
2002/11/20 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:26582 Activity:nil
11/19   is there any ground for a lawsuit if i got involuntarily transferred to
        another department, and the department that i am being transferred to
        terminated me on the date of my transfer citing that i am not a good
        fit for the only position that they have in the department?  note that
        there was a layoff (i think, since about 5 people got let go) about 2
        weeks ago.  realistically speaking, what will i be able to get out of
        this lawsuit and will this lawsuit affect my future career?
        basically, i am just bummed by their unprofessionalism and the
        "termination" on my employment record after having given them my heart
        and soul during the past 2 years, and had an excellent performance
        record with them.  i want to get a general feel of this before
        consulting legal consult.  any tips, urls, past personal/friend
        experiences, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
        \_ YES! SUE THEM!  There's a federal law that requires companies to
           give 90 day advance warning for any layoff.  Most tech companies
           \_Depends on the company size and number of layoffs. It also
           depends on how you were hired. Also, the OP says he got transferred,
           not fired. There's a distinct difference.
           violate that law, that's why the people get severance packages
           contigent upon you signing a waiver stating that you will not
           sue them.  In this case, your company is circumventing that law
           by making it appear as a transfer and then a firing.  That's
           bullshit.
           And anther related advice to everybody who is about to get laid
           off:  DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING and DO NOT TAKE ANY SEVERANCE PACKAGE.
           You can get more money out of suing them.  But it does take more
           time.  I suggest that you be patient and wait for the bigger
           check when they settle out of court.  And they will settle out of
           court.
           \_This only applies if a company doesn't file for Chapter 11 or 7.
           If a company seeks bankruptcy protection, you will most likely not
           see a dime. I think it goes something like this: Court, Attorneys,
           IRS, judgements, preferred creditors,
           unwashed masses of stockholders.
           \_ in calif its only if they are laying off over 20% of the company
              at a given time.. they can get around this by saying "we are
              gonna do layoffs in 90 days" but not saying who.. untill that
              90th day.. or so ive been told by a few diff hr girls -shac
           \_ Not in California.
           \_ This is true only if you expect the company to still be around
              for a while, right?
              \_ obviously yes.
           \_ Since my companies were startups that were doing final layoffs
              before shutting down it was more like take the severance check
              directly to the bank the moment I got it before everyone else
              got to the bank and emptied the account before my check could
              get there.  ;-)
        \_ Not really, but in America you can sue anyone for almost anything.
           I doubt any legal counsel will take up your case since it's pretty
           flimsy, but who knows. If you look hard enough, you can probably
           find some crackpot lawyer to waste time on it. If you are willing
           to pay for the prosecution out of pocket then anyone will take the
                          \_ Take legal advice from someone who doesn't
                             know how to user the word "prosecution"?
                             \_Apparently you are confused. I assume you
                             don't understand the colloqualism of
                             "paying for the prosecution." Sorry, you lose.
                             \_ or the word "use"?  gotcha hypocrite!
                                \- er are you suggesting "pay the for the
                                prosecution" is an expression like "pay the
                                piper"? otherwise "prosecution" implies
                                criminal jurisdiction pursued by the "public"
                                rather than a tortious claim, which is what
                                i assume you are suggesting. so i suppose it
                                it clear what you mean, but poor usage.
                                lots of matters can either be criminal or
                                tort, so it's worth being clear. --psb
           case. If you don't like the job, then quit. Keep in mind that if
           you do set yourself up for potential future career damage if word
           ever leaks out. Keep in mind, they haven't fired you, and their
           case for transfer can be relatively easily justified.
           \_ It's worse in Japan. You can't quit at all.  And if you manage
              to leave, you will be blacklisted.
                \_ As much as Tokyo has managed to piss me off, I refuse
                   to touch America until that idiot you people call a
                   president is extirpated from office.  That country is
                   so royally foobar'd now that you'll have to pay me the
                   negative deficit and a whore every night from
                   yoshiwara before I go back.  I have absolutely no
                   desire to go back in the near future until McCarthy 2
                   relinquishes his totalitarian grip on that place.  I
                   do miss aspects of America (namely prices) but that
                   place is just a wasteland.  I'm glad I got out while I
                   could because I'd hate to be in that landscape right
                   now.  I suppose if I were in college it wouldn't be so bad
                   but I graduated UCI and moved on so living there would be a
                   nightmare.  Even my friends and family are struggling
                   with the unemployment problems.  Really the country
                   needs to implode and start from scratch because it has
                   too many unsolvable problems.  - Happy Living In Tokyo
                   \_ Yawn.  Whatever.  You graduated from UCI?  Maybe that is
                      your real problem?  Take the ultra leftist hate mongering
                      zero references agenda driven drivel elsewhere.  Troll.
                      \_ Maybe you should pay attention to what people outside
                         the country see that we cannot. At least his comments
                         are more than an ad hominem attack.
                \_ If I looked like Kim Il Sung, I'd probably move too
        \_ I'm assuming this job is in California.  We all work "at will" which
           means they can fire you without cause for pretty much anything.  I
           suggest you find a labor lawyer and take them up on a free
           consultation (do not pay for a consultation, call someone else).
           A California labor lawyer can tell you if you've got a leg to stand
           on.  I'm guessing not but I'm not a lawyer and neither is anyone
           else here.
        \_ Just move on A.S.A.P. before your skills get rusty.  You don't want
           a reputation as a vengeful person.  Just take some recommendations
           and prepare the explanation well for when you interview.
           \_ The valley isn't that small.  No one has a repuation at the
              grunt level.  That's pure nonsense.
2002/6/11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:25070 Activity:moderate
6/11    Want to graduate, but failed your classes? Get a lawyer and get
        out on time!
        http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0610sunrisegrad10.html
        \_ Now there's a winner.  "Yeah, I needed a lawyer to graduate."
        \_ Damn... I have 180 semester units, but can't find a degree.
           Can I just get a lawyer? --scotsman
        \_ What a chicken school district.
2002/5/27 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:24953 Activity:nil
5/27    XP AntiTrust patch:
        http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/24/technology/microsoft.xp.reut/index.htm
2002/5/5 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:24715 Activity:nil
5/4     Attorney General Edwin Meese III explained why the Supreme Court's
        Miranda decision (holding that subjects have a right to remain
        silent and have a lawyer present during questioning) is unnecessary:
        "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime.  That's
        contradictory.  If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
        suspect."
                -- U.S. News and World Report, 10/14/85
2002/5/1 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:24646 Activity:nil
4/29    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-895715.html
        Two more companies consigned to trashbin of corporate history.
2002/4/25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:24577 Activity:nil
4/24    The new Windows logo (after the Anti-Trust lawsuit concludes):
        http://homepage.mac.com/adambetts/MacNN/CutOut.jpg
2002/3/27 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:24241 Activity:nil
3/27    what is a grand jury and what do they do? are they special jurors?
2002/2/10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:23830 Activity:very high
2/09    does anyone have any experience applying for a patent as an
        independent inventor, i.e. without the aid of an employer or
        institution (but not without a lawyer)?
        \_ Are you prepared to shell out $10K out of your own pocket?  If
           not, forget it.
        \_ Generally if you're doing it via an employer, the government, UC,
           or some other institution you don't own it anyway so it doesn't
           matter.  On your own you go find yourself a patent lawyer and shell
           out big bucks for them to write a decent patent and do prior art
           searches, etc.  It's important to know what a patent is.  A patent
           is the right to exclude.  It gives you the right to keep others from
           using your invention for 20 years from the date of filing (in the
           US).  It provides no other benefit.  It isn't instant wealth.  And
           defending your patent from infringers could easily take millions of
           dollars in legal fees and years in court without any guarantee of
           success.  Good luck!
        \_ A friend of mine has applied for about a dozen patents as a
           independent inventor. He found a good patent lawyer to help
           him with the applications. It took several iterations with
           his lawyer to work out the first application, but the others
           were quite easy. Make sure that the patent lawyer you get
           is familiar with the area of your invention (ie if you invented
           a specialized asic, get a lawyer who knows how to file hardware
           patents), otherwise you may end up spending a lot of money
           to file a patent that doesn't completely cover your invention.
2002/1/27-28 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:23684 Activity:moderate
1/25    Sharon assasinates witnesses against him:
        http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=116256
        \_ "Local Lebanese militia group takes responsibility for attack."
        \_ So Belgium sets of a kangeroo court which allows any nutcase to
        \_ So Belgium sets up a kangeroo court which allows any nutcase to
           sue anyone else in the world for generic human right's violations
           no matter where they occured.  It's a joke.  Who cares what anyone
           in Belgium has to say about anything.  The only thing Belgium was
           ever known for was being a super highway for the Nazis on their
           way to Paris.  Why do you or anyone else care what Belgium has to
           say?  As if a 'conviction' would mean Belgium would show up in
           Israel to arrest Sharon?  Let's add Arafat and the leaders of just
           about every Arab nation to the list while we're at it.  Let's add
           every American President to the list.  How about Putin?  He's a real
           bastard, too.  Silly.
2001/12/5-6 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:23152 Activity:high
12/5    Let's say I'm on the jury for one of bin Laden's top men. Will my
        identity be concealed? Is it public info?
        \_ I think it'll be public info if bin Laden goes to criminal court.
        \_ I think it'll be public info if he goes to criminal court.
           However, if he's captured alive, I think he'll most likely go to
           military tribunal instead where many things can be kept secret.
        \_ You'll end up known and on a jury for a good 18 months in seclusion
           and will probably be offered entry into the FBI's witness protection
           program afterwards.  You'll need it.
        \_ I think you're both full of it.  the secret military
           tribunals you are thinking of have no jury, just judges.
           \_ I wasn't thinking of a secret military tribunal.  Thank you for
              caring.
           \_ I think "trying one of bin laden's top men" is exactly
              what bush and co had in mind when they brought back
              ultra double secret military tribunal trials.  i hope.
              too bad that with the new presidential paper secrecy
              laws, we won't know about it for 200 years.
2001/10/12-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/P2P] UID:22706 Activity:kinda low
10/11   http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7479309.html?tag=mn_hd
        it is so obvious what the media-content industry is trying
        to do now.
        \_ It is?  What?
2001/7/25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21944 Activity:nil
7/25    New lead attorney in M$ anti-trust case:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27449-2001Jul20.html
2001/7/23 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:21908 Activity:high
07/22   yes the US sucks for arresting the russian adobe ebook hacker,
        but I think he fucked up by actually charging money for his
        program (a free version that partially decrypted the ebook,
        a non free version that decrypted the entire book).
        \_ His company charged money for the program. He wrote the program.
           \_ does this company have any other employees?
              \_ Yep, a bunch.  http://www.elcomsoft.com
                 --Galen
                 \_ If you visit Elcomsoft's website, don't forget to check
                    out http://www.mailutilities.com too (different URL,
                    but all Elcomsoft products).  Gotten spam lately?
                    There's a good chance that you can thank Elcomsoft and
                    its happy band of "white-hat" (ha) hackers for writing and
                    selling address-harvesting and bulk-E-mailing software.
        \_ why shouldn't he be arrested? the law's the law, shouldn't people
           be bitching and doing something about the law instead of whining
           about the enforcement? hm, i'd be interested in seeing a poll of
           industry employees vs. college kids re: this law.
           \_ Elcomsoft is based in Russia, isn't it?  US law does not
              apply to violations of American justice committed outside
              the country.  Not even if the perpetrator subsequently enters
              the US.  I don't see what is so difficult about this concept.
              If he had written the tool inside the US, or were hosting it
              on a US webserver (did he?) the situation would be different.
              In this case, the only justification for arresting him here
              would be a formal request for legal assistance and extradition
              from Russian police as a result of a crime committed in
              Russia.  -John
           \_ What did he do?
           \_ This *is* an attempt to change the law.
           \_ There are (at least) two troubling things here:
              1) putting someone in _jail_ and refusing access to diplomatic
                 envoys for "violating" the DMCA
              2) the DMCA itself, for making it impossible to expose false
                 advertising on the part of companies selling hw or sw security
                 systems.  "Your security is broken"  "Prove it or we sue you
                 for libel"  "OK, here, look!"  "Smack, you're in jail for
                 violating the DMCA"  --dbushong
        \_ Free Dmitry.  http://www.boycottadobe.org/pages/rallies.html
           Rally at Adobe in San Jose tomorrow mid-day among other places.
2001/7/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21898 Activity:moderate
7/21    Is it illegal to swear at a cop? Can you get arrested/fined for
        doing that?
        \_ yes
        \_ It's not illegal to swear at a cop per se-- there are very few
           laws that apply to cops specifically, with the exception of some
           sentencing-related laws for cop killings.  There are, however
           laws about obscenity, which a cop could reasonably cite you
           under for swearing at him.
                \_ Then do you know where I can find out exactly what
                   what these rules are? Some website with state/federal
                   laws?
                   \_ The relevant rules are found in the Constitution
                      under the section called Amendments.
           \_ Wow. Can you sue a coworker or underling with those same
              laws?
              \_ yes -- but you probably won't win.
                 \_ that's too bad. There is this one guy in my group
                    who swears way too much, so I wanted to threaten
                    to sue him in the hope that he cleans up. (Its so
                    bad we cannot allow him to speak to potential
                    candidates, customers or upper management)
                    \_ can't you sue him for something like mental anguish,
                       distress, etc.?  even if you probably won't win, the
                       threat of a lawsuit might be enough.  alternatively,
                       you could just tell him to, "shut the fuck up"
                       \_ I think option B is preferable here. The lawsuit
                          threat will just convince him you're a stiff
                          corporate pussy.
                          \_ I've already tried the stfu approach, it
                             doesn't work. He just swears at everything.
                             Every other word out of his mouth is one of
                             {mother}f*ck{er,ing}, shit, crap, damn, etc.
                             My intention was to make it clear to him that
                             unless he cleans up, he will be out of a job.
                             \_ Are you his boss? If not, then you stfu.
        \_ Swearing at a cop is not illegal, but it is a good way to
           get your ass kicked. -ausman
2001/6/30 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/Security] UID:21688 Activity:nil
6/30    fuck amihotornot: http://www.ratemyrack.com
2001/6/29 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21674 Activity:high
6/28    Maybe everything is not going according to plan for Redmond:
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20079.html
        \_ but enough is, you cunt.
2001/6/28 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:21661 Activity:high
6/28    Court Reverses Microsoft Breakup Order
        http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/Tech/Microsoft_Antitrust_Tria
                                                              \_ "Trial"
        F**K!!!
        Maybe tjb had paid Judge Jackson to bad-mouth against M$.
        \_ No, M$ paid off the higher court judges or threatened
           them and/or their families. This judgement was obtained
           by bribery or extortion, which how all crime syndicates
           obtain "justice".
           \_ The Bush Administration cut off funding for prosecution
              of the case.  So, in a roundabout sort of way, yes.
              \_ Isn't this particular hearing just based on the M$
                 briefs vs. the findings of facts (no prosecution
                 involvement).
2001/4/20-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:21041 Activity:high
4/20    US District Court judge rules "The First Amendment clearly applies to
        the internet.  The law says that a person has a right to speak
        anonymously."  Who would've guessed?
        <DEAD>digitalmass.boston.com/news/daily/04/042001/chatter_privacy.html<DEAD>
        \_ but tom reserves the right to not reply to your
           posts on the motd.
           \_ Who said anything about tom?  The whole world doesn't revolve
              around tom.  The truth is tom is a very itty bitty tiny part of
              the world.  The post is about important things, not tom.
              \_ as far a free speach on the internet goes, i think that
                 what i will call the "tom phenomenon" is very important.
                 by this i mean that unrestrained speach also can lead to
                 unrestrained censorship.  in the end, as on the motd, we
                 are not censored by large insitituions or governments,
                 but by single, petty individuals who feel very strongly that
                 certain points of view need to be censored.
              \_ tom is so k3w1!
                 How many tom's does it take to screw in a light bulb?
                 One. Cause the world revolves around him.
                 - tom's #1 fan
                \_ you already used this joke with Alan Greenspan this morning,
                   ikiru.  -tom
                   \_ tom, i think most people only bait you and pick on you
                      because you're intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
                      it isnt personal.  youre not worth getting personal over.
                      it -is- fun to bait you though.  youre very knee-jerk and
                      reflexive which adds a dose of consistency to life that
                      some find comforting. thanks for being the same old you
                      every day without any growth or change all these years.
                      keep on truckin!  -!ikiru
                      \_ said like a moron whos never made a solid argument
                         in his life. you're the kind of person who likes to
                         play devil's advocat because it's easier than making
                         constructive arguments. you should kill yourself.
                         \_ A friend of the devil is a freind of mine.
2001/3/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Health/Men] UID:20764 Activity:high
3/12    Penis.  Cut or uncut?  Sue if you're not happy.
        http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/gma/goodmorningamerica/gma010207circumcision_suit.html
        Note the high quality "study" his lawsuit is depending on.
        \_ get over your dicks already.  --chris
           \_ ari has Jewish penis.
           \_ Show your support by beheading your clitoris.
           \_ get off my dick.  -tjb
              \_ and get onto mine! --Moron
           \_ get off my dick.  -nweaver
           \_ A clear case of Freudian penis envy if ever there was one.
        \_ Why didn't he sue his mom instead?  Geez.
        \_ Sigh.  A new breed of blood sucking ambulance chasing lawyers that
           are even too lazy to chase ambulances.
           \_ Hi. My name's Mr. Hutz. I'll be your lawyer, bodyguard, and
              drug dealerrrr...keeper-awayer.
2001/1/24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:20415 Activity:very high
1/23    what's better paying a speeding ticket fine and having the point
        added or paying a lawyer to fight it for you?
        \_ A speeding ticket?  Sheesh, go to court, plead guilty and beg the
           judge not to give you a point.  A lawyer won't help unless you
           killed someone while speeding in which case a point on your record
           is the least of your concerns.  A *lot* of people have a point or
           two.  Big deal.
           \_ How does one plead guilty and _not_ get a point?  The only
              way I've seen people successfully remove points, is by
              having a lawyer.
        \_ Depends on whether the case is winnable, how many points you
           already have, and if you can go to traffic school. In general,
           just pay the fine. California considers you a good driver with
           only one point, although your insurance will rise. --dim
           \_ insurance rates rise by how much in general?  How long do
              the points stay on your record?  How long do you get penalized
              by insurance?
              \_ Points stay on your record for 3 years. Your insurance
                 will penalize you for the duration. My insurance went
                 up 10% with 1 point, but it will go up *much* more with
                 2 points (I've had 2 before). --dim
        \_ if you can afford it, get the lawyer to remove the point...and
           especially if you've already got a point on your record.
           \- it depends on the side effects. if it your first point and
           tschool is an option, you could do that. what is your argument
           going to be? they lawyer has to make some kind of argument.
           you may want to look at nolo press book on fighting tickets.
           i suppose you can look at blashfield but at that point better to
           pay a lawyer. --psb
2000/12/14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:20098 Activity:nil
12/13   Seen on rec.humor.funny:
        A guide for the perplexed on legal maneuvering:
        If it benefits my candidate, it's the rule of law.
        If it benefits your candidate, it's a technicality.
        \_ how banal. tom, is that you?
           How about "justice is a decision in your favor."
        \_ how about "Marriage is like a caste system. Once you go there
           you've lost all of your mobility."           -married sodan 1999
        \_ How about "Marriage is like a pie. It tastes sweet for the first
           few years and later on you just want to throw up"
        \_ "This URL has been censored."
2000/11/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:19878 Activity:nil
11/21   Any online reference as to how to sue the federal government (or
        (some dept. thereof)?  If not, an off-line ref. would be o.k.
2000/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Law/Court] UID:19785 Activity:very high
11/15   I am typically not so blunt, but does anybody else think that the
        Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris is a total bitch?  She is
        not even trying to pretend to be non-partisan.  Which cabinet post or
        ambassadorship has she been promised?
        \_ so she should break the law to please Gore? all she is doing is
        following the law put there to protect the will of the people and
        preserve fairness.
             \_ Yes. We need to ELECT GORE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
                The law is irrelevant, only ELECTING GORE matters!
          \_ Read the law you dipshit.  Title 9, Chapter 102.166.  It's very
             clear about hand recounts being totally legal.  They have followed
             that law to the letter
                     Here you go _/
                     \_ reformatted in the interest of space. I
                        believe that its (2) that you want to read.
                        Gore is trying to break the LAW, and Ms. Harris
                        is trying to do her job (uphold the LAW). Last
                        I checked we were a nation of LAWS and no one
                        including GORE was ABOVE THE LAW.
                        \_ Uh, yes.  Gore protested with the canvassing board
                           within 5 days of the election.  So yes, Gore did
                           what he had to do.  This says nothing about that
                           bitch having any right to try to stop the counts
                           like she did this morning.  And I can't wait until
                           the Florida Supreme Court gets its hands on this
                           case firmly.  They are all Democratically-appointed
                           judges.
2000/9/9-10 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:19217 Activity:high
9/9     I was woken up today (Saturday) at 9 am by a telemarketer.  Is
        there some way to avoid this (aside from unplugging my phone and
        missing calls from friends worth being woken up for)?  For example,
        there could be a law passed where telemarketers have to
        electronically identify themselves as such.  Then, the residential
        phone customer (me) could choose when they want to receive/block
        calls from telemarketers with the touch of a button.  How would one
        go about trying to get a law like this passed?  -tired & pissed
        \_ telemarketers have caller ID blocks which makes it impoossible
           to tell what their number is or *69 them.  You can pay PacHell
           $2/mo to block all *69/CallerID blocked (yes, the double negative)
           numbers or pay PacHell $6/mo for caller ID and the above service
           is free.  The only problem is that if you have friends who work
           in SVC their companies probably also have callerID blocks. That
           can be remedied by using *82 to disable it temporarily.
           can be remedied by using *82 to disable it temporarily. When
           you do get called by a telemarketer, try to give them the run
           around.  Make them pay for their crimes or just start cussing
           at them. If you really want to look up laws try
           http://thomas.loc.gov
           \_ My experience is that telemarketers call from areas that
              don't have caller id, and whenever I get a call and my
              caller id unit tells me this, I don't even bother answering.
              There is a difference between calling from an area without
                        going to stop AT&T from calling me.  Besides, it's
                        not that I mind them calling.  I just mind them
                        calling when I'm sleeping on a Saturday morning at
                        9 am.
              caller id and calling from a phone that has it blocked.
        \_ All you need to say is, "Can I please be taken off this list?"
nnnnn   \_ All you need to say is, "Can I please be taken off this list?"
           Ta-da.  After a number of months of this, your tele-marketing
           calls drop *dramatically*.
                \_ I don't see how telling Discover card not to call me is
                going to stop AT&T or the "Rescue Mission" from
                           to help and I get this crap.  Thanks buddy.
                calling me.  Besides, it's not that I mind them
                calling.  I just mind them calling when I'm sleeping
                on a Saturday morning at 9 am.
                                \_ Most telemarketing is outsourced to a
                                   small number of companies - if you tell
                                   them not to call, they're supposed to
                                   remove you from all lists, not just the
                                   client they're calling you for.
                        \_ Whoops.  I should have read your original
                           question more carefully and realized you had
                           greater problems than 9 a.m. phone calls.  I try
                           to help and I get this.  Thanks buddy.
                                \_ Relax.  Don't take it personally!  I was
                                        just being more specific about the
                                        problem.  But thanks for your help.
                                        \_ Anyways, they're supposed to
                                           only call from 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.,
                                           which includes weekends.  It's
                                           bad manners, but it's legal.
           \_ Yes, the polite approach is best. I hear that if you piss
              off a telemarketer, they'll put your name on more lists.
                \- i just say "please mail me the infiormation so i can
                review it" --psb
        \_ I was called by providian credit card, and i said i wasn't really
           interested, and she kept insisting i give the last 4 digits of
           my SSN to check to see how much credit I would have, so i thought
           it couldn't hurt, and within seconds she started saying
           "your credit card will be arriving in two to three weeks", and
           I kept repeating "No!! no!! I dont want a cred-" "Thank you
           and have a good day" and she hung up. I got my unwanted CC
           last week with a $59 intial charge tacked on. I called up and
           told them the whole story, they appologized, cancled the card
           but it took me half an hour, waiting and getting transfered.
                \_ Saying anything _but_ "No, please take me off this list"
                   is always a bad idea.  If at any point you say the word
                   "Yes" in response to any question, they've got you.
                   "Are you having a good day?"  "Yes."  Pow!
        \_ "What is your company?  Please add me to your no call list.
            Never call me again.  Thank you".  Do this, and the number of
            telemarketing calls swiftly goes to 0.  If any company calls
            you a second time, sue them in small claims court for $500.
2000/8/18-21 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/Tax] UID:19038 Activity:kinda low
8/18    I need recommendations on estate planning books.  Something that
        covers trusts, living wills, tax saving plans, etc.  I'll try to
        do this myself first before consulting a CPA.  Thanks.
        \_ Nolo.  Good luck.
        \_ get a lawyer before you f*ck it up and end up giving most, or all,
        \_ get a lawyer before you fuck it up and end up giving most, or all,
           of it back to the government!
              \_ A laywer is necessary, but I think that he wants to do
                 his "homework" before talking to one. At $250/hr its best
                 to go in with a good idea of the problem space you are
                 dealing with.
                 \_ His lawyer will already know.  He's wasting his time.
           \_ The government sucks! -anarchist
           \_ the government sucks! -anarchist
2000/7/31-8/2 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18833 Activity:kinda low
7/31    "When you're a U.S. citizen you have to build OpenSSL in conjunction
        with the RSAref library."  What is the reasoning behind this?
        \_ Well, only if you're in the USA. RSA has a patent in the USA.
           Fortunately, that patent is expiring on Sep. 20, 2000.  --PeterM
                \_ Patents are evil!  Kill all patents!  Free beer for the
                   people!  We have the right to everything free!
        \_ It's incorrect actually - it's if you are in the US or not -
           non-citizens are not exempt from US law when on US soil.  RSA
           can still sue your scrawny ass for patent infringement if you
           don't.  (They're not likely to, but they can.)
           \_ also, US Law applies to US Citizens no matter where they are
              in the world.
2000/7/21-22 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:18741 Activity:nil
7/20    Looking for a NT/data recovery expert to do 2-3 days work (ASAP)
        as an expert witness for an upcoming trial.  Opposing party claims
        that all data on its stand-alone, NT-running PC was "accidentally"
        erased; the law firm I work for suspects otherwise.  Must be (a)
        technically capable and (b) articulate, calm, and unflappable (as
        you may need to testify at trial).  If interested email timothym.
        \_ You don't need an expert.  If it was accidentally erased, you
          should be able to get it back w/ any <$40 data recovery tool.
           If not, it was intentional and they burned that file real good.
                \_ Fair enough, but *I* can't tell that to a jury; I need
                   someone with established credibility (EECS degree;
                   SiliValley experience, etc.) to sway a jury.
                   Also, evidence that files were intentionally burned may
                   be admissible in court. -timothym
        \_ Has anyone actually attempted recovery?  Your expert's
           testimony doesn't count very much, otherwise.
                \_ Supposedly the user's SA did, but we don't believe his
                   story.  (We've already obtained evidence that this
                   company doctored some e-mails and documents; they've
                   got little credibility at this point.)  -timothym
                   \_ Your expert needs to attempt recovery / inspect
                      the PC, I suppose with the defendant watching.
                      Call up http://drivesavers.com and see what they say
                      about the whole thing.  Otherwise, yeah, your
                      expert can comment on the defendant's testimony.
2000/7/18 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18707 Activity:very high
7/17    If my okay looking neighbor is topless in her backyard, is it legal
        to tape her? Do I need a consent similar to that of phone
        surveillance?
        \_ How good looking she is has nothing to do with the legality of the
           situation.  As for the rest, consult a lawyer, not the motd, as
           always.  IMO, go ahead, tape her, just don't distribute copies.
           You might want to go next door and say hi.
        \_ If you are not planning to rebroadcast the recording you do not
                                        \_ You mean broadcast.  Learn english.
           need to consider the legal implications (the ethical ones are
           another matter), rebroadcasting is illegal.  There is a reasonable
           expectation of privacy in ones own back yard.
                \_ Broadcasting, reproducing, or publically displaying.
           \_ Bahaha. "Reasonable expectation of privacy". Is that as
              gray as say, abortion and euthenasia?
                        \_ Legally abortion is very black and white.
                           In many jurisdictions, so is euthanasia.
              \_ Your comment is ill-formed on so many levels.
        \_ http://www.voyeurweb.com
        \_ You sick fuck, do you realize that if you do this without
           her consent and she finds out, she could probably prove that
           it was taped from your window, given the viewpoint?  I think
           a lawyer would lick his chops when thinking of getting his hands
           on 40% of the punitive damages you'd have to pay.
           \_ present precedent or shut the fuck up.
                \_ The many lawsuits the last few years against companies
                   that hid cameras in locker rooms, etc. and then sold video
                   on the net.
            \_ better yet, explain what this has to do with the question.
               he doesn't mention anything about selling the videos.
        \_ Y3AH 1T"Z 0KAY D00D!!!1!!1!!!!  1F UR LUCKY, MAYB3 SH3"LL NOT1C3 U
           TAP1NG 0N3 DAY AND ASK U 2 CUM 0V3R 4 A 3-S0M3 W1TH H3R AND H3R
           H0T BL0ND3 FR313ND!!!!!1!!1!!  TH1Z W0RK3D 1N A PR0N M0V13 1 SAW
           0NC3!!!1!1  GUD LUCK!!!11!
                \_ I'll tape it for you next time.
2000/5/7 [Reference/Law, Reference/Law/Court] UID:18195 Activity:high
5/7     Legal questoin.  If i open a ISP on indian land, sets say Navajo
        territory, am I still goverened by US crypto export laws?
        \_ They aren't foreign nations.  They still follow all Federal laws,
           so this won't help you export weapons, no.  Go to a foreign country
           if you want to help terrorists and the mafia evade the FBI.
           All Federal laws apply and all State laws apply if you're not a
           member of that tribe.  As if you're the first person in 200+ years
           to think of abusing Native Americans....
2000/4/27-28 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court, Transportation] UID:18127 Activity:nil
4/26    http://www.peacefire.org/staff/bennett/autodave
2000/4/24 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:18103 Activity:nil
4/24    to those people who said that the elian custody matter had already
        been decided for the miama family in florida family court, you seem
        to have missed the part where that decision was thrown out because
        under florida law a great uncle does not have a claim to custody.
2000/3/11-12 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:17742 Activity:kinda low
3/10    http://interstice.com/leo
        \_ bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
        \_ Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
2000/1/20-21 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW] UID:17273 Activity:moderate
1/19    http://linuxcentral.com/linux/LDP/rms.txt  Is it really true that
        amazon has patented the use of cookie in online ordering?  I thought
        they are not even the first one to use it.  Can I patent eating
        food through my mouth?
        \_ Anyone who thinks amazon patented cookies has either not read the
           patent (very likely), understands nothing about patent law (highly
           likely), or is a complete moron.  Choose any two of the above.  The
           fact that the court has prevented amazon competitors from using
           amazon's patented one-click technology makes it clear that the
           court feels amazon is likely to win it's case in a trial.  I trust
           the opinion of the court on this matter more than I trust the
           opinion of the uninformed slashdot masses who would all be super
           geniuses if they knew 1/10th of what they think they know about the
           world or anything in it.
        \_ They patented "One-Click Shopping" which uses cookies.  And if you
           worded it right, you could probably convince the morons in the
           patent office to issue a patent for eating with your mouth.
           \_ Quick!  Patent the "9 items or less" line and sue every
              supermarket chain in the country!
           \_ patent office workers are underpaid and overworked
              and if you were knowledgable enough to approve good technology
              patents you wouldn't be working there
              \_ Wasn't Albert Einstein a patent clerk? --dim
                 \_ Exactly.  That's why he quitted, and that's why he didn't
                    bother patenting his Theory of Relativity.  (If he worded
                    it right, he could've even patented a theorem, right?)
                    \_ Wrong. The one rare thing patent law is explicit about
                       is that you can't patent laws of nature. If he BUILT
                       something using the principle, however.... -alexf
                       \_ But you can patent DNA sequences! That sounds
                          like it's in conflict with the above statment.
                          \_ That's an ongoing debate. Check specifics
                             with someone who knows more than I do. -alexf
                       \_ Which reminds me of this: computer programs were
                          thought of as algorithms, which were math, which was
                          laws of nature.  How was computer programs excluded
                          from this law and became patentable?
                          \_ Software is now considered an implementation and
                             not an algorthym.  If you look up the exact
                             definition of algorythm you'll find pretty much
                             zero software falls under that definition.  In
                             very simple terms, the law considers software to
                             be no different than hardware in terms of patent-
                             ability.  Software is an expression of the idea,
                             the same way hardware is.  You build it with bits
                             instead of widgets.  Consult a patent lawyer if
                             you want a full legal explanation.  IANAL.
                          \_ I think there's been some debate about whether or
                             not software should be patentable, or just
                                                \_ http://lpf.ai.mit.edu
                             copyrighted-- but the original reasoning of
                             software patents had to do with the analogy that
                             a computer given the software of a word
                             processor was bascially similar to the invention
                             of a typewriter.
                             \_ What's the difference between patent and
                                copyright?
                                \_ Copyright protects things that can be copied
                                   (text, images, music, etc.)  Patents protect
                                   inventions.
                          \_ Hell, you're composed of atoms--basically your
                             ideas are just random fluctuations of nature.  How
                             can you patent anything?
1999/11/2 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Law/Court] UID:16806 Activity:nil
11/1    How come the judge in the Wyoming gay bashing trial can bar the
        "gay panic" defense?  Shouldn't the jury be the ones to decide
        whether certain defenses in a court trial are valid or not?
1999/10/6-8 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/Graphics] UID:16669 Activity:very high
10/5    Is GIF pronounced as "jif" or "ghif"?
        \_ my officemate says "jif" is east coast while "ghif" is s west coast
        \_ Depends.  Are you a retard or a normal person?
          \_ You are retard
                \_ You are retard, me am not retard, you am big dummyheaded!!
          \_ You are a retard.
        \_ Yes.
          \_ don't know how to answer a question?
                \_ The answer is valid.  To go back to second grade and
                   answer in a complete sentence, "Yes, GIF is pronounced
                   as either 'jif' or 'ghif'.  Some people say it the first
                   way, others the second, neither is 'more correct' than the
                   other."
        \_ say jif.  ghif sounds gay.
               to steal other people's work.
                \_ no, it's just the opposite.
        \_ I usually pronounce it as "that obsolete, poorly-compressed,
            limited colormap, patent encumbered, joke of a format that
            should be avoided whenever possible"
            \_ That's pretty long-winded for a three-letter word.
            \_ It is not patent encumbered.  Unisys is not going to sue your
               soda home page into bankruptcy for violating their patent or
               send you a bill for $5000.  And in general, there's nothing
               to steal other people's wor
               wrong with patents.  99% of the anti-patent crowd never did a
               god damned thing worthy of one, so no shit they want the right
               to steal other people's work.
                \_ Second that
                \_ I am staunchly anti-software-patent, and I have done
                   several things that were patentable.  In fact my newest
                   invention is called "Device Enabling Pro-Software-Patent
                   Motd Posters to Bite Me".  -blojo
                   \_ If you didn't get a patent, how do you know it was
                      patentable?  You wouldn't be the first to think he was
                      a Eureka! super genius but turn out to be just another
                      MOTD editing fool.
                      \_ "If you have to ask, you don't know."  I am a
                         research programmer in the field of 3D graphics
                         and computational geometry.  I spend 100% of my
                         time thinking up systems that are new, and then
                         trying them out.  When you're In The Zone of
                         knowing all the current research, and adding to it,
                         it is generally easy to know what is patentable
                         and what is lame.      -blojo
                         \_ I know you're Mr. Graphics.  That doesn't make you
                            super foo.  You're still not a lawyer.
                            a patent lawyer.  I easily grant your graphics
                            super fu.  You're still not a lawyer.
                            \_ The point was, that if you're aware of the
                               state of the art, and you know what was patented
                               in the past given the state of the art at that
                               time, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
                               figure out roughly what has a good chance of
                           far superior math skills to you".
                               being a defendable patent.  Sure, you
                               might be a little off here and there, but you
                               pretty much know.    -blojo
                                \_ You're not a lawyer, but you play one on
                                   the motd.  If it was that easy, why are
                                   all those engineers bothering to go to law
                                   school to retrain as patent lawyers?  They
                                   should just go take the bar exam right off
                                   since it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
                                   It does take a lawyer, though.
                                   \_ well if they had a bar exam to become a
                                      patent lawyer in that narrow field, maybe.
                                      but they dont,  you have to be a full
                                      lawyer to be a patent lawyer, and so you
                                      have to take the full bar exam. Hence
                                      the need to waste time with law school.
                                   \_ I think you're a little confused about
                                      the patent process.  Patent lawyers
                                      do not come up with ideas of what to
                                      patent.  The engineers come to them, and
                                      they say "Help me patent this."  It
                                      costs significant dollars to see a
                                      patent through, so you don't do it unless
                                      you're pretty sure it's viable.  Also,
                                      who are these armies of engineers
                                      retraining as patent lawyers of whom
                                      you speak?  I don't know any of them.
                                      Sounds anecdotal to me.    -blojo
            \_ I thought Compuserve came up with the format?
               \_ You people have gif and jpeg confused.
                \_ Compuserve developed the GIF format using the LZW
                   compression method Unisys developed & patented.
                   (Note to pro-patent-mongers above:  Unisys only did
                    the W in LZW - the original LZ work was done elsewhere
                    and merely extended by Unisys, but their patent allows
                    them to profit off the work of others.)
                   \_ "allows them to profit off the work of others": Hello?
                      Know ye nothing, young jedi knight?  They're only allowed
                      to profit from their useful and original extensions to
                      another's work, aka "their own work".  I see nothing
                      wrong with that.  Anyone not using their extension owes
                      them nothing and no one is required to do so.  In any
                      event, a patent doesn't last forever.  Old patents are
                      17 years from the time of issue.  New patents are 20
                      years from the time of first application filing.
                   \_ What is the W in LZW?  I know how Lempel-Ziv
                      compression works, but I never learned about W. -emin
                        \_ The "W" is (W)oman.  As in "Woman of Power with
                           far superior math skills than you".
                           \_ The "W" is (W)1MM1N!!1!  As in "D00D, 1 G0TTA
                              1NV3NT TH1Z GRAPH1KZ F0RMAT S0 1 KAN SHAR3
                              P1KS UV N3KK1D W1MM1N W1TH MY K0MPUT3R
                              FR13NDZ!!!!1!!!!"
                                \_ Oh yeah, you're right.  Tpyo, sorry.
              \_ Getting back to the original post, "gif" is pronounced
               "jif."  The "g"  before "i" grammar rule says that the
               "g"  picks up a "j" sound.  Yup..."ghif" sounds kinda
               gay,  please don't use that in public.  -- swings
               \_ I wonder who's getting me gifts (pronounced "jifts"
               according to the above post) for my birthday this month?  I
               use (ghift) in public all the time and I sound way too cool.
               \_ Also "giant" vs "giddy".  Both common English words that
                  somehow violate this mysterious "g before i rule".  There
                  are numerous counter examples to this so called rule.  But
                  really what can one expect from the motd anyway?
               \_"g" before "i" generally applies when in doubt.  my goodness
                   EECS people always have to have the last word, eh?
                \_ i think words with "g" pronounced as a soft "j" sound
                   before "i" are few and far between.  there is no such rule.
                   it makes sense intuitively to me to pronounce it as a hard
                   "g".  i can't understand why you'd want to pronounce gif
                   like jif.   it's not a peanut butter for god's sake.   -lila
                \_ It really doesn't matter!  People who pronounce it
                   "ghif" are probably used to the "gift" idea; people who
                   pronounce it "jif" either think there's that rule to
                   pronunciation, or just like the alliteration that you'd
                   get with "jif" and "jaypeg".
                   \_   well of course it doesn't matter.  since when
                        did we debate anything of import on the motd?   -lila
1999/8/11 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:16294 Activity:nil
8/11    Anybody have experience filing a personal injury lawsuit?  Car
        accident related?  I'm thinking of doing that would appreciate
        any pointers to books or web sites that guide you through the
        paperwork.  Thanks.
        \_ ED!  ED!  ED is the STANDARD!  Personal Injury Lawyer.
        \_ Jim Rodgers, "The People's Lawyer"
        \_ http://www.nolopress.com
1999/8/8 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:16270 Activity:nil
8/8     http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2310792,00.html?chkpt=hpqs014
1998/9/29-30 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:14695 Activity:high
9/29    Under what condition is it legal to tape a conversation without
        the other party's prior consent?  I know it is illegal for phone
        conversations (e.g. Linda Trip) but what about other places?
        The taping of a Texaco coorporate meeting was illegal, but
        all those "investigative" reporting on 20/20 are.  Helpful
        URL is also welcome.
        \_ If you are a fat ugly woman who wants to betray your best
           friend then yes. Otherwise no.
        \_ You need a lawyer.  This is a complex state-by-state issue with
        a pile of federal laws thrown in for kicks.  For example, in some
        states, it is legal if *one* of the parties consents to the
        recording....  Linda just chose the wrong state to turn on the tape
        machine.
        \_ Since you're in California, I found something in the phone book.
           If your machine beeps every 15 seconds, -or- if you've been informed
           and you don't hang up, then you've consented.
           \_  For telephone conversation it is often illegal, but in public
                accesible places I doubt it.  Otherwise, it would be illegal
                to tape your Bio1A lecture.
                \_ I think there's a distinction as to whether a recording
                   is legally used against you or something;  how does the
                      to be recorded. --dim
                   \_ You've been informed that you're being recorded.  I
                      hate to agree with dim but that's correct.  Everyone
                      gets lucky sometimes.
                   whole self-incrimination thing work anyway?  -John
                \_ how about all those phone service / tech support things
                   where they basically tell you 'this call may be recorded/
                   monitored for quality assurance pruposes'.  They must be
                   assuming its legal in that case.
                   \_ By remaining on the line you are implicitly agreeing
                      to being taped.
        \_ I think in the case of Candid Camera and 20/20, they have to
           tell the people that they've been taped afterwards, then give them
           the choice to destroy the recording.
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Results 1 - 150 of 234   < 1 2 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Reference:Law:Court:
.