Slashdot Mirror

Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for sanctions and monetary punishment upon parties who sign on to lies, and upon counsel (which includes the entire law firm -- even uninvolved lawyers who are in the employ of the firm) in order to discourage this kind of behavior.

I'm sure the RIAA lawyers will play some kind of "I don't understand technology and thus misunderstood AOL's information" card, or will just say that the initial AOL contacts were misleading to them. The claims only have to be true to the best of the party's knowledge, so they could claim that to the best of their knowledge, what AOL was telling them was correct.

However, if they actually possessed the email and lied about its contents, then that is definitely grounds for sanction under Rule 11, and possibly many people could be held in contempt of court (I think) for it. I hope I'm right about this -- I have a test over Civil Procedure in 4 days :(

It's rather unfair to deny them the ability to live a normal life by placing unnecessary obstacles in their path.

Umm, they will never have a "normal" life, and "we" didn't put obstacles in their path, they - because of their disability - became obsticles without any effort of mine.

And on a side note, I am color blind (color vision deficiency is more accurate) and I've never ONCE thought that someone should make some sort of a change for me... I've wanted to be a commercial pilot ( http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/ti tle14/part67.html#67.103 ) and that is probably not going to happen... That's ok, it's not in my cards.

There are plenty of other areas where being color blind limits what I can do, but I'm just happy I don't have cancer, you know...?

by John in DC - 10/01/2006 08:41:00 PM

Shimkus is toast. There's even video of Shimkus letting Foley talk to the pages AFTER the GOP knew Foley had page-issues.

You'll recall that he is the Republican member of Congress who runs the Page Board, the group in charge of the pages. You'll also recall that tonight we learned on ABC News that GOP House staff warned the page class of 2001-2002 to stay away from ex-Rep. Mark Foley.

Then why is it that on June 6, 2002, well after the kids were warned to stay away from Foley, Shimkus notes approvingly that Foley has spent a lot of time with the Page Class of 2001-2002? This is Shimkus speaking at the page's goodbye ceremony,

MR. SHIMKUS: I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.

(Note: We've confirmed in the Congressional Record that this is the exact transcript of the proceedings that day.)

The GOP staff knew Foley was a problem the year before, they warned the pages in 2001. Yet Shimkus, the next year is acknowledging that Foley was still permitted to spend "a lot of time" with the pages. In the name of God, why?

Oh, but it gets worse.

Foley then gets up in front of Shimkus and tells a special little story of how he took one male page to a private dinner in downtown Washington, DC. Put the page in his BMW and "cruised" - Foley's word - to dinner.

And now for the kicker.

Foley told the kid he had to get permission from his mom and he had to notify the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, the Republican staffer who works for Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL). You'll also recall that Trandahl is the Clerk who joined Shimkus in 2005 to talk to Foley about the creepy email exchange with the first child who got this scandal started.

Why did Shimkus let Foley spend so much time with the pages after GOP staff already knew Foley had a "page problem"? Did the Clerk of the House approve of this dinner? Did Shimkus? Clearly Foley had no fear in the kid going to Clerk and asking for permission - so Foley seemed to think the Clerk wouldn't mind. And clearly Foley had no fear in telling the story in front of Shimkus, so he obviously didn't think Shimkus would mind either.

Shimkus then introduces Foley. Read what Foley has to say to the pages of the 2001-2002 class in his speech wishing them goodbye.

FOLEY: John [one of the pages] was the highest bidder on lunch with Mark Foley. Maybe you all do not know this story, but John had paid considerable sums to dine with me. I had offered to take the winning bidder to lunch in the Members' dining room. Then I heard how much John Eunice paid. And I said, ``John, there is no way in the world after you committed so much money to have lunch with me that I would dare take you downstairs to eat in the Members' dining room.'' I said, ``Where do you want to go?'' He says, without reservation, ``Morton's.'' I said, ``Morton's? Like in Morton's Steakhouse?'' He said, ``Oh, would that be too much?'' I said, ``Oh, no, we'll go.'' I said, ``Call your mother, get permission, make sure she notifies the Clerk and we will go to Morton's.'' And so we proceeded to cruise down in my BMW to Morton's.

Putting aside the creepy notion of children bidding on dinner with an already-suspected child sex predator, what in God's name were Shimkus and the Clerk doing approving of Foley taking a kid in his BMW to a private dinner in downtown Washington? The GOP staff already knew that Foley was trouble. They had already warned the kids. Yet Shimkus let Foley spend lots of time with the kids, by Shimkus

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information -
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -
The term ''classified information'' means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

um... you might want to read this:

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/tt l18/ptI/ch119/sec2511.html

specifically the part about electronic communications "made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public"

Did Alexander Graham Bell get a broadcasting licence from the CRTC?

Did Mme Currie have a permit to work with radionuclides

Did Captian Cook put up with this crap when he commissioned his vessels?

OK - they regulate telephones, but not telephony. Of course we're all familiar with all kinds of equipment connected to the "Public Switched Telephone Network", that must meet FCC specs. Again, the FCC is regulating devices which could interfere with the public telephone network's ability to transmit signals (eg. by frying it). The FCC has other regulations for equipment attached to the public cable network, too. 47 CFR 68 says nothing about content, which is what we're talking about, and what the FCC is trying to regulate.

So you were in from "Feb. 1996 to Dec. 1998".

No, I said I was at 10th Mountain Division during that time, which is exactly what the post you referenced says. Learn to read and actually understand what you're reading. You are proof that the American education system has been failing for a long time.

Hmmm, revision 1-00.

Note that it says "Previous edition unusable" which implies that there was a previous edition.

Guess what the revision date on *my* SF 312 is? 1-91.

Proof that that version exists? here: "The new Standard Form (SF) 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," is now available through the government supply system and should be used in place of the previous 1991 version. The form, actually approved in January 2000, was prevented from a timely release due to administrative delays. The General Services Administration (GSA) will make the new form available by early April, both in electronic and hard copy format. In the meantime, copies can be made from the pdf version of the SF 312, attached to this announcement." (Bold text placed to facilitate your reading comprehension.)

Note that you found the current one approved in January 2000.

Here is proof that an even earlier version exists: "(a) SF 312, SF 189, and SF 189-A are nondisclosure agreements between the United States and an individual. The prior execution of at least one of these agreements, as appropriate, by an individual is necessary before the United States Government may grant that individual access to classified information. From the effective date of this rule, September 29, 1988, the SF 312 shall be used in lieu of both the SF 189 and the SF 189-A for this purpose."

So, we have that the SF312 was in use from September 29, 1988.

Make all the claims you want to. It doesn't matter to me. I did 7 years and got out in 1990.

You mean, got kicked out in 1990 because someone figured out you don't have any reading comprehension, and you jump to conclusions before you've put even an ounce of thought in.

I don't have to play games with words like you claiming to be a "veteran" (no combat time and only 34 months in service) to boost my self-esteem. Nor do I have to spin lies about forms I was required to sign before they were even printed.

I never claimed to be a combat veteran (as in, earned a combat patch), and you know it. The government still defines me as a "veteran", the dictionary definition agrees, and I put in my required time, all 8 years split up between active duty, reserves, and IRR (during which I was called up twice, so it's not like I sat twiddling my thumbs for a few years). I may not have been stationed in a combat zone, but I did more for my country than the average person has. I also got the chance to make sure some people didn't shoot each other up. I was even able to help save some lives in a disaster area, too. You want to criticize me for not having seen *actual* combat (mostly due to timing), go ahead, I'm sure you are someone's hero.

Anyway, I have proved the existence of the SF312 as early as 1988, which is well before I left the service, and before you claim to have left. You might not have signed one because you got your clearance revoked, in which case they give you a different form, if the same procedures in AR 380-5 were in effect in 1990.

You made the claim "Enlisteds don't sign NDAs with the Army"
* I have told you I retain a photocopy of it. (I even dug through all my paperwork to make sure, and found it.)
* Once I found my copy, I gave you the form number, SF 312, revision 1-91.
* I have told you when and where I last signed one, and what office administered it to me.
* I have shown the regulation that required me to have signed at least a portion of it at the time. An

I'm sorry I compared it to an 'import tax', as it muddled the meaning of the comment. My question still stands though. Shouldn't the companies be in trouble, not the consumers?