Slashdot Mirror

60,000 of them are in Virgina where Terry Mcalaugh illegally gave convicted felons the right to vote.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/...

FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/...

----

We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.

Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 99, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938).

We have also recognized:
[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.:
Two general rules prevail in the United States with

emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:

"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."

Are we done yet?

If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.

Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.

Virginia only issues a Concealed Handgun Permit. It specifically does not apply to knives, etc.

What is Juan Cole's authority to make pronouncements about Islamic law? Is he a cleric? Is he a Muslim at all? It seems like you and he are appealing to irrelevant authority. Beyond that, some items in his list were not strongly linked to text in the Qur'an, but only to later authorities (like the Sunni authority for #5 -- how binding is that on Shias?) or hearsay (#8).

To elaborate: In Virginia, fornication is a crime. In Colorado, it's a federal crime to possess or use marijuana. That doesn't mean those laws are enforced, or even widely regarded as strong, proper rules. The fundamental fallacy that Juan Cole perpetrated was that a textual prohibition means a lick in the face of contrary practices. I don't think he is stupid enough to fall for it, but apparently you were.

Your contention that I was either arguing ad hominem or moving the goal posts shows that you missed the point, in addition to not knowing what those things mean.

Clearly "what the people want" isn't working here. So why don't they simply sell the cars direct there anyway and disregard the law? Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars. It would seem near-impossible to get a unanimous verdict to convict, as is required in Virginia.

Have you actually looked?

Building codes for DC metro area:
Virginia building code
DC building code
MD codes (incl building)

Law for DC metro area:
Virginia law
DC Code / law
MD Laws and statutes

Fighting ignorance and BS on slashdot could easily be a full-time job; theres no shortage of people who will talk out of their rear about things they have no information on.

46.2-1074 https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-b...

VA has an open primary. No signing up necessary.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi...

See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-407.1 for the Virginia law on unmasking anonymous users in a civil trial. I can't find anything objectionable in it at all, it seems very fair. If someone damages your reputation anonymously and it comes to court, the court must be able to find the actual persons involved if they are to make a judgment. Yelp tried to get the VA court to reject its own code and adopt the unmasking rules of other states, and they got turned down. If you read all the way to the end of the ruling, you'll see in fact that the dissenting judge dissented not on the fact that the code shouldn't have been followed, but that it wasn't followed _enough_ in his opinion.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

No, unfortunately. For simplicity (though the analysis is the same), let's take the federal one at the end:

18 USC 875(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Well, that one clearly doesn't apply.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Again, no threat of injury or kidnapping, so not there.

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

No again, for the same reason.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, here's the one - threat to injure the reputation of the addressee with intent to extort money. However, remember that defamation must be false. For example, say you borrow my car while drunk and damage the bumper. If I send you a letter threatening to sue you for it if you don't pay for the repair, it would damage your reputation for your neighbors to know you were a drunk driver... but I'm not committing extortion or threatening to injure your reputation, because there's nothing defamatory in my statement: it's true.

Assuming in this case that they did detect a download of midget goat porn from the recipient's cable modem (because while the scummiest lawyer in the world may twist the truth and skirt the edge of an outright lie to a court, in this case, it's relatively trivial to monitor a bittorrent swarm, and then the letter has at least the barest sliver of truth as an excuse), then the letter isn't extortion or defamatory: they did detect the download, and they'll inquire of your neighbors whether they jumped on your access point to download midget goat porn or whether it someone else, like you.

So, yeah, it's sleazy, and they're still going to have the problems noted by the judge in the Prenda case, but it's not technically extortion.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States"

The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate? How many roads have a 5-6 inch shoulder? Many by me where is the room that a cyclist can ride? It is not there.

Cyclists don't ride on the interstate because it's not allowed, but they would be plenty safe there. Interstates have wide lanes and decent shoulders, and there aren't distractions like driveways, side streets, and unnecessary signage. That other roads weren't designed to accomodate motor vehicles and cyclists is a failure of policy. Legally, cyclists have a right to be there, as does a guy with a horse and buggy or someone driving a backhoe or tractor. And if everyone involved exercises some responsibility and due care, the road can be shared just fine by everyone.

Share the road with a cyclist? Sharing goes both ways. I have seen too many cyclists make turns that cross traffic without using any kind of signal. They ride in the lane forcing cars to pile up behind them. I do mean the middle of the lane, not the side. They ignore traffic sign and lights. They ride up between cars stopped at a light then cross against the red light. This is the DC area. There are bike paths here.

I agree with you, there are jerks on bikes, and I won't attempt to excuse their behavior. It's interesting to see, though, that cyclists are just doing the same thing that motorists do. I keep in my Blackberry a copy of an AT&T Worldnet poll from 10 years ago that asked "What motor vehicle violation do you commit most often without being caught?" Five percent of the people admitted to "rolling stop at stop signs", and 57% admitted to "speeding 1-10 mph over the limit". I'd say that both motorists and cyclists make no bones about what they regard as insignificant violations of the law; they figure they're not likely to hurt anyone. And one more thing from that poll was that only 11% of respondents selected "None".

One more thing that may be useful for you to know is that in some cases, it is safest for a bicyclist to ride in the center of the lane. If the lane isn't wide enough for motor vehicles to safely pass the bicycle, the cyclist should "take the lane" for his own safety. This maneuver is expressly allowed under Code of Virginia section 46.2-905. So please don't begrudge the cyclist his place on the road -- direct your complaints to the legislators who don't build the road wide enough for the traffic it's intended to support.

"Public records" means all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Records that are not prepared for or used in the transaction of public business are not public records." VA Code 2.2-3701

IANAL, but it seems this case would likely hinge upon whether Prof. Mann is considered an employee of the State, and whether his emails were documenting transactions of public business.

Most people are missing something important about about the nature of the outage.

There are essential two kinds of underground power cabling. Lower voltage to end customer service and High voltage long distance transmission. Low voltage lines are the ones from your house to the 'local' power distribution center. These are generally regulated by the city or a local authority on weather above ground or underground is required. Underground local power distribution is expensive, but doesn't require exotic solutions. A lot of this was destroyed in this storm, but that's not the real issue.

The big issue is a lot of high voltage transmission lines were destroyed. If these lines are down, it doesn't matter if your local grid is underground or not. Burying these cables is very expensive, 4 to 10 times the cost of above ground lines per equal distance. Also underground high voltage is not as reliable, and there are considerable engineering issues that go along with it. Yes, you'd save yourself storm outages like this, but more general outages would occur.

Report on underground line costs and technologies.
http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric11.pdf

Virgina report on underground line evaluation.
http://jlarc.state.va.us/reports/Rpt343.pdf

Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1

Both the house and the senate approved amendments adding the text, "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception." It's right there in your source, yet you didn't refer to it.

You're either uninformed or plain old lying.

Here's the bill in virginia that makes the pill illegal: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1

passed the republican controlled house and senate with ease.

And all the current candidates bar Romney have gone on record agreeing with it explicitely for religious reasons: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/personhood-republican-presidential-candidate-pledge

Of course Romney flip-flops back and forth but here he is saing he "absolutely" agrees too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg#t=5m25s

Part if the mechanism of the pill is to prevent fertilized eggs from impanting - that's after conception has occured. It's not the only mechanism, but it's part of the package. So all those republicans are trying to outlaw the pill. Not just not pay for it.

I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.

Umm in many states it does say something similar.

Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below)

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Some states didn't allow left-lane lingering but didn't enforce the law. Now they are.

At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other traffic."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx

For shits and giggles I pulled a few states laws on the matter

Nebraska: http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s6006131000.html

Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Arizona: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm

B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804

1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;

These three states all imply that you must move over if they are driving at less then the "normal speed of traffic". Of course other states have different laws, but a large number of them have laws with wording similar to these. The mit page says this at the bottom of it.

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.

The $500 Uninsured Motor Vehicle (UMV) fee, which is paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), does not provide any insurance; it only allows you to drive an uninsured vehicle at your own risk.

Great idea and you also have a great social mind with no selfish interest in your heart at all. The problem is that your planned behavior might cause the tire disposal charges to raise even higher thus making citizen who do not have such a rebel way of thinking to subsidize your own behavior.

http://www.deq.state.va.us/wastetires/

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

There is always a way to screw up the system. If most people do, then the system isn't valid. If only a minority do screw up the system then, the people not screwing up the system usually pay for the people screwing it.

Keep in mind that in some places, using encryption to hide evidence of a crime is itself a crime:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-152.15

Opinion here PDF warning

Honestly tossing a rock through a neighbors window is barely a crime especially when the child ends up having to pay to replace the window.

In Virginia, if the home is occupied at the time, that is a felony. ("throws any missile" = throwing a rock)

Depending on what state you lived in, the post-prohibition drinking age (which is what the parent speaks to) was generally 18 or 21, with Colorado not having a minimum age until 1945, and Ohio's at 16 until 1935.

I was born in May of 1965, which put me right in the middle of the big changeover in Virginia between 1981 and 1985. Can, Can't. Can, Can't, etc. From the link above:

[Virginia's drinking age was] Raised to 19 in 1981 for off-premises consumption, raised to 19 for all beer sales in 1983, [and] raised to 21 in 1985.

See this, also.

It says that in several of the State Constitutions. Here's Virgina's: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The US Constitution also limits Army-related spending appropriations to two years. The people of that era had an aversion to standing armies. History is littered with examples going all the way back to Rome of standing armies that turned on the populations they were supposed to protect.

Not questioning your mad skillz but it would probably have been cheaper and easier to send a certified mail demanding the refund in 7 days with a copy of the filled out (but unsigned) small-claims warrant in debt form.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/forms/district/dc402.pdf

You know the GGP was talking about Richmond, BRITISH COLUMBIA, not Virginia, right?

With regard to Virginia drivers, I've seen the incidence of red light running climb steadily in the 30-odd years I've been driving here. I've also seen the number of cell phone zombies increase, and have to dodge them or stomp on the brakes as they swerve into my lane, totally oblivious to the world around them.

Thank heavens this law is going into effect soon. I wish it were stronger and covered all cell phone use.

Hmmm. They've done a poor job of getting the word out, if that's what those lines are for. Maybe it's just the locale where you live that does that. The Virginia Driver's Manual says nothing about it.

I drive 75 miles one way to work and 75 miles home on I-64, I don't want to jinx myself, but I have noticed the same thing, as long as I am just under 80mph, I won't get stopped. One problem with going above 80 Mph is that I believe not only are you 15mph over the limit, but at 80 Mph you are now considered Reckless driving

Let me address your tangent first. As an initial matter, I'm curious, did you follow court rules for submitting an amicus curiae brief? If not, the court's not going to consider it. Assuming you did, and the court had some notice that the expert was dumb, the ruling certainly was bad. With that said, the exper probably didn't commit perjury, because it's generally hard to prove that someone was actually lying, rather than just testifying while being an idiot.

Moving on to your main point, if I understand you correctly, you're trying to institute a mechanism for the parties to tell the court that there is a greivous error in the court's decision. That's an excellent idea, and you'll be happy to learn that the mechanism already exists. It's generally known as a motion for reconsideration, but in the context of the VASC it's referred to as a petition for rehearing. Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:39, available at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+scr+vscr-5Z39. While I can't say for certain, this being an edge case in the general field of civil procedure, I believe the appropriate standard of review for reconsideration on a factual issue would be clear error.

While you might think that the Court's understanding of IP addresses and e-mail is such an error, as with all things legal it's a more complicated analysis. For an error to be "clear," it must be both significant and obvious on the face of the record. If there was any creditable evidence in the prior rulings to support the judge's conclusion, then reversing for clear error wouldn't be justified. In this case, one of the experts probably testified that spoofing an IP address would make it harder to identify the sender. In a trivial sense that's true; as you say, it means you would need to look harder to do so. That would probably be enough to block a judge from finding a different set of facts.

While I haven't gone into any great detail on appellate practice here, I hope this is helping to demonstrate my initial point that your suggestions and analysis are hampered by your significant lack of knowledge as to how the systems you are critiquing actually work. I'll admit that your work at Peacefire helped inspire my interest in law all the way back in high school, but I understood that if I wanted to be a creditable voice for my ideas, I needed to have the training to more clearly understand the legal system. If you're serious about wanting to change the legal system for the better (rather than just occassionally ranting on Slashdot), perhaps you should give that some consideration?

When the Segway was finally unveiled, the disappointment pretty much killed off any widescale distribution of the device (along with crazy city ordinances).

I don't know about crazy city ordinances, but I was astounded by the speed with which the electric personal assistive mobility device gained recognition and all the rights of a bicycle under Virginia Law. I believe the law changes were in the books even before the first Segway hit pavement in Virginia. And I'm just willing to bet that you'll find similar treatment in state laws on both U.S. coasts.

I don't know how CAFOs are run in the EU, but in the US antibiotics in feed are common in poultry CAFOs, at least according to Purdue, and these pork folks lobbying to keep them in use.

And here is the New York Time on the matter. Purdue again. Some probably biased special interest group. Virginia Department of Health. And here is an EPA ruling where I conveniently highlighted the word Antibiotic to make it easier for you to find.

Similar in Virginia, except California requires the feathers to be from live birds, making the disposal of carbonized feathers from the backs of live birds a real PETA issue.

...clear water or feathers from live birds...

It's interesting how similar the language is. California:

a vehicle ( )2 shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, covered, or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.

Virginia:

No vehicle shall be operated or moved on any highway unless it is so constructed, maintained, and loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping.

Do you think some powerful lobby wrote the legislation?

When it comes to selecting individuals for political appointments, quite often they are done for... well... political reasons. Sometimes it's because of bipartisanship, coalition building, or because someone is really well qualified. Other times it is because they are well networked or engaged in a little quid pro quo. Sure, if it is to the level of Blagojevich they may get caught, and we should discourage the outright sale of governmental positions. On the other hand, I still think as long as he was working within the rules, a total of $2450 in donations to Mark Warner isn't quite to the level where I'd be calling the ethics committee.

It certainly didn't hurt his chances to make $2750 in donations to various Obama supporting groups either, but do I think it was a primary reason he was selected? Not really. I think he got selected because he's well connected and has prior experience in healthcare. With Obama's big push for electronic healthcare records and other cost savings measures, I do agree all the more with wanting some questions to be raised concerning the theft of pharmaceutical records in VA, but depending how the investigation goes, I believe the highest uphill it will get in the org chain is to this guy. More likely though, it'll stay a problem of the agency that oversaw the day to day operations.

Report yourself for being a terrorist and posting on /.:
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/FusionCenter/Report_Suspicious_Activity.shtm#Report

The 2nd amendment guarantees your right to a militia. What's needed is a new amendment to guarantee your right to a strategic arms program.

In a number of states, like Virginia, the (unorganized) militia (SS 44.1 - http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1 ) as defined by the state constitution are all males between 16 and 55.

Did you also...

Report the Motel 6 to...
...your state's Attorney General?
...the Better Business Bureau?

Write scathing reviews on sites like Yelp?

• Bristol
• Chesapeake
• Fredericksburg
• Harrisonburg
• Newport News
• Norfolk
• Williamsburg
• Wytheville

In Virginia, this thing is a motorcycle.

"Motorcycle" means every motor vehicle designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and is capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour. The term "motorcycle" does not include any "electric personal assistive mobility device," "electric power-assisted bicycle," "farm tractor," "golf cart," "moped," "motorized skateboard or scooter," "utility vehicle" or "wheelchair or wheelchair conveyance" as defined in this section.

The court did the right thing.
I submitted an article back in May about this case.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/02/1910219
The court's decision is here in pdf:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1062388.pdf

Spam is bad - personally I use gmail and rarely see spam. But it's hard to write a statute that bans spam and doesn't ban slashdot and the internet in general.
Most of the anti-spam statutes out there are unconstitutional. Yay Va. Off to read the opinion.

above post is informative, flamebait.

Yes, it is.

And the two ("at-will" and "right-to-work") are not mutually exclusive. Right-to-work laws are usually related union membership. However, Virginia also has a lawthat forbids employers from trying to prevent former employees from seeking employment elsewhere. You'd have to ask a lawyer how that relates to non-competes.

Then what's this for?

And not to be pedantic, but I do believe it's 'lawn maintenance'...

Don't want to be forced to pay for insurance? Move to Virginia! In Virginia you can opt out of getting insurance by paying $500 for the Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee (link: http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/insurance.asp ). Of course, you can get the pants sued off of you if you cause an accident, but perhaps you'll hit someone thats too poor for a lawsuit! On the other hand the bummer is it sure does mean there are a ton of idiots driving around without insurance as well whom you will hopefully avoid having hit YOU otherwise you will have to actually sue *them* if they decide not to pay for your car/medical bills. Better start a trust fund for the medical/automotive repair/lawyer fees! Hows $100 a month sound? Good deal, lets throw it in a bank account *just in case*. Wait...that's what insurance is. Except that in this case if you get hit next month, you only have $100 saved up. Doh!

Don't get me wrong, insurance sure is annoying, especially when it's enforced by the man, but it's really the best way about this type of thing. Otherwise you end up with some pretty jacked up situations. I don't like the feeling here in Va that I'm paying for my insurance like a good citizen and I *still* roll the dice every time I get on the road hoping one of these twits won't hit me.

I read this case this morning.
I thought about posting it to slashdot, because it's new news about spam, but I ended up deciding not to.
The 49-page decision is rather technical, and I didn't think slashdot editors and readers would be able to get a good handle on it.
The court's main argument was that defendant didn't have standing to raise an overbreadth First Amendment challenge, because he was engaged in misleading commercial speech.
The court based this "rule" on one lone case from 1972 about topless dancing.
That case was based on another Virgina case that was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The rule depends on the idea that states can have different rules about First Amendment standing than federal courts can. This is true in that state courts can have less restrictive rules, because states aren't limited by article 3 of the us constitution, but it's far from clear that states can have more restrictive rules.
The court's treatment of commercial speech as less protected is also problematic, and Justice Thomas at least believes that commercial speech is substantially protected by the First Amendment.
The dissent (3 judges to 4 in the majority) ridiculed the standing decision,
pointing out that anonymity on the internet is protected under the Supreme Court's precedents such as Watchtower v Stratton and McIntyre v Ohio Elections.
The majority also rejected Defendant's reverse commerce clause argument, and may or may not have gotten this part of the decision wrong.
In this case, D. was spamming aol users, from a stolen list of aol users, so he had reason to know his spamming would impact Virginia. But the statute is problematic. It says that if a person in Hawaii emails an aol user in Alaska, they are subject to Virginia law, because aol happens to have its servers in Virginia. This is in tension with the general idea that states don't get to regulate what's going on in other states.
Justice Thomas rejects the whole idea of reverse commerce clause arguments, because he points out that there is no reverse commerce clause in the constitution. But a current majority of the court does accept the idea, and it isn't altogether clear how they would rule if that issue gets a petition for certiorari.
Defendant made some third losing argument I no longer remember.
The opinion is here in pdf: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1062388.pdf

If some of the above seems unitelligible and jargonated, see how I feel about slashdot posts that are just strings of initials and numbers that you guys know what they mean but i don't.
Above post is informative and insightful, because I'm a karma whore.

The full text of the Virginia Supreme Court's decision is available here.

In the Massachusetts, adults may serve alcohol to their own children or underage spouse in a private setting (i.e. Not in a bar). It is probably the same in many, if not all, other states.

From California:

" SUMMARY : Creates a new misdemeanor for any parent or guardian who knowingly permits his or her minor child and others, as specified, to drink alcohol or consume a controlled substance at his or her home."

In Virginia:

"Even if the above negative situations do not occur, you may face legal charges for providing or allowing alcohol to be used by minors in your home (including your own teen). For example, it is against state law to allow (aid or abet) underage persons to possess or consume alcohol. This is a Class 1 misdemeanor and is punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a $2,500 fine. Purchasing, aiding and abetting or giving alcohol to minors is against the law."

Notice the part about "including your own teen". In Minnesota:

"7: Can Parents Or Social Hosts Face Criminal Charges? Yes, any adult who supplies a minor with alcohol could face charges of contributing which carries a maximum fine of $3,000, 1 year in jail, or both." And "Could Parents Be Held Liable If Their Minor Child Consumes Alcohol Obtained From Their Home? The parents could be liable in a civil lawsuit. If the parents knowingly and willingly provide the alcohol to the minor, the outcome of the lawsuit would be very predictable."

Admittedly they are different but in each case a parent can be held liable for giving or allowing their children to drink alcohol.

A correction: Regal is not prosecuting, they are encouraging prosecution. In a criminal case, the state or officials of the jurisdiction prosecute. In many states, victims have a right to give input on that process -- Regal may even have the right to insist that they prosecute and enjoin the prosecutor's office from reducing the charges -- but there are no states that I know of where a prosecutor can be stopped from giving a sentence recommendation, for example, of "no jail." The statute granting victim rights regarding proseuction in the state of Virginia (where this crime took place) can be found at Virginia Statutes s 19.2-11.01(4), available at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co d+19.2-11.01

Also, I don't think that prison is a possibility. I know of NO states that waste the expenses of a state prison on sentences unless the sentence is over one year. In fact, the article says "Sejas faces up to a year in jail."

PLEASE, Slashdot editors and submitters, get your facts straight when you're talking about the law. This young lady is charged with a misdemeanor that she will probably do no jail time on. Saying there's a threat of prison is not just false, but extraordinarily and emphatically false. There is an ocean of difference between paying a fine for a misdemeanor and spending a year in prison for a felony.

This whole story is flamebait.

Right.
In Virginia, you're supposed to have an ID with you but as http://www.sbe.state.va.us/cms/Voter_Information/R egistering_to_Vote/Voter_ID_Requirements.html states,

"Any voter who forgets to bring acceptable ID to the polls may still vote but will be requested to sign, under oath, an Affirmation of Identity form affirming that he/she is the voter he/she claims to be."

I thought that was interesting. I need a photo ID, but not really because if I forget to bring it, that's OK.

Seems like requiring the ID wouldn't be too much to ask.

This bill has been bounced back and forth between the Illinois House and Senate for two years, without any final action being taken. Bill Status of HB0380 Spyware Prevent Initiative Act

Only Arkansas and Virginia have anything on the statute books, and the Virgina law has openings for the rights agencies you could drive a tank through. To begin, you have to prove "malacious intent."

2007 State Legislation Relating to Internet Spyware or Adware, An Act to amend and reenact 18.2-152.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to computer trespass; spyware; penalty