Slashdot Mirror

You are 100% wrong. WaPo is being sued for $150 million for their coverage of the Covington kids.

This is America. The fact that somebody is sued really means nothing, anybody can sue anybody for anything. Have you seen this one? https://abovethelaw.com/2015/1...

They are going to lose, guaranteed.

Nice crystal ball you got there.

The problem with crystal ball is... they usually show just what you choose to see.

to incite violence yes and it is. What matters is intent. How do you prove intent? With a jury.

Meant to say, I disagree with this. Freedom of speech means the right to say unpopular things.
Your right to call Muhammad a pedophile should not be constrained because some people are violent.

You may not remember this event. The attacker was acquitted. I thought the judge's reasoning was insane.
https://friendlyatheist.patheo...
https://abovethelaw.com/2012/0...

China is announcing all sorts of investments in science and engineering. Following through is uneven. They have huge numbers of scientists and engineers. As someone who got a Ph.D. in Chemistry at a top university back in the 1990s, I can tell you that the Chinese students that came here were top-notch, and many wanted to return to China.

We have been kept afloat by many of these Chinese students staying. I don't think the U.S. could have done what it has on Americans alone. How do we make sure our top people go into science? Even Justice Scalia noticed that too many top minds were going into law.

https://abovethelaw.com/2009/1...

repair yourself

The right to repair is an important part of ownership. Anything else and you start getting into "implied licensing" territory, which is exactly the bullshit John Deere pulls with their tractors.

or at an unlicensed shop voids the warranty

That sounds nice at first glance, but therein lies the problem. All a company like Apple has to do is license zero repair shops and suddenly they have a monopoly on device repairs. They can charge any amount, or outright refuse to repair anything they want.

No company should be expected to honor a warranty on devices that were broken or improperly repaired by tinkerers who don't know what they're doing.

Nobody is really saying they should be; however, the onus to prove the item was damaged by a failed repair job is on the warranty provider -- just as it is on them to prove you didn't mistreat it in other ways (drop in the toilet, put in the microwave, etc).

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

Nah, most "Big Law" firms, including MoFo, use a lockstep pay scale based on NY offices, sometimes with regional cost-of-living adjustments elsewhere. A few are merit-based, but a) they're outliers, and B) they usually pay less. For the lockstep system, first year associates start at $160k, and have annual raises, or get fired and become suicidal because they have huge student loans and are less likely to be hired by a competitor after they've been canned. If you go to "Above The Law," you can find all of the information on most large law firms as, not surprisingly, it's big news among associates. Now partners.. they're the ones making serious money.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/01...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05...

Nah, most "Big Law" firms, including MoFo, use a lockstep pay scale based on NY offices, sometimes with regional cost-of-living adjustments elsewhere. A few are merit-based, but a) they're outliers, and B) they usually pay less. For the lockstep system, first year associates start at $160k, and have annual raises, or get fired and become suicidal because they have huge student loans and are less likely to be hired by a competitor after they've been canned. If you go to "Above The Law," you can find all of the information on most large law firms as, not surprisingly, it's big news among associates. Now partners.. they're the ones making serious money.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/01...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05...

Nah, most "Big Law" firms, including MoFo, use a lockstep pay scale based on NY offices, sometimes with regional cost-of-living adjustments elsewhere. A few are merit-based, but a) they're outliers, and B) they usually pay less. For the lockstep system, first year associates start at $160k, and have annual raises, or get fired and become suicidal because they have huge student loans and are less likely to be hired by a competitor after they've been canned. If you go to "Above The Law," you can find all of the information on most large law firms as, not surprisingly, it's big news among associates. Now partners.. they're the ones making serious money.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/01...
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/05...

neighbors thinking they have the right to shoot things out of the sky.

Well, sadly, they don't have that right.

But, as long as the projectiles do not land on the neighbors' properties, it certainly ought to be legal:

Drone regulations are being written by lobbyists for drone manufacturers and other companies. You’re going to wake up one day, and there’s going to be a drone outside your bedroom window writing you a ticket for sodomy.

The above suggestion may seem frivolous, but it is scarier, than you might think — a major part of the argument to abolish laws outlawing particular sexual "deviations" was that in order to enforce them, police must invade the privacy of everyone.

Well, if a robotic "officer" can do the job on its own, that major pillar goes away and the law can come right back into your house. Whether it catches you sodomizing your (happily moaning and otherwise consenting) partner, or flushing your toilet more times than the governor thinks is good for the Collective is irrelevant. As long as no human officer is needed, no privacy invasion has occurred.

Now, today no computers yet exist, that can distinguish legal penetration from illegal. But that's no going to last long — red-light cameras are everybody's favorite already. Though my ticket from such a device claimed, that "an officer reviewed the recording" — and maybe he did, I don't know, because he never showed up in court — I am quite sure, police don't stare at the camera-feeds themselves all day. Some algorithm must already be in place to flag suspicious cases for a human's review.

These systems will become more sophisticated very soon — and suggestions will be made to trust them to issue summons automatically too. Fortunately, making an argument for shooting an invading robot is much easier than it is to advocate shooting policemen, however nosy...

So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children ...

Just because someone has a right to say something, doesn't mean you have to "support" what they say. Publishing names, addresses, and names of children is legal, as long as it is not done as part of a credible threat. Disclosing someone's SSN may or may not be illegal depending on what jurisdiction you are in, and what the judge had for breakfast.

Personally, I think disclosure of SSNs should not only be legal, but should be encouraged. Then we can get rid of the idiotic notion that "knowing" an SSN is somehow evidence that you are the person it belongs to.

What stealing, he took copies of Open Source he had incorporated into the app while he was employed at Goldman Sachs. By rights Goldman Sachs should be charged with possible GPL Violations.

"Serge quickly discovered, to his surprise, that Goldman had a one-way relationship with open source. They took huge amounts of free software off the Web, but they did not return it after he had modified it, even when his modifications were very slight and of general rather than financial use." ref

Lawyer for Ex-Goldman Programmer Criticizes Prosecutors and Firm

Good post on the subject: http://abovethelaw.com/2014/04...

What's frightening is that corporations and universities are increasingly using this kind of Russian Psychiatry to prevent ex-employees from pursuing employment/qui tam (whistleblowing)/discrimination/etc. suits. (See, e.g., http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11...)

Also, they can hold you indefinitely because the ALJs are essentially a rubber stamp -- they agree with the psychologists and psychiatrists over 95% of the time. And, increasingly, physicians are doing this because they're -- and their employers -- are mistakenly afraid of lawsuits. And I don't mean frivolous ones: I mean litigation that holds corporations accountable for their actions, like the one where a man was released because he was uninsured, killed himself and his family, and the hospital lost 25+ million in the subsequent litigation.

But instead of being honest about it, they just claim "terrorism" and buff the charts to make it look that way.

TL;DR: Don't see a psychiatrist in the US. Or the West.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/lawyer-apple-should-protect-me-from-my-porn-addiction/

At the end of this article, it notes that Chris Sevier has been placed on disability inactive status by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court due to “mental infirmity or illness.”

The linked Marketwatch article is complete BS. Clearly the author had no idea what they were talking about, and just took one sentence and expanded it into massive hyperbole. Here are some choice examples from the article:

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -0.15% has the copyright on the iPhone

I don't think so. They have patents, not copyrights.

It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain.

No, those things also cannot be copyrighted.

It could also become a weighty issue for auto trade-ins and resales, considering about 40% of most U.S.-made cars carry technology and parts that were made overseas.

Also nothing to do with copyright.

He himself once bought an antique desk from a Supreme Court justice.

Yet another example.

It sounds like the author just made stuff up as they went along. Here are some better articles:
SCOTUS! eBay! Cert and Other Sundries
Summary of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. at the Supreme Court's own blog

I find it still surprising that people in this country still seem amazed when the current administration ignores the orders of the courts or it's rulings? We used to have this system of checks and balances, but nowadays it seems that if the courts order something of the Obama administration, they ignore it. While I agree that the whole recent contempt vote on Holder was to prove a point, the justice department ignored it and now the Republicans have to go to the courts to seek justice. In that venue Obama and his cronies have a long track record in the past two years of ignoring the courts, essentially thumbing their noses at decisions that they don't agree with.

Here's a few examples:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/judge-to-obama-administration-get-moving-on-drilling-permits/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/holder-ignores-supreme-court-ruling-steps-up-voter-fraud-efforts/
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3151:obama-ignores-qorder-to-appearq&catid=61:national&Itemid=109

Oh and let's not forget this little piece of great writing by Holder to the Fifth Circuit Court. Basically it's a polite fuck you.

http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/04/Eric-Holder-response.pdf

If we are a nation of laws, then we have to obey those laws. This administration is now demonstrating that they will only respect those laws that meet with their agenda. I'm sorry, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any damn party if you ignore the checks and balances that are framed in the constitution, then we no longer have a democracy, we have a dictatorship. Think about it. Nudeoscan 5000s, your e-mails being read without a warrant by the Feds (refer to previous slashdot article on that) and constant obstruction of requests from congress for records that they should have access to. I'm sorry, I think this country has reverted back to the time of Nixon and he swore he wasn't a crook.

There is the Roberts Court legacy to think of. Kidding aside, one analysis that I read does make a good case that this ground-breaking in a big way that a number of people have missed. As in saying that the mandate penalty falls under Congress's power to tax is a minnow next to the following whale.

This ruling also limits the Commerce Clause.

"This is the Roberts Court. And here, we’ve got a pro-business Court that interprets laws as constitutional when it can. Roberts found a way to keep this law in-bounds — without abandoning his conservative principles on the expansion of federal power. The conservatives “disappointed” with Roberts today are being silly and can’t see the long game here. The Commerce Clause has been limited AND the Court looks non-partisan. Beat that with a stick."

I will leave this link here for people to see how seriously they should take these quotes of a "law firm" commenting on this issue. http://abovethelaw.com/kiwi-camara/

One guy named Klondike Bill ate TWO of these meals 'back to back' in under an hour! o_O; *_

Wow

It has absolutely already happened in law. About three seconds in Google will reveal blogs devoted to the subject, NYT articles about it, and you can just take a cursory glance at the most prominent law blog ("blawg," *shudder*) on the net: Above the Law

From the cited documents

"ARGUED SEPTEMBER 18, 2009â"DECIDED JANUARY 25, 2010"

http://abovethelaw.com/_old/2010/01/26/Singer%20v.%20Raemisch.pdf

The better sources are the links within TFA:
- Official ruling (1st line is a beauty): http://abovethelaw.com/_old/2010/01/26/Singer%20v.%20Raemisch.pdf
- Commentary at GeeksAreSexy: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/01/25/dungeons-dragons-a-threat-to-prison-security/

I'm surprised no one has even mentioned the very attractive woman who's suing Citi because she was terminated for "being too much of a distraction for the male employees." And she was wearing normal business formalwear... http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/woman-claims-she-was-fired-for-being-too-attractive/

I'm not sure about that. I forget which case exactly, but a guy attempted to fight a public indecency charge in court by having his wife testify that no one could make out his genitalia from a distance as far away as the closest witness claimed to be because of it's size.

I don't think he won the case either. After a quick search, I couldn't find the specific case I was thinking of, but claiming you have a small endowment appears to be happening more and more.

You will have to follow some of the links on that page to read more about the specific cases..

Not, let me grab some popcorn before the shrieking begins from both sides. What a perfect compromise candidate - everyone will hate her.

There are more than two "sides."

For example, the Sartorial Extremists already hate her for refusing to wear morning dress when she was arguing before the Supreme Court -- thus denying them the satisfaction of being able to point to the Solicitor General as the last outpost in American public life for the morning coat and striped trousers.

She's already killed formal daytime attire. Heavens! Who knows what will happen when she becomes a justice... you think Rehnquist's gold stripes were crazy? Look out....

According to this article the actual statement made by the lawyer was:

Mason: I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it.
Murphy: If they can do it in the time alloted?
Mason: 28 minutes. Can't happen. Didn't happen.

He wasn't going to pay a million dollars for proof that his client was guilty. He was going to pay a million dollars for proof that someone can go from the the Atlanta airport to the hotel where his client was seen on video in 28 minutes. Which this law student apparently did.

Is there more to it than that?

Sure: You don't have to screw with my property to tail me by car or helicopter.

As an aside, I have to wonder if someone were to attach a GPS tracker to Paul Lundsten's car, would he blow a gasket about his unreasonable expectation of privacy being violated?

You can find a picture here.

You can find the entire email here.

A Seattle-area judge has been accused of routinely interrupting litigants and lawyers and addressing them in a manner that is "angry, disdainful, condescending and/or demeaning."

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct claims in a statement of charges (PDF) that Judge Judith Eiler treated lawyers and self-represented litigants in a way that is "rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating," the Tacoma News Tribune reports.

Eiler underwent behavior therapy with an emphasis on sensitivity training after she received a reprimand in 2005 for impatient and rude behavior, the story says.

The way the she deals with people in her court shows that she should retire from the bench and do something else. Like become a correctional officer or something.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/judge_judy_judith_sheindlin/

The day when there are easily-available machines that mostly replace women for purposes of sex will be an interesting day in the history of women's liberation.

It has certainly been interesting since men were replaced.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/anthony_ciolli/

The administrator of a law student forum was sued by two Yale Law School students who claimed they were harassed and defamed by posts on the site. The problem is that none of the posters aside from the administrator had a real name. Furthermore, it looks like the site never kept IP logs except to stop mass-postings so there is nothing to subpoena. There's a real question as to whether the law can require websites to maintain IP logs and whether there is a right to online anonymity.