Slashdot Mirror

Agitate.

Out of curiosity I looked at what the WA State Bar's current rules are. It looks like they've moved on from typewriters and allow people to use laptops with a certain exam taking program. Spell check still not allowed. If a stodgy bar association can get with the times, your department heads can too.

http://www.wsba.org/Licensing-and-Lawyer-Conduct/Admissions/Bar-Exam-Admissions/Bar-Exam-Policies

"Often enough, the lease specifies a sole TV provider. If you don't go with them, you have to move."

That's illegal, (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000), FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas. As long as you do not alter the building in any fashion, and place the antenna/Sat dish in your renter controlled area, there isn't a damned thing they can do about it. If they try to evict you, the Landlord-Tenent act reders illegal actions, (or lock-ins), unenforceable.

From my own state:

Just because something is agreed to in a lease does not necessarily mean it is enforceable by the landlord. Some clauses may be illegal, such as a waiver of rights under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, or limitations on the landlord's liability for injury or damages.

Your lease could state that your landlord is allowed to eat as much food of yours as he wanted, rape your daughter, and hold you liable for all property damages even if it isn't your fault. However, those provisions would be illegal, and not enforceable. Legally, you cannot be locked into any utility provider for any service. If you want DishTV, Adelphia Internet, and forego a landline for ATT cellular service, you can do it, and your landlord cannot do anything about it.

Definition of an Arrest
You are under arrest if a law enforcement officer (or sometimes a private citizen) takes you into "custody." This means that you believe you are not free to walk away from the scene of the contact with the officer.

That would seem to confirm what you said. But the definition continues:

Not every stop by a police officer means you are under arrest. If stopped only for a short time, then you may have been "detained," rather than legally arrested.

The article continues, to suggest an arrest warrant is generally required except for a felony or a misdemeanor the officer witnessed:

A warrant generally is not required to make an arrest if there is probable cause to believe the person arrested has committed a felony. Also, a warrant may not be required when a misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or in certain misdemeanors, outside his or her presence.

The main point of my original post was to show how to not dig yourself a deeper hole if you are stopped. Here's what the Washington State Bar Association says about that:

Your Rights if You Are Stopped by Police
You may ask why you were stopped. Also, you can ask if you are under arrest and, if not, whether you are free to leave.
If an officer stops you, you have a right to ask whether you are under investigation for a crime. If the officer suggests you are under investigation, then you have the right to decline to answer any questions. Also, you do not have to be under arrest to decline to answer questions from an officer. Ordinarily, you may be required to identify yourself. If you wish, you may answer the officer's questions. You should remember that whatever you say to the officer may be used if charges are filed against you at a later time (whether or not you give a formal "statement"), so long as:
1. You were properly advised of your constitutional rights before making a statement; or
2. You voluntarily tell the officer anything and you were not under arrest.

They go on to discuss "formally arrested":

By law, if formally arrested, you may be required to be photographed and fingerprinted after your arrest.

"Lets just call them plain thieves as the term 'identity theft' is just something invented by the banks to blame us for when their money get stolen."

I wouldn't say that.

However someone else doesn't like the phrase.

Here is the contact page for the State Bar of Ohio and here is the same for the State Bar of Washington.

You may want to drop them an email or make a phone call and see if they are looking into this.

The problem is that when you explicitly substitute the personal opinions of the judge over that of the legislature, you grant the judge power he is not supposed to be wielding in our constitutional separation of powers legal system.

One judge's opinion of what "harms society" vs. what "benefits society" will differ from another judge's and one of them is going to differ from your opinion. It's not up to the judge to make that determination.

If the law is outdated, then get it changed in the proper manner. The technical term for judges that change the law to "benefit society" based on their personal opinion is "dictator", or at best "oligarchy".

In this case, tough cases make bad law if a judge insists on trying to shoehorn his preferred result into laws that don't apply.

I think the more advanced degrees are the ones pertinent to her career at HP, AT&T and Lucent.

Well, considering her (non) stewardship of those companies, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. Lessee here . . . HPQ is a mess after the acquisition, T is about to be purchased, and LU is a shadow of its former self. The latter's most recent claim to fame is that, under her watch, it paid the second largest securities fraud settlement in history.

We mere mortals who fuck up that badly get fired and blackballed from the industry, or in the case of lawyers, end up in the sports section. Not to worry, though: Fiorina will find another company willing to let her run it into the ground, that is, if HPQ doesn't keep her on as a "consultant" for the low, low price of, oh, twenty grand a month or so.

Personally, I think the only reason they hired her is because she's a chick and they wanted to appear "progressive" and "diverse." Well, she did what every woman does when she's depressed, she went shopping. What do the call it, "retail therapy"? Except that here, retail therapy is costing many thousands of people their livelihoods. Looks like William Hewlett was right in opposing the merger.