Slashdot Mirror

Michael G. Schwern v. Noirin Plunkett

On September 21, prominent open source software developers Ashe Dryden and Leigh Honeywell both tweeted that plaintiff had been arrested for attacking defendant. Fellow developer Tim Chevalier made a similar tweet on September 22. On information and belief, Ms. Dryden, Ms. Honeywell, and Mr. Chevalier were all republishers of defendant's unprivileged false claims about plaintiff, and based their tweets on these claims.

On September 25, the Ada Initiative published a blog post on its website entitled "The Ada Initiative does not support Michael Schwern's ally work."

Defendant has previously arranged to have participants ejected from the Open Source Conference. On information and belief, defendant made her defamatory remarks about plaintiff partially in order to create the preconditions for getting plaintiff ejected from future Open Source Conferences.

On information and belief, defendant's defamation of plaintiff biased Ms.Koehler and other senior employees of Mozilla against plaintiff so that Mozilla would refuse to hire plaintiff if he applied for a job with them.

Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm.

The court orders already told you, what POTUS said is not being ignored. In fact, his words indicated that he had NO reasonable belief, thus making his order unlawful, since he does not have the unfettered right you seem to mistakenly believe. He can't simply say what he did and walk away from it.

Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?

Besides not making his intentions suspect, Obama didn't rescind already processed paperwork, and have people sent home on arrival, without even allowing them to consult with attorneys.

That aspect of Trump's madcap, haphazard plan was ALSO part of the court order.

Did you not read it?

Which case is it, USA v. Shkreli Case "1:15-cr-00637" or "1:15-cr-00637-KAM"?

Any chance you would share the court records with us? It seems that the only "public records" I can find are behind a lawyer only pay wall

http://www.plainsite.org/docke...
Unfortunately one needs either a PACER or PainSite.com login account just to check in on how you are doing.

I agree. It's terrifying (well, more disappointing) that completely unsubstantiated claims from someone who was chatting anonymously on IRC are being taken seriously by anyone,

Well if it's fake, it's a long con. Especially after you start seeing all this stuff right?

By that same token, doesn't that make their claim invalid as well? Sort of like what the government does with its bullshit civil forfeiture cases where the charge is against the object, not the owner, so therefore the owner has "no standing" to contest the case. I think it was USA vs. $10,000

Not saying that this judge is deserving of a doxxing, but I would like to point out his trial history: http://www.plainsite.org/judge...

Which includes almost $300,000 in civil forfeiture cases in southern Texas. Those cases most folks refer to as "state-sanctioned highway robbery".

-Rick

He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.

I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.

The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The court documents including the indictment are here. The charge for the firearm says: COUNT TWO

The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,

DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a controlled. Substance in violation of 21 U.S. C 846, as alleged in Count One of this Indictment.

Here's the law they're prosecuting under: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U...

The law clearly states: is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense”.
"Life" is either terrible reporting by Tiffany Kelly or deliberate misrepresentation to get more hits on ars.