Slashdot Mirror

• repeatedly failing to provide timely onsite repair to consumers who purchased service contracts promising "onsite" and expedited service;
• pressuring consumers, including those who purchased service contracts promising "onsite" repair, to remove the external cover of their computer and remove, reinstall, and manipulate hardware components;
• discouraging consumers from seeking technical support; those who called Dell's toll free number were subjected to long wait times, repeated transfers, and frequent disconnections;
• using defective "refurbished" parts or computers to repair or replace consumers' equipment.

1. Damn, now there's a loss.
2. They rely on abusing users with limited tech knowledge and limited knowledge of their rights. This isn't exactly a group Linux users famously fall in to.

On first glance it sounds ridiculous; however there is some precedence in the monetization of air:

-The state of New York has filed suit against Ohio for dumping pollution on them through the airwaves http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/mar/mar18a_0 5.html.

-A portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum is going to be auctioned off in the U.S.
"the spectrum is a national resource that should be managed".
PDF: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1. 0.pdf
google cache: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fH_s8JehCyEJ: www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/060309dacaspectrum1. 0.pdf+lectro-magnetic+spectrum+auctioned&hl=en&ct= clnk&cd=1

If governments can make money off the spectrum then why not so-called "First Nation" governments? It really boils down to how much legal and economic authority Indians should have. And it deals with the ambiguity of a people who both want to claim their individuality and distinction from the rest of society, and still be apart of that society, especially when it comes to exploiting natural resources. It's pretty much politics as usual. Seems like the typical having-your-cake-and-eating-it-to mentality.

The Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection prosecutes businesses and individuals engaged in fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or illegal trade practices. In addition to litigating, the Bureau mediates thousands of complaints each year from individual consumers. A large percentage of these complaints are resolved satisfactorily through the mediation process. As part of its mission, the Bureau provides information to consumers and seeks to ensure a fair and vigorous market place. The Bureau also drafts legislation and conducts studies and writes reports on emerging consumer problems and issues.

You've been very useful Jarrett!

(and why bother ask you what you stated? You evaded that question you now want others to ask you, constantly along with what you have accomplished in computer sciences in publication in this field in print! You never gave us here a simple yes, or no, from yourself in regard to any of those questions, when you were asked it. Why should anyone ask you a question you have evaded to no end here?)

However, now you have been truly useful & instrumental in helping determine some things for an ongoing matter regarding internet stalking and harassment arstechnicans are directing apk's way since 2001-2002 to today, presently.

"I think it's HILARIOUS to harass YOU online. Just you. Only you." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Friday March 30, @12:21AM (#18539431)

Stalking apk, as you have here at slashdot and also at techpowerup.com:

JTD = Jarrett DeAngelis = starkruzr.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/search.php?s=6b0dd96 98b1626d665c836c568235767&searchid=588020

This all makes sense now and provides yet more continued proof you and your arstechnica friends are stalking apk online. Bad move. Still, do take a look at this before you keep it up:

What Is Cyberstalking?

The term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property.

Since you are student at Notre Dame, in South Bend Indiana, this applies:

Indiana

IC 35-45-2-2
Sec. 2. (a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication.

Since you are from Staten Island N.Y. originally, this applies:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05376 [state.ny.us]

BILL NUMBER: A5376 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the penal law, in
relation to cyberstalking on a computer network in the first degree
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Creates the crime of cyberstalking
making it a class E felony.

Your friend Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little were already caught in email harassment and libel (as well as being kicked from their hosting providers for their websites for death threats saying "APK MUST DIE" etc.) AND FALSELY IMPERSONATING APK ON THEIR WEBSITES (both arstechnica and Jeremy Reimer's OSY forums) and that much per the windowsitpro magazine thread here evidences that easily:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=193#feedbackAnchor

Between the techpowerup connection to yourself and your posts here about apk (when he never posted anything about yourself here no less even once prior to you ever doing so about he first, and not even after afaik) and the arstechnica forums members harassing him at windowsitpro.com, 2cpu.com, ntcompatible.com, majorgeeks.com, 3dfiles.com, and more since 2001 or thereabouts, especially now that you are definitely connected with Jeremy Reimer per your own words here at slashdot, and Jay Little via arstechnica as well (which you are and admitted to it here on slashdot) you are part of this all now.

Additionally, your personal honesty and ethics are in question here (not your motivations though at this point) and you will not help your friends on that account either since you stated you were a woman, and when caught, a man.

"YOU were the one who originally suggested I might be female, I just went alo

You have never even held a job!

http://www.spoke.com/public/pages/A/person/001/320 /258

0 jobs, eh, Jarrett DeAngelis? I mean, lol, that page shows you as never having even held a job! Job History = 0 jobs.

ROTFLMAO.

JTD = Jarrett DeAngelis = starkruzr. You are the fool that tried to bother apk and the rest of us at the techpowerup.com forums here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=5ac 93f70614141960248bf289b2d091f&t=20143 [techpowerup.com]

This makes sense now. You got your ass handed to you there as well when you tried to bust on apk, and everyone drove you out of there for your bullshit at techpowerup.com also and yet you stated you never were banned.

Another starkruzr lie is thus exposed:

JTD your 'alter ego' at techpowerup.com forums shows otherwise. The only reason you did not get banned was apk asking you not get banned at that time, but iirc, you got banned anyhow.

You've made a big mistake in stalking apk though.

If you keep stalking apk as you have here at slashdot and techpowerup.com and are connected with Jeremy Reimer and Jay Little (which you are and admitted to it here on slashdot), take a look at this before you keep it up:

What Is Cyberstalking?

the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property.

And, there are laws against that starluzr. You instigated it here with apk, and you are digging your own hole.

Pending Legislation

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05376

BILL NUMBER: A5376 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the penal law, in
relation to cyberstalking on a computer network in the first degree
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Creates the crime of cyberstalking
making it a class E felony.

Indiana

IC 35-45-2-2
Sec. 2. (a) A person who, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person but with no intent of legitimate communication

you have made this statement in multiple places in this discussion. I have tried to verify the veracity of your claims, however google finds nothing, and the ny court law server is throwing errors when i query it, but the ny court system web site specifically has a "how to defend myself when i cannot afford a lawyer" pdf, which might indicate you are incorrect (..if a lawyer is free to anybody in any court, why would you even need a pdf guide to defending yourself pro se.. EVERYONE would just take the free lawyer). Unfortunately it crashes both firefox and ie, so i'll never know what it contains.

and you have the gall (in another post) to call other states "redneck" ? tell your 'redneck state' to hire some better sysadmins from the "crazy redneck" states i've lived in where one is NOT provided an attorney by the civil courts ;) ..(redneck places like.. you know.. CA.. WA..) ...so if you can find a cite (or a new england lawyer can reply and confirm/deny), because this sounds somewhat implausible to me. in my experience, even in CRIMINAL court, getting access to a free lawyer is very difficult unless you are up on very serious charges or completely indigent. for instance, in WA, one must show bank records to the court (etc) to prove one has no means of income, etc.. and even then they provide you with an attorney, you must agree to pay something like $350-500 to their firm for representing you.

so, since everyone here seems to disagree with you, I would respectfully ask for you to cite your source.. I am quite interested to find out if this is true. As of yet, I am under the impression that nothing is free in the US legal system.

Actually, many pesticides are at least somewhat effective nerve agents against mammals in high enough concentrations. Certain people can be extremely effected by certain pesticides over and above average reactions, too. Many of them are toxic in other ways instead of or in addition to being nerve agents in people. In the U.S., the EPA makes no suggestion that pesticides are not toxic to humans. They rate them by how toxic they are and how quickly they break down. They then clear some of them for use in certain concentrations with certain labels and certain restrictions on who can use some of them. Pesticides are known to be a danger to the nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The health benefits of having higher yields and therefore cheaper prices on foods -- especially fruits and vegetables -- is often thought to outweigh the risks. This may be true when properly designed pesticides are properly used and your food is properly cleaned before you eat it. As with most things in life, though, there are trade-offs.

I, for one, have been in the emergency room for a number of hours before with what the doctors called giant hives due to exposure to pesticides. Giant hives are just like regular hives, only my hives were 2-3 inches wide, 4-8 inches long, and up to a quarter of an inch raised from the normal surface of the skin. They itch like hell, are pretty painful, they're very discolored, and they can last for days or weeks. They're caused by a number of things, but mine were caused by pesticide exposure. The doctors were monitoring to make sure my throat didn't close since I had such a strong reaction in the skin.

Lots of people are even saying that lower IQ scores, more asthma, and other health problems among children are due the amount of pesticides used in schools. ADD, Asperger's, and many of the issues that have been increasingly diagnosed are neurological in nature. Those rates may or may not have something to do with pesticides. The truth is, no one really knows what the levels of pesticides in U.S. schools is doing to kids. The EPA has guidelines to reduce exposure due to suspicion that it can't be good to have children inundated with the stuff. The state of Washington a few years ago pass a law stating that parents must be notified when there children's schools would be using pesticides. The state of New York has a nice writeup on a study it did in which it states that 87% of schools in NY used pesticides, that no pesticide be considered completely safe, and lists the more usual effects of several common pesticides and herbicides.

It's actually "Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.". It's a privately held not-for-profit corporation based in New York. No way to tell for sure, but one would assume the vast majority of shares (if not all of them) are held by the member companies.

A traffic infraction is a civil violation such as your basic speeding ticket.
DUI & Traffic Crimes

mere status as an alien, or even as an illegal alien, may only be a civil violation of the Act and thus would not be a sufficient basis for an arrest.
Opinion of the NY Attorney General

Ok, I'll bite again, since I never really post here, and my last one was marked flamebait -1. There are currently eight pieces of legislation that relate to pedestrian issues in the New York Senate. You can search for these at http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi . Every one of these relate to pedestrian safety. Not protecting cars from pedestrians. So mod me flamebait all you like. It's a sad fact that most people refuse to look at issues through the eyes of the pedestrian.

You need only request ID from people who look under 30.

You can see it in section 3 of the text of the bill http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A00547&sh=t:

/. won't let me cut and paste it because of the all caps.

3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.

3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.

3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.

3. Sale or rental of any video game that contains any contents listed in subdivision one of this section, shall be made only to an individual who demonstrates, through (a) a valid driver's license or non-driver`s identification and issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles, the federal government, any united states territory, commonwealth or possession, the District of Columbia, a state government within the United States or a provincial government of the dominion of Canada; or (b) a valid passport issued by the united states government or any other country; or (c) an identification card issued by the united states,indicating that the individual is at least eighteen years of age. Such identification need not be required of any individual who reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age, provided, however, that such appearance shall not constitute a defense in any proceeding involving sale or rental of any video game, to an individual under eighteen years of age.

From the text of bill:

S 391-Q. SALE OF CERTAIN VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS PROHIBITED. 1. NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION SHALL SELL OR RENT OR OFFER TO SELL OR RENT TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS ANY VIDEO GAME THAT HAS A MATURE OR VIOLENT RATING.... SALE OR RENTAL OF ANY VIDEO GAME ... [as described] TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DEMONSTRATES, THROUGH [some sort of ID ]... AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. SUCH IDENTIFICATION NEED NOT BE REQUIRED OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO REASONABLY APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS OF AGE,...

There's a specific law against dealing fake drugs, though.

Are you sure about that? I can't speak to the federal system of laws, but at least in states that model their criminal codes after the Model Penal Code, there's no specific "attempted blah" crimes, but just an overall "a person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime" clause in the general section of the code. For instance, here's PA's, here's New York's, and here's Virginia's. (VA doesn't define attempt, but they have a generic attempt section.)

Now, the federal code is more twisted than the MPC, so it may explicitly define attempts. Anyone know?

(Of course, copyright infringement of the sort we're talking about here is more or less not a criminal matter so this doesn't really apply.) ...if they're the copyright holders, I have to believe that they're authorizing you to have it by distributing it like that

They aren't authorizing you to have it because they aren't distributing it. They're distributing random data.

Actually as of this month the new minimum wage in New York State is $7.15 per hour. I think this may affect upstate more than downstate. At least in downstate the base retail wage appears to be around $8 per hour anyway.

Link on change to minimum wage

NY state has a deer venison donation program in place. I eat the venison I shoot, but this is a great idea. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/ deer/venison.htm

(Avoiding Admission Charges)

PENAL LAW 165.15(9) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 1992)

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/cji/3-PenalLaw/165/1 65-15(9).pdf

You're right, in most jurisdictions there is Theft of Services involved. Theaters and other entertainment venues were specifically added it seems. I was thinking back to the rule of law that stated there had to be demonstrable loss by the plaintiff (which may be hard to prove if they're offering the service whether you're in the theater or not). However, as a violation, I'm not sure if go to jail under criminal charges. Of course, IANAL (and for good reason).

If I have to choose between two incompetent bureaucracies, I'm going to choose the one that doesn't punish me for it.

I'm going to choose the one that's regulated by a state oversight commission.

I've had lots of problems with Verizon, both on a business and personal level. I ask for a supervisor. If the supervisor can't/won't resolve my problem I file a complaint with the NYS Public Service Commission. Typically within four business hours of filing that complaint I have an Executive Vice President on the phone who solves my problem in less then 15 minutes.

Not an option if you opt to receive your phone service from the cable company. Just food for thought....

this would seem to indicate, parents CAN in fact be liable for child actions.. can you resolve please, this difference of opinion?

2500 rem a year is about 6.8 rem/day. While occupational regulations are complex and depend on what type of radiation, they are the equivalent of 5 rem/year. See as an example. This means the occupants could not spend too much time in the Van Allen Belt.

You know, hydrophobia might explain a lot.

It is crass, but _not_ obviously illegal. As long as the stockholders are informed then it is perfectly legal.

I encourage you to hold that debate with an SEC investigator and criminal prosecutor. If Elliot Spitzer is in a good mood, he might even offer you a plea bargain. (yes, I know this is NASDAQ and not NYSE - but the point is still valid)

Not so. Just have to dig a bit into the court records provided publicly. Here's the PDF of the court document.

It shows the address of these folks on page 2 as 107 Grand Street, New York, NY. Pulling up Google Earth it looks like you can find these folks at 40 deg 43'15.8N 74 deg 00'04.9W.

Not that I would suggest anything as childish as signing these folks up for free advertisements or any such thing. Just seems like since these folks are digging through everyone else's privacy I'm sure they wouldn't mind having their company address a matter of well known public record.

Actually, no. The Attorney General of the State of New York is elected.
Reference the NY State Constitution, Article V, Section 1.

Link (you have to do a bunch of clicking, no direct link):

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi

Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

Its backwards over there and I do wish someone would sue to change this.

• The FTC issued a complaint and ordered AOL to change their practices.
• There were two class-action lawsuits settled in 2004.
• Ohio sued and settled in 2005.
• Finally, most recently, the State of New York sued as well, and the agreement reached with AOL requires AOL to have a third party verify all cancellation calls by the end of this month.

Its backwards over there and I do wish someone would sue to change this.

• The FTC issued a complaint and ordered AOL to change their practices.
• There were two class-action lawsuits settled in 2004.
• Ohio sued and settled in 2005.
• Finally, most recently, the State of New York sued as well, and the agreement reached with AOL requires AOL to have a third party verify all cancellation calls by the end of this month.

I got the same treatment from AOL. I was going to contact the Attorney Generals Office and found out Eliot Spitzer's Office had already settled with AOL - obviously to no good effect. The AE gets to make a buck and AOL figures the fine as a cost of business. The release from 2005:

AOL TO REFORM CUSTOMER SERVICE PROCEDURES

Settlement Requires Company to Remove Obstacles
Consumers Face When Seeking to Switch or Cancel Service

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced an agreement that requires the nation's leading internet service provider to reform its customer service procedures.

Under the agreement, America Online (AOL) will alter the incentives it offers to customer representatives who seek to persuade subscribers not to cancel their service.

"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.

In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, Spitzer's office began an inquiry of AOL's customer service policies. The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate system for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers' wishes, or without their consent.

Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing.

The agreement requires AOL to:

  Eliminate any requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus;

  Record all service cancellation requests and verify action on the request through a third-party monitor;

  Provide refunds to all New York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation procedures, up to four months worth of service;

  Pay $1.25 million to the state in penalties and costs.

(New York State Attorney Generals Office) http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/aug24a_0 5.html

It tends to be easier to actually GET the judgement if you file in the offender's home area.

According to this page, they're in New York, NY.

Read here. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/smallclai ms/index.shtml

"THE GOVERNOR HAS ALSO CALLED FOR THE LIFETIME REGISTRATION OF ALL REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS INCLUDING THOSE OFFENDERS ALREADY REGISTERED." (document is in all caps, it's not me yelling) -- http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/pio/2005-5-03te stimony.htm

"The Governor's legislation would not only expand the information available to the public by having all offenders, regardless of level, listed on the Internet, but the proposed bill would require all convicted sex offenders to register with DCJS for life." -- http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/ 97392

"His proposed new legislation would require lifetime registry for all sex offenders." -- http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/042805 sexoff.html

And that's not even mentioning the fact that he tried to keep people in jail who had already completed their maximum prison sentence. An appeals court ruled that illegal. I'm not sure if they ever got out.

Check out the definition of Mainframe at the NY State Law Library http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad4/lib/gloss.html#M

This will not even apply to most NY workers, either.

NY happens to be one of those states where an employer can fire you for any reason ("Employment at will"), except for 8 very specific circumstances (Here's the list of exceptions).

Given that, I guess the critical point to this case was that the employer was the Dept of Education: a public sector job.

Albany's culture of "pay to play", indeed. :)

Here's the AG's site: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/apr04a_0 6.html But the real fun is in reading the actual complaint. It is clear the AG does not think highly of Direct Revenue. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/Direct%2 0Revenue%20Affirmation%20of%20Justin%20Brookman.pd f Caution... large PDF, but a fascinating read.

Here's the AG's site: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/apr04a_0 6.html But the real fun is in reading the actual complaint. It is clear the AG does not think highly of Direct Revenue. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/Direct%2 0Revenue%20Affirmation%20of%20Justin%20Brookman.pd f Caution... large PDF, but a fascinating read.

Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Information Resources Center Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.

You asked if it is environmentally preferable to shred or burn junk mail.

We suggest you read the following quote from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

"Past generations burned their garbage, but that practice should be a thing of the past. Garbage back then didn't contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dixions into the air."
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/redrecy/bu rn.html

In addition, burning of waste may be prohibited in certain areas.

For information on the pollutants released by burning paper and other trash, please see the following Web sites:

Backyard Burning: Human Health:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /health.htm

Backyard Burning: Basic Information:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/backyard /basic.htm

Backyard Burning home page:
http://www.epa.gov/msw/backyard/

For more information, you may contact the Office of Air and Radiation using the online comments form, by mail or telephone.

Online Comments form, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/Comments.nsf/Comments? OpenForm

By Mail:
Office of Air and Radiation 6101A
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC, 20460

By Telephone:
(202) 564-7400

Individuals seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastes: Consumer Tips:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/funfacts/ index.htm

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.h tm

Businesses seeking to reduce waste may want to visit the following Web sites:

Wastewise: Preserving Resources, Preventing Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise /index.htm
WasteWise is a free, voluntary, EPA program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal solid waste, benefiting the bottom line and the environment.

National Waste Minimization Program:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/inde x.htm

Please contact us if we may be of further assistance.

External Links Disclaimer: Please be aware that links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement. Furthermore, EPA does not accept any responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. EPA does not guarantee the suitability of the information for any specific purpose.

*****************
Public Access Service, operated by ASRC Management Services
EPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (3404T)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 566-0574
*****************

I'll just let you read yourself about dioxins but it sounds like you should switch to scissors (or maybe just mark

We have the same thing in the U.S., here it just falls under the large umbrella of "false advertising," which varies state by state but usually allows a person to sue for damages. However it's sometimes rather tough to prove damages and I have a feeling in this instance that the company can probably protect themselves (as they're doing) by firing all the people involved and swearing they won't do it again.

But if you did run into blatant false advertising, the way to go would be to contact your state's Consumer Protection office, if it has one, or the Attorney General (who can file suit against the company on behalf of the state).

Here's an overview of Consumer Protection laws in one U.S. state (New York):
http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/clahm/clahm-falsea dvertising.htm

An employee who is discharged because of his participation, on his own time, in lawful political or recreational activities can bring an action against his employer for damages and equitable relief. If you believe you have been discharged because of your involvement in such legitimate pursuits, you should consult your attorney to discuss possible legal action and report the circumstances of your discharge to the Attorney General, who also has jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief and penalties against your employer.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/labor/fired.html

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/smallclai ms/general.shtml

A claimant or defendant may hire an attorney if they choose to do so, but it is not necessary.

Is an Attorney Required? In small claims court you can handle your personal or business legal matters without an attorney; however, you can hire an attorney to represent you if you wish. If the other party has an attorney, your chances of winning might be better if you also have an attorney.

Here in New York State, we are never alowed to exceed the speed limit, no matter what the scenario.

Actually, that is not true. According to the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1104:

The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 1. Stop, stand or park irrespective of the provisions of this title; 2. Proceed past a steady red signal, a flashing red signal or a stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property; 4. Disregard regulations governing directions of movement or turning in specified directions.

So, yes you can go over the speed limit if you are driving an ambulance in NY.

New York Department of State Division of Corporations Filing:

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: C & A MARKETING INC.
Initial DOS Filing Date: JUNE 02, 2003
County: KINGS
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
C & A MARKETING INC.
254 36TH STREET, SUITE 2B
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11232
Registered Agent
NONE


http://appsext5.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSE ARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=2918897&p_corpid= 2913589&p_entity_name=%63%20%4D%61%72%6B%65%74%69% 6E%67&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%43%4F%4E%54%4 1%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

It's a little hard to find but I did find this on the NYSDMV page.

To quote: "Before you accept the title certificate from the seller, check the front of the title for the names and addresses of lien holders. A lien indicates the current owner owes money on a loan for the vehicle. If a lien is listed on the title, ask the seller to give you the proof the lien has been paid - in most cases, it will be an official lien release from the lender. If proof is not provided, the lien holder could repossess the vehicle from you."

You'll note they use the term "current owner". A lien simply records the fact that somebody might have a security interest in the property. It does not mean they own it. It gives them a legal means of seizing that property if any obligations are not met -- but until they seize it they do not own it.

I'm kind of surprised by the number of people sticking up for these assholes. Why is this any different from RIAA treating their customers like criminals? I sign a contract with my bank to borrow money with a promise to pay that money back. Why the hell should they get to assume that I won't and require me to modify my property?

Will mortgage companies require that you use a keypad locking system on your house that keeps you from leaving/entering if you fall behind on your payments? It also seems rather stupid to disable the car if they miss one payment. Yeah, I'm sure somebody that falls on hard times and misses a payment will find it real easy to make money to catch up on payments when they don't have transportation.

Furthermore, New York State would have fallen into the Bush column but for NYC

I beg to differ. Subtract New York City and Kerry/Edwards has 2,486,265 votes (including the Working Families Party) to Bush/Cheney's 2,375,033 (including the Conservative Party). That's a margin of 111,232 votes. Subtract Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties) and it's still 1,847,286 Kerry to 1,776,729 Bush. A margin of 70,557 votes. Either way it would have made us quite the battleground state but Bush still loses.

You underestimate the Democratic Party in Upstate New York (mostly urban but also rural) and the fact that New York Republicans are typically fiscally conservative Republicans -- not religious right Republicans -- and they probably had a hard time voting for Bush.

Hmm do you mean you don't agree with:

"Avram Noam Chomsky, Ph.D. (born December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, often considered the most significant contribution to the field of theoretical linguistics of the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, which challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also impacted the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the so-called Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Or is it that you don't agree with his viewpont back up with thousands of pages of data from the USA goverment documents that shows that the United States Of America is likely the biggest terrorist that ever existed!

Or is his veiwpoint that people are fools not to own the company the work "at"? Rather than being a slave working for some mindless corporate CEO - of whom fortunately a handful are now serving time in prison, For example, see http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?t ype=businessNews&storyID=2005-11-10T230907Z_01_FLE 083316_RTRUKOC_0_UK-FINANCIAL-REFCO.xml

Need to add NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to the list for going after the white collar CEO crooks who have bilked millions of investors out of billions of dollars http://www.oag.state.ny.us/

"Under the agreement, one of the nation's leading internet service providers, Yahoo!, has removed and barred the posting of user-created chat rooms with names that promoted sex between minors and adults."

"Among the illicit chat rooms removed were those with labels such as "girls13 & up for much older men," "8-12 yo girls for older men," and "teen girls for older fat men." Many of these were located within the "Schools and Education" and "Teen" chat categories."

The First Amendment applies in the first instance to the federal government ("Congress shall make no law...") and by virtue of the 14th Amendment, to the states. It does not apply to private parties. Its only relevance to private parties is that contracts contrary to public policy are not enforceable, and the First Amendment is one piece of evidence bearing on public policy regarding freedom of speech. In fairly extreme cases, you can expect a court to void a contract on public policy freedom of speech grounds, but it has to be something really extreme, such as an employment contract forbidding the employee to speak about topics having nothing whatever to do with the company. It is very clear that contractual restrictions on speech, such as NDAs, are considered valid by the courts.

In the Network Associates case, the Attorney General of New York (Eliot Spitzer, running for Governor), sued Network Associates for fraud and deception. He argued that the specific wording of the restriction on reviews could falsely lead the consumer to believe that the restriction was not imposed by Network Associates but by state or federal law. He also argued that because the clause was in some documents and not others (see the opinion if you want the details), it was not endorceable as a matter of contract law, and that for Network Associates to represent that it was constituted a deceptive practice. The court accepted these arguments. The First Amendment was not the basis for the ruling.

You can read Judge Shafer's opinion here.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/aug24a_0 5.html

  AOL TO REFORM CUSTOMER SERVICE PROCEDURES
Settlement Requires Company to Remove Obstacles
Consumers Face When Seeking to Switch or Cancel Service

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced an agreement that requires the nation's leading internet service provider to reform its customer service procedures.

Under the agreement, America Online (AOL) will alter the incentives it offers to customer representatives who seek to persuade subscribers not to cancel their service.

"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.

In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, Spitzer's office began an inquiry of AOL's customer service policies. The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate system for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers' wishes, or without their consent.

Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing.

The agreement requires AOL to:

  Eliminate any requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus;

  Record all service cancellation requests and verify action on the request through a third-party monitor;

  Provide refunds to all New York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation procedures, up to four months worth of service;

  Pay $1.25 million to the state in penalties and costs.

The claim form for New York consumers seeking refunds is available at Attorney General Spitzer's web site http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/internet.html.

Spitzer thanked AOL for working with his office to resolve the matter.

The case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Nieliwocki, under the direction of Kenneth Dreifach, who is Chief of the Attorney General's Internet Bureau, and with the assistance of Special Assistant Attorney General Gille Anne Rabbin and Investigator Vanessa Ip.

Attachment:

Claim Form

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/aug/aug24a_0 5.html

  AOL TO REFORM CUSTOMER SERVICE PROCEDURES
Settlement Requires Company to Remove Obstacles
Consumers Face When Seeking to Switch or Cancel Service

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced an agreement that requires the nation's leading internet service provider to reform its customer service procedures.

Under the agreement, America Online (AOL) will alter the incentives it offers to customer representatives who seek to persuade subscribers not to cancel their service.

"This agreement helps ensure that AOL will strive to keep its customers through quality service, not stealth retention programs," Spitzer said.

In response to approximately 300 consumer complaints, Spitzer's office began an inquiry of AOL's customer service policies. The investigation revealed that the company had an elaborate system for rewarding employees who purported to retain or "save" subscribers who had called to cancel their internet service. In many instances, such retention was done against subscribers' wishes, or without their consent.

Under the system, consumer service personnel received bonuses worth tens of thousands of dollars if they could successfully dissuade or "save" half of the people who called to cancel service. For several years, AOL had instituted minimum retention or "save" percentages, which consumer representatives were expected to meet. These bonuses, and the minimum "save" rates accompanying them, had the effect of employees not honoring cancellations, or otherwise making cancellation unduly difficult for consumers.

Many consumers complained that AOL personnel ignored their demands to cancel service and stop billing.

The agreement requires AOL to:

  Eliminate any requirements that its customer service representatives maintain a minimum number of "saves" in order to earn a bonus;

  Record all service cancellation requests and verify action on the request through a third-party monitor;

  Provide refunds to all New York consumers who claim harm based on improper cancellation procedures, up to four months worth of service;

  Pay $1.25 million to the state in penalties and costs.

The claim form for New York consumers seeking refunds is available at Attorney General Spitzer's web site http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet/internet.html.

Spitzer thanked AOL for working with his office to resolve the matter.

The case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Nieliwocki, under the direction of Kenneth Dreifach, who is Chief of the Attorney General's Internet Bureau, and with the assistance of Special Assistant Attorney General Gille Anne Rabbin and Investigator Vanessa Ip.

Attachment:

Claim Form

Oh yeah - those poor slimebag weasels aren't being allowed to scam people.

The threat of those 'taxes' (to use your incorrect politically-charged terminolgy) stops the weasels, and anyone else who wants to have the same lame business plan.

This country absolutely, undeniably needs another 49 or so like him. Examples like this, and this,and this and this should clue you in.

The reason why he could only get $50,000 dollars was because he could only get $500 per each count of the law that Richter violated. Richter settled with Spitzer for 80 counts of violating GBL Section 350-d, the False Advertising Statute. That amounts to $40k plus an extra $10k for legal expenses of the state of New York.

I'd check your facts before you bash Spitzer. The legislature makes the laws and the Attorney General enforces them. The paltry $500 is the fault of the legislature in this case. You can check out this link on Spitzer's anti-spyware case for more info on the $500 per count. The law itself is printed here. The PDF of Richter's settlement is here.