Slashdot Mirror

Just because something has a fair use defense, however, does not mean it was authorized. In fact, asserting a fair use defense is a tacit acknowledgement that the copyright holder did not authorize the use, hence the need to rely on the fair use doctrine.

Finally, even if ripping tracks is a fair use (likely), putting them online for someone else (especially if that someone else is not within the sphere of your private household, going by the text of the AHRA and the legislative record behind it) to download is certainly unauthorized and (per every court that's looked at it, e.g., Napster, Grokster, Aimster, etc) not within the fair use doctrine.

"Manslaughter is not a specific intent crime and does not require an intent to cause a particular result. In fact, if the defendant intends to kill, he is guilty of murder, not manslaughter. Accordingly, because manslaughter does not require the specific intent to kill, there can be no attempted manslaughter." WA case law

I don't entirely doubt that your state's judicial system may be less intelligent than mine, but if you could back up your assertions with some evidence it would certainly help convince me .

First, I cite common sense. There is a difference between being a racist and acting out a racist agenda. The first doesn't (of itself) land you in jail.

Additionally I cite Rehnquist in Wisconsin v. Mitchell. If you don't care to read it all, here's the executive version: The high court did not find that the defendant's First Amendment rights were infringed by the legislation, and found the sort of chilling effect on expression that you envision too speculative for consideration in their opinion.

Surely, if the expression of racist thoughts isn't substantially chilled by legislation of this nature, then the thoughts themselves (minus the expression) are not chilled, either.

Of course, it's possible to envision legislation that is overly broad in this area. But I'm not advocating that kind of legislation, nor am I aware of any proposed or on the books.

Ex Post Facto Laws

Definition .--At the time the Constitution was adopted, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to "embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether ... of a civil or a criminal nature." But in the early case of Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes. But although it is inapplicable to retroactive legislation of any other kind, the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal.

In this case, where the bush administration wants to give immunity to the telcos, the Ex Post Facto ruling does not apply anyway.

First, no one is talking about making a greater penalty that could be applied to the telcos, they are talking about a lessor penalty.

Second, even though SCOTUS ruled that it does not apply to civil violations, the fact of the matter is, that these illegal acts committed by the telcos at the behest of the NSA, are actually criminal in nature if allowed. They are treasonous and/or economic espionage, which are criminal acts.

Here is the problem with giving the immunity: Once that precedent is set, then it will lead to pure fascism, for the darkside would be able to use that precedent to absolve *ANY* corporation of wrongdoing.

Blackwater, no penalty for murder. Haliburton, no audit of their books. The list goes on and on.

The greed and depravity of the darkside has *no* bounds. They lie, cheat, and steal every waking moment. Their brain is so corrupted, they see no evil.

In their mind, laws are meant to be broken.

If the telcos are given immunity, all corporations will be able to lie, cheat, steal, and destory the planet with impunity.

This is why 9-11 happened, to scare everyone into giving this immunity to the fascist corporations.

There are no terrorists except the fascists within the government.

If I read the United States v. Williams [pdf] decision correctly, the possession of such material is not illegal, but the transportation of it is in the US. That ruling is under appeal however. There is also the problem of such material actually being illegal in Canada, and since this man is a Canadian citizen and was found with the material crossing the Canadian border I'm not sure how that it going to play into this.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

A hit of crack is way cheaper than a joint these days. A some of it has to do with crack being way easier to smuggle than cannabis.

It's quite common to see "killer weed" out on the streets, some of it is intentionally disclosed as being "killer weed". Other times it's just ditchweed that someone is trying to pass off as the real thing by adding adulterants.

Just some random hit on google:

"The officers recovered two tinfoils containing marijuana laced with PCP..." -- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=943012a - USA v. Michael A. Whren

Well, it cant be worse than the inaccuricies of human eyewitness testimony.

>> These are not US citizens; therefore, the Bill of Rights + Constitution do not apply.

Please stop spreading these lies about this issue, you are undermining the human rights legislation.

US Constitution applies to all people held under US government power. It doesn't matter where they are held, as do the Treaties on Human Rights that USA has signed and ratified.

The fact that americans have tortured hundreds of people to death (US Doctors Faked Death Certificates to Cover Up Homicides by Torture ACLU Autopsy Reports), despite these, is a shame that falls on every american, especially those who spread the above false propaganda rhetoric you posted. It is largely responsible for producing these human rights violations in the first place.

Under USA's own 1996 War Crimes Act, as people have been tortured to death, the people ordering the treatment are subject to receive the death penalty for supreme crimes against humanity.

This includes the US president and Vice President as well as Donald Rumsfeld and other facilitators.

Their crimes include having others Uzbekistani dictator's torturers boil people alive for the CIA.

Americans seriously need to owe up to this behaviour around the world.

McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission

...a little digging on our own part turned up ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986, which the American National Standards Institute adopted for home coffee makers. Standard 5.2.1 provides:

On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170 degrees F and 205 degrees F (77 degrees C and 96 degrees C).

If Dr. Paul really believes this, then he is fairly ignorant of 250 years of American legal history. The United States has an extremely strong legal tradition of protecting the rights of individuals from state religious coercion. Remember that the "Pledge" issue is not about allowing prayer in public school (which I am for, and which will always be perfectly legal), but is about mandating prayer in public school. Dr. Paul supports the mandating of prayer in public school. For me, this is a violation of my rights, and my children's rights.

All the prosecutor has to do in such a case is invoke "use immunity" which says they won't use that evidence itself in a future criminal trial. Here's a discussion of the general topic. If you're not under threat of prosecution for an actual crime and they agree not to pursue such, then your testimony can be compelled.

That's pretty interesting if it is a criminal proceeding against you, it does allow you to indirectly apply the 5th amendment. Cool.

Methinks that's a bit of Indian understatement at work there. :-)

Why do I say this? Consider the About Us page:

InstaColl is a Bangalore-based start-up founded with a singular vision - establish the first "Made by India" product brand that is globally recognized and appreciated. Please note that is "Made by India" and not just "Made in India" - half the software products in the world are probably already developed to some extent in India but can you name even one product brand made by India...no? We thought so - this is therefore our raison d[']être...

Confusing run-ons notwithstanding (and in fact, I would disagree, unless they specifically meant Web2.0-isque products), there's a bit of a ra-ra-India chest-beating going on out here. You then have that sentiment followed by this gem of a sentence:

InstaColl was founded by a bunch of average-Joe technologists aided and abetted by the favorite poster boy of Indian IT .

Note three points here:-
a) "Favorite" not 'favourite' : These guys are thinking "global", which apparently, is en-US.
b) AND YET, you have that very superfluous, Indian construct, "of the". In a different place and dialect, that sentence would have, probably, read as "Indian IT's favourite poster-boy" or something; it is a very very Indian habit to convert adjectives into nouns with an "of the" construct.
c) You usually aid and abet someone in crime, not to fund a start-up. While, of course, they might have used the phrase tongues firmly in cheek, long experience in editting such documents tells me that they, perhaps, didn't think about it too much. The idiom hits the general spot they were aiming for; so they didn't quite think about, well, not using it. Again, this is usually a result of reading English more than you speak; truth be told, I'm also occassionally guilty of doing that. [As also use more c's and s's than necessary at times ;-)]

In addition to using quaint phrases, and wrong idiomatic usage, (traditional) written Indian-English is also quite understated; for the line you quoted, you could easily imagine the copy-writer thinking about writing, "More Powerful than Office!" but then telling herself that she's probably better off saying, it matches Office 2007. This is a common pattern in Indian-English; here's an article where the author hints at that understatement ("self-important colonials ... decreed that when an exalted civil servant says "may," trembling lesser breeds should hear "shall."")

Another article making a similar point:

[A] recent book, "Indlish", ... notes that: "Indian English suffers from flatulent orotundity, a form of high-flown language that tries to impress but instead obscures." This style of speaking and writing, the book argues, is a hangover from the Raj and the bureaucratic officialese that it bequeathed to India.

Favorites or not, you get this distinct impression of a previous generation's "good-name" Ind-glish is struggling to come out into a globalized world here.

I posted this comment on the FSF's site during the commenting period for the AGPL and I will reproduce it here:

AGPL is not enforceable in the United States

Disclaimer: IANAL

I did some research on case law and I found that AGPL is not enforceable in the United States.

As I understand it, under US law there are four legal positions in which a party can find itself with respect to a copyrighted computer program it possesses:

1. Copyright owner
2. "Owner of a copy"
3. Governed by a contract such as an EULA
4. Unauthorized possessor

Dismissing 1 and 4 as irrelevant to the discussion, we find that a user of AGPL software will be in either position 2 or 3.

The AGPL is not an EULA.

Neither the AGPL, nor the GPL, nor the LGPL are EULAs. They are not contracts. So we conclude that a party which uses AGPL software is an "owner of a copy."

The AGPL purports to restrict one's right to modify software that runs on a public server. It bases this on copyright law, which restricts the right to make derivative works.

However, 17 U.S.C. 117 (a)(1) gives the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted computer program the right to modify the program if "... such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"

Aymes v. Bonelli, 47 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1995) said that: [b]uyers should be able to adapt a purchased program for use on the buyers computer because without modifications, the program may work improperly, if at all. No buyer would pay for a program without such a right.6[The defendants], as rightful owners of a copy of the plaintiffs program, did not infringe upon the copyright, because the changes made to the program were necessary measures in their continuing use of the software in operating their business and the program was not marketed, manufactured, distributed, transferred, or used for any purpose other than the defendants own internal business needs. (as quoted in http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/comments/granick_wirelessalliance.pdf)

This right to modify was broadened in Krause v. Titleserv 03-9303 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf Discussion: http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp

Krause is important to AGPL because it includes the use of software over a network. The court found that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program could add new features essential to its business -- including customer modem access to use the program -- without permission from the copyright owner.

Krause was sited recently in a similar case: Weitzman v. Microcomputer 06-60237-CIV, 2007 WL 744649 (S.D. Fla. March 6, 2007). http://www.thelen.com/tlu/StuartWeitzmanVMicroComputer.pdf The established law of the land in the United States is that the "owner of a copy" of a computer program has the right to modify that copy for its business needs. The AGPL cannot restrict this right without being an EULA and using contract law.

So, a SaaS provider that is the "owner of a copy" of an AGPL computer program has the right to modify its copy of that program to further its business needs, and it does not require the permission of the copyright holder to do so. This means that it does not have to provide the source publicly for any modifications that it makes. The only way to prevent this is to use an EULA and contract law.

Trevor, this is true for first-time visitors to the US, but the similarities end there. (Now I've just finished what has become a very long post, and it's not a criticism of you, but rather a jumping-off point for various problems with Japan's treatment of non-citizens.)

Japan will now be fingerprinting and questioning all non-Japanese, even residents, each and every time they enter or leave the country. (So even if you hate this new law so much that you'll move back to where you came from, you can't escape the indignity! And there isn't enough time to take out citizenship -- all the checks required necessitate a wait of at least 6 months before a Japanese passport will be yours.) A resident non-citizen in the US would not be fingerprinted repeatedly.

Consider also that while the entry procedures may be becoming more US-like, once you're safely across the border, in the US your civil liberties are guaranteed to an extent that Japan has never allowed. Particularly in Tokyo, street cops will pull you over and demand that you display your Alien Registration Card on the slightest pretext. In the US, such "papers please" policing is unthinkable -- see the Kolender v. Lawson case of 1983 and, more recently, the Circuit City driver's license fiasco well-covered here on Slashdot.

So what we're getting is a Japanese system that takes the most totalitarian parts from the new US (invasive entry procedures) and their own traditions (arbitrary stop-and-search plus medieval detention procedures) and combines them together while deflecting criticism with "the US demands it" and "international terrorism". Not so fast, Minister! If you really wanted to mimic the US, the US entry procedures would come into effect and the Alien Registration Card would be abolished!

These cards contain a frightening amount of personal information -- name, DOB, POB, place of residence abroad, address in Japan, primary householder, emplyoer's name and address, date of landing, date of visa expiry, visa type, and who knows what else. Having to carry this on one's person is an identity-theft disaster waiting to happen, and they're semi-legally deputizing employers, mobile phone providers, and hotels to check these cards as well.

The US may be treating non-citizens as criminals when they try to enter the country for the first time, but Japan does this always. Even taking out citizenship won't stop the street cop looking to impress passers-by with how tough he is on foreign crime -- he'll still pull you over and you'll have to explain that you're Japanese before he lets you go.

Blaming the United States is just what the Japanese government wants you to do. Meanwhile, their violation of the civil liberties of resident aliens coninues well past the immigration gates all the way to your neighborhood street corner.

You are wrong on the "entire point" of the ruling. They ruled that the law giving them the power of the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional BECAUSE it was unconstitutional for them to have that power!

"This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired,
Whether it can issue from this court." ...
"To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction." ...
"Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction."

The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.

You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."

The Right to Privacy, as put forth by the Constitution of the United States of America, never intended for any one to be anonymous. Anonymous people have no voice in the government because they are unkown and faceless. Only those who stand up to be counted, by their vote and their enumeration in a census, can be a part of the government.

You've got thing switched around. According to USSC rulings without anonymity the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech means nothing. As one USSC ruling said if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they do not have freedom of speech. The Watchtower Bible And Tract Society of New York, Inc., et al.[pdf] case is one such case. In Watchtower Bible v. Stratton the USSC upholds "Anonymity, Free Speech." In another case a CATO brief argues "Anonymity and Associational Privacy Remain Important Guarantors of Free Political Speech."

Facebook will probably lose in California with that. California has a right of publicity, enacted because California has so many celebrities that advertisers would like to use in ads.

The EULA says "for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof". But it doesn't cover the use of images in connection with advertising of third party products. That's a separate issue. California requires explicit prior consent "for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services". This is completely independent of copyright. Facebook may have the right to use the images, but doesn't have the right to use the individuals pictured in them for third-party advertising purposes.

In California, everybody has a minimum celebrity value of $750 for celebrity-rights purposes.

I wish I could point to the place in my post where I said that ID papers weren't in COMMON use, but I can't - I thought it, but I didn't write it.

That being said, it still struck me as odd that the Founders would write in a clause that would protect government "agents", i.e. those issued identification papers by a government, which identified them as members or agents of that government. I don't think the French were issuing state ID's to shopkeepers and prostitutes.

So I searched on Google (where else) for "fourth amendment meaning of papers". Of course, I got links to every high school term paper on the meaning of the 4th amendment, but the first 3 meaningful links are as fiollows:

http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-on-textual-interpretation-of-4th.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag1_user.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/02.html

All of these speak directly to "papers", and not a single one references "identitity papers" in any way. In these articles, "papers" meant business and other documents. This ties in with the historical context - due to the punitive taxes, many of the colonists were smugglers, and records of purchases and sales would be prime evidence supporting charges of tax evasion.

I've done my part, now it's your turn - cough up some links supporting your position. I may also dig up soem ConLawbooks or constitutional history, but that's for later.

There wasn't a body in the Carrie Culberson case.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The appeals court majority identified three "models" of the Second Amendment. The first and second both emphasize the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment -- the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The third does not.

The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals' benefit.

The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.

Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model.

Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech.

Try the same question on the forums at Findlaw.com to get some input from the legal sector...

I think it has to do more with the patronizing, repetitive, salt-in-the-wounds speeches the president dishes out, the perceived incompetence of most everyone in a position of authority (which I'm sure is the same in all places), the ridiculous waste of resources in this 'war on terror', and the appearance of leaning towards corporatism than it has to do with actually being oppressed. Then there's also other egregious abuses of power, such as the illegal wiretapping and the 'just because' security measures.
It's not like the US was up in arms and screening every redneck after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (just reasonable precautions like monitoring sales of certain fertilizers more closely, not every single thing that could go 'pop'), but a Muslim with a paintball gun?

We're certainly not being oppressed, but perhaps acting as such will make people aware of what their words, votes, and the lack thereof, actually mean for everyone.
I'm sure it'll all bounce back in a couple of decades. A few choice assholes will always be elected every now and then.

"I'm sure someone, somewhere got hurt on them, but not if they were using them carefully. They weren't really sharp, outta the box."

The Commission has been considering the hazard associated with lawn darts for some time. An estimated 670 lawn dart-related injuries were treated in hospital emergency rooms each year from 1978 to 1987. Over three-fourths of the victims were younger than 15 years old and about 50 percent were ten years of age or younger. More than half of the victims had injuries to the head, eye, ear or face.
via:
http://brookings.injury.findlaw.com/defective-dangerous-products/recall.feeds/cpsc/1988/03/88012.html

These things didn't have to be sharp to puncture kids' skulls, and I think it's unfair to criticize sub-ten year olds for 'not using them carefully', considering they could have just been lousy throwers.

I'm not for surrounding kids in cotton wool, and I"m pro-chemistry set, but I think any childrens' toy that involves throwing a heavy, spike-tipped dart up in the air is kind of stupid, litigous society or no.

3362. Maximum speed limits.
(a) General rule.--Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance
with section 3361 (relating to driving vehicle at safe speed), the limits specified in this section or
established under this subchapter shall be maximum lawful speeds and no person shall drive a vehicle at a
speed in excess of the following maximum limits:

...
(c) Penalty.--
(1) Any person violating this section is guilty of a summary offense and shall, upon
conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of:
...

If you were convicted of a criminal offence, it's going to show up on your record no matter what

If you look here and research the case a bit, you'll find that a Maryland company may have actually been more responsible for ATT's abilities than ATT would like to admit. That company is now defunct, unfortunately, and so it's now safe for ATT to pretend that they've done work in the area without answering to more law suits.

It was a very technically challenging job. We helped to index records for these guys until mid-2005. We did it in effectively O(n) time - the cool factor was higher than the say-nothing factor.

And yes - I know that academia will claim that it's not possible, that data correlation must be O(n^2). For the decade that we did it, we were sure glad that academia held to that position.

Enough reminiscing.

OEM versions are non-transferable to new units.

Here is a link to the Supreme Court case cited above: Yes, this case is about the famous Don King boxing promoter. Note that the circuit said he doesn't count as a person because he is a corporate employee!! LOL! And therefore cannot be charged with committing fraud. Without further delay I provide you with the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=533&page=158 You can't make this stuff up. (PS. Sorry for the extra post, I didnt know how to add the link to the original reply.)

Link to actual motion shamelessly copied from Mr. Beckerman, more background info and the 14th Amendment. Links further indicating parent is quite correct and for the curious.

Link to actual motion shamelessly copied from Mr. Beckerman, more background info and the 14th Amendment. Links further indicating parent is quite correct and for the curious.

Seriously though, patent prosecution laches only became viable fairly recently, in Symbol v. Lemelson, and it was a pretty extreme case.

I guess you're right, searching Findlaw I only found two results for "doctrine of latches". I've never had so few results searching Findlaw. "Laches, Doctrine Of" resulted in no results. Ah, I see, searching "Doctrine Of Laches" I got 15 results. Adding "patent" to it though and I only get one result. And that deals with contract law. If it has been used widely I'd think there were more results, at least one for each case.

Seriously though, patent prosecution laches only became viable fairly recently, in Symbol v. Lemelson, and it was a pretty extreme case.

I guess you're right, searching Findlaw I only found two results for "doctrine of latches". I've never had so few results searching Findlaw. "Laches, Doctrine Of" resulted in no results. Ah, I see, searching "Doctrine Of Laches" I got 15 results. Adding "patent" to it though and I only get one result. And that deals with contract law. If it has been used widely I'd think there were more results, at least one for each case.

Seriously though, patent prosecution laches only became viable fairly recently, in Symbol v. Lemelson, and it was a pretty extreme case.

I guess you're right, searching Findlaw I only found two results for "doctrine of latches". I've never had so few results searching Findlaw. "Laches, Doctrine Of" resulted in no results. Ah, I see, searching "Doctrine Of Laches" I got 15 results. Adding "patent" to it though and I only get one result. And that deals with contract law. If it has been used widely I'd think there were more results, at least one for each case.

"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict." U.S. v. Thomas.

That's a crock.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay

"It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -- Constitution of the State of Maryland

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was well understood that a jury meant a panel of persons empowered to render judgment on both the facts and the law. The ignorance - or straight-out power grabbing - of later judges cannot remove this right.

(I also note that despite the erroneous statement you quote, the court did find the dismissing the juror was an error and remanded the case for new trial.)

but they can certainly (and should) prevent you from sitting on the jury if they feel your impartiality will be threatened by your personal issues.

There is a large difference between "having personal issues" that make one partial to a person involved in the case, and judging the law and finding it wanting.

"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict." U.S. v. Thomas.

That's a crock.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - Chief Justice John Jay

"It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -- Constitution of the State of Maryland

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, it was well understood that a jury meant a panel of persons empowered to render judgment on both the facts and the law. The ignorance - or straight-out power grabbing - of later judges cannot remove this right.

(I also note that despite the erroneous statement you quote, the court did find the dismissing the juror was an error and remanded the case for new trial.)

but they can certainly (and should) prevent you from sitting on the jury if they feel your impartiality will be threatened by your personal issues.

There is a large difference between "having personal issues" that make one partial to a person involved in the case, and judging the law and finding it wanting.

more

She acts as a witness as well.

So someone should let her know of that:

Jennifer L. Pariser
Firm: Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. Law Dept.
Address: 550 Madison Ave 15th Fl New York, NY 10022-3211
Phone: (212) 833-7362
Email:

PS. In case you are wondering, or she is, her info is available on: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1

Tell Jennifer what you think of her - (212) 833-7362

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1755781_1

Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child. To declare that homosexuality is harmful is not to make new law but to reaffirm the old; to say that it is not harmful is to experiment with people's lives, particularly the lives of children.

Homosexuality is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law. The author of Genesis writes: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.... For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 1:27, 2:24 (King James). The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that "[i]f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Leviticus 20:13 (King James).

"Does it actually take a challenge (ie (sic) lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional (sic) laws?"

No. While the other poster is correct that a judge cannot act on his own in declaring a law unconstitutional, a lawsuit is not the only way. Congress can realize they screwed up and legislate away the constitutional violation. The President can veto the law, or otherwise refuse to enforce the unconstitutional provisions. When a jury is involved, the jury can nullify when the conviction hinges on evidence gleaned from unconstitutional provisions. If none of the above occurs, then the People can elect a different Congress with the mandate to legislate away the violation. Simply put, all branches of government (via their officers) are duty bound to support the Constitution; which includes remedying unconstitutional statutes.[1]

We Americans go around expecting the Courts to do all the work. Often times, Congress will do things so that the Courts get to do the dirty work. That allows undemocratic things to be done because they can blame the courts, who are unelected.

[1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/

Actually, without even debating actual meaning of the Second Amendment... yes, the GP probably is. Current US law:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

On Friday, President Bush signed legislation that will name a new $110 million, nine-courtroom addition to the federal courthouse in Bryant's honor.

Bryant was known for his dedication to Constitutional law and believed that lawyers could stop injustice.

"Without lawyers, this is just a piece of paper," Bryant said of the Constitution in an interview with The Washington Post last year. "If it weren't for lawyers, I'd still be three-fifths of a man. If it weren't for lawyers, we'd still have signs directing people this way and that, based on the color of their skin."

There is no right to privacy.

BS! As early as the early 1800s the USSC ruled there is he right to privacy, specifically anonymity. Among other's the right to privacy is grounded in the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. In one case, the 1960 case of TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA, 362 U.S., the US Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. An MIT page, describes this ruling and another, McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, wherein the USSC upheld anonymous speech. In the Talley v California case the court said:

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.... Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."

Yes, it says we have a certain right to be secure in our persons, etc. - a right not granted by the government, it is INHERENT. That means you don't lose the right just because you walk onto someone else's property. You didn't address that at all.

Yes I did. The fourth amedment does not apply to private citizens, and it doesn't matter how much you think it should. Here is the cae law that proves it: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=109 . Specifically: The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (...) This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

What part of that do you not understand??

You didn't address the point that according to your illogic, we can have our rights violated at any time as long as it's done by a private party. As I pointed out, that's not the case - it's merely an issue of civil vs. criminal law.

No I did not say that. What I said was the fourth amendment that you said was being violated does not apply. No rights were violated and again I ask you to point to a law that was broken by the store.

You didn't address the point that once he had paid for the merchandise, he was NO LONGER A CUSTOMER and had no obligation to follow any of the store's policies.

Thats just asinine. He's a customer as long as he's on THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You didn't defend your incorrect assertion that he wasn't "searched." They certainly were trying to force him to submit to a search - they demanded to examine a personal effect of his (the receipt they just GAVE to him! look up "give" in a dictionary, please) and refused to let him go until he showed it to them.

I've been to stores like this. At no time did they ever try to search me or touch me in any way. All they did was to ask to SHOW the receipt, and occasionally they ask to look into the bag. Thats not a search of your person in any strecth of the imagination. I agree they are not allowed to pat me down or look in my pokets, but that DIDNT HAPPEN.

You didn't defend your assertion that they had "probable cause," because you don't understand what probable cause is. Many others have pointed out that the store didn't even meet the requirements to exercise "shopkeeper's privilege."

Any reasonable person can see that he was acting suspiciously. He refused to stop and present a receipt when asked and essentialy ran out the door to a waiting car on the sidewalk. If you were having a garage sale and someone suddenly bolted to a waiting car on the sidewalk, wouldn't you think they stole something? So according to your logic all you can do is watch them leave. You couldn't try and stop them or question them in anyway. You'd also be robbed blind.

So again, what law did the store violate?

Unfortunately for me, I appear to have been mistaken about the character of the fourth amendment (although I stand by the thrust of my post -- I see it as how things ought to be). In United States v. Jacobsen, SCOTUS decided that the 4th amendment did not apply to private citizens -- not surprisingly in a case involving drugs.

What a sham.

It immunizes government officials for past war crimes; it cuts the United States off from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens--including permanent residents whose children are citizens--that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants.

In common law countries, habeas corpus (/hebis kps/) (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

And as we know, if you have the temerity to video tape them breaking the law, they will arrest you for illegally recording their statements.

http://boards.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?14@76.0a7SfrUKW8F%5E0@.ef0686f/18

I was standing about 25-30 feet away from the scene & had been recording for about 40 seconds, when the officer told me to stop filming him. I then asked him if it was illegal to be recording? He replies, "Get out of here I don't want you filming me." Still recording I walked away. Angry, he walks up to me, slaps the camera, then grabs it firmly & said, "didn't I tell you to stop recording?". In grabbing my camera, the officer touched my hand & said, "Don't touch me, you know I can arrest you for assaulting an officer." I said, "Ok, ok, just let go of my camera & I will leave." At that moment he grabs me & slams me against the car, causing me to let go of the camera on the hood of the car. Mike, who was in the driver seat, takes the camera & puts it in the car. My hands & arms were on the hood of the car. The officer then sees my gun, takes it & within seconds he slams me to the ground causing my head to hit the sidewalk. I tell him that I have a license to carry. At that moment, his partner comes up from behind me & knees me in the back of my head & they hand-cuff me. I chipped my tooth, bit my tongue (bleeding, leaving a half inch cut) scratched & bruised up my chin. They arrested me without reading my rights or telling me what my charges were. I asked them why I was being arrested? They did not reply.

I was in the car, not knowing why I was being arrested & what was going on, I kept asking them why are you guys arresting me? Another officer opened the car door & started yelling at me to shut-up pointing an electrical gun at me. Then an officer approaches the vehicle asking me for my concealed weapon license. I gave it to him & I asked again why was I being arrested? He did not respond & walks away.