Slashdot Mirror

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/category/adirondacks/
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/advertise/
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/investigative-reports/
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/letters-to-the-editor/
Maybe this will be more interesting
I noticed the only name that keeps popping up is June Maxims.
Sounds to me like it might be a 1 horse show. Some blogger with dreams of world domination.
If its an actual paper then Instead of complaining to them Call the people who use them for advertising. Say you wont do business with any company that does business with a company like this one.

Heres a list of some of the adds I saw on the site.

US Legal Forms
http://www.uslegalforms.com/?auslf=northcountry
1-877-389-0141

Ace Hardware
http://www.acehardwaresuperstore.com/
1 (888) 230-2323

Adopt a Pet
http://www.adoptapet.com/
1-800-Save-A-Pet (1-800-728-3273)

Shop The Adirondacks
http://www.shoptheadirondacks.com/
(310) 480-3737

The Sierra Club
https://tioga.sierraclub.org/joinorgive/member4.htm
415-977-5500

Purrs and Paws
http://www.purrsandpawsrescue.org/
518.798.0718

Handtrux Toys
http://www.handtruxtoys.com/
973.812.5222

Miles Kimball
http://www.mileskimball.com/

Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/

Dollar Days .com
http://www.dollardays.com/
877-837-9569

And Ironically (to me anyway)

Cyberbullying
http://www.cyberbullying.us/

Call all of the people paying them to advertise for them and let them know how you feel.

The grand parent is using the legal definition of stealing, in the same way that piracy is a crime involving boats, that has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right,

Actually, there is a rule of law called the clean hands doctrine...

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. reference

I would think that in order for this to be illegal, univerity oversight and any special rules notwithstanding, a phishee would simply have to show damage, if in fact any damage exists.

Pay close attention to the numerous instances of "intent to deprive" in this definition, and note that it quite specifically refers to the property itself, not perceived income from that property. You're welcome.

Ex-parte motion:

"Ex parte refers to a motion or petition by or for one party. An ex parte judicial proceeding is on where the opposing party has not received notice nor is present. This is an exception to the usual rule of court procedure and due process rights that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge."
(Source: http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-defini tions.php/US/US-EX_PARTE.htm
)

About the 10-Q:

"What does it Mean? A quarterly report submitted by all public companies to the SEC in which firms are required to disclose relevant information regarding their financial position. This must be done on time, and the information should be available to all interested parties." (Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/10q.asp)

---
In other words...

This means that SCO wanted to play dirty on Linux er, IBM, by doing legal things on their back, this is, without IBM being present for the legal actions to take place - but judge Kimball didn't allow them to do so. Also, SCO also published their quarterly report.

(RTFW <-- words of wisdom to slashdotters regarding legalese ;-) )

Ex parte refers to a motion or petition by or for one party. An ex parte judicial proceeding is on where the opposing party has not received notice nor is present.

The offense of property possession of stolen property is made up of two parts. First, a person charged with this offense must have property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime. Second, the person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the prosecutor can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he or she can be found guilty of possession of stolen property. A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner.